Homeour workwater research commission climate change adaptation for smallholder farmers in swrc dssii deliverable 7 report case studies in 3 agroecological zones

WRC DSSII Deliverable 7 report - Case studies in 3 agroecological zones

Download PDF
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
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.7: Case studies: Community based Climate Change Adaptationimplementation case studies
in 3 different agroecological zones in South Africa.
Date: 12August2024
Deliverable
7
2
Table of Contents
1.Introduction....................................................................................................................................4
2.Process planning and progress to date..........................................................................................6
Smallholder farmers in climate resilient agriculture learning groups............................................7
Communication and innovation...................................................................................................10
Multistakeholder platforms.........................................................................................................10
3.CbCCA Case Studies in 3 agroecological zones.............................................................................12
3.1Preamble.............................................................................................................................12
3.2Methodology.......................................................................................................................13
a.Introduction........................................................................................................................13
b.A theoretical foundation for assessing resilience of smallholder farming systems............14
c.Revision of the MDF resilience snapshot tool.....................................................................16
3.3MERL tools developed........................................................................................................23
3.4Agroecological zone climate resilience case studies...........................................................23
A.Mametja-Sekororo (Limpopo) climate resilience case study..............................................25
B.Bergville, KwaZulu -Natal case study..................................................................................35
3.5Development of a monitoring and evaluation platform and dashboard............................41
C.Matatiele, Eastern Cape case study....................................................................................41
3.6Conclusions.........................................................................................................................49
4.Exploration of factors that contribute towards greater success and sustainability of farming
business enterprises participating in the Mahlathini Development Foundation programmes: A case
study.....................................................................................................................................................49
4.1INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................49
4.2MAIN FEATURES OF A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE....................................................................51
4.3PROMOTION OF ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA.......................................51
4.4OVERVIEW OF FOCUSED SAVINGS GROUPS.......................................................................52
4.5THEORIES RELEVENT TO FARM-BASED MICROENTERPRISES..............................................54
4.5.2Resource-dependency Theory............................................................................................54
4.6RESEARCH DESIGN..............................................................................................................56
4.6.1Sampling..............................................................................................................................56
4.6.2Data Collection....................................................................................................................56
4.6.3Analysis...............................................................................................................................57
4.7RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................................57
4.7.1Stories of Change................................................................................................................57
4.7.3Non-Farming IGAs...............................................................................................................62
4.7.4VSLAs as Alternative Financial Resources...........................................................................63
3
4.7.5Useful Knowledge Acquisition............................................................................................64
4.7.6Adoption of CRA Practices..................................................................................................65
4.7.7Success Factors of Small-scale Farming Enterprises...........................................................65
4.7.8Social Networks...................................................................................................................66
4.8RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................67
4.9CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................69
4.10FUTURE RESEARCH..............................................................................................................69
4.11REFERENCES........................................................................................................................70
5.Capacity Building..........................................................................................................................73
5.1Postgraduate students........................................................................................................73
NQE DLAMINI- PhD: Learning values through participation in savings groups in Kwazulu-Natal: An
Afrocentric case study. UKZN_Dept of Education (registered in February 2023) and........................73
TEMAKHOLO MATHEBULA –MPhil: The socio-political dynamics influencing farmer adaptation to
climate change in Ozwathini, Kwazulu-Natal. PLAAS_UWC (registered in February 2024..................73
5.2Community level training and capacity building................................................................. 74
5.3Staff capacity building.........................................................................................................75
6.Work plan: September 2024- August 2025..................................................................................75
7.References....................................................................................................................................76
8.Attachments................................................................................................................................. 78
Attachment 1: Resilience snapshot individual interview form.........................................................78
Attachment 2: Participatory impact assessment focus group discussion outline............................83
Attachment 3: In- depth livelihoods case study survey form...........................................................85
Attachment 4: Summary of productivity and income generation for all farming activities in
Limpopo – from esilience snapshot interviews (n=20), June 2024.................................................91
4
1.INTRODUCTION
This section provides a brief summary of the project vision, outcomes and operational details.
OUTCOME
Vertical and horizontal integration of this community- based climate change adaptation (CbCCA)
model and process leads 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 intheir 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
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
6
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
marketingstrategies 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 CbCCAdecision
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
Deliverable7 focusses on an analysis of the impact of the full suite of agricultural, economic and water
and resource management activities for the village-based learning groups in three different
agroecological zones through case studies. An intensive monitoring and evaluation framework has
been developed for measuring climate resilience impact. The methodology including individual
interviews and focus group discussions has been piloted and refined through implementation in 10
villages across Limpopo, KZN and the Eastern Cape.
2.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.
7
This is the first step towards institutionalization of the processand will involve mainly working
within existing multistakeholder platforms and networks as the starting point.
•Further exploration of the categories of stakeholders and the roles and relationships between
stakeholders is important for the present research brief.
Figure 1: 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.
CRA learning group summary:
Province
Area
Villages
No of participants
KZN
Bergville
Ezibomvini, Stulwane, Vimbukahlo, Eqeleni, Emadakaneni
130
Midlands
Ozwathini, Gobizembe, Mayizekanye, Ndlaveleni
110
SKZN
Mahhehle,Mariathal, Centocow, , Ngongonini
90
Limpopo
Sekororo-Lestitele
Sedawa, Turkey,Willows, Santeng, Worcester, Madeira
110
EC
Matatiele
Ned, Nchodu, Nkau, Rashule,
75
5
23
515
Table 1: Micro-level CoP engagement: February 2023to August2024
Note: Collaborative strategies in bold undertaken during this reporting period
Description
Date
Activity
Establishing learning groups at
village level
2022/11/25, 12/09
2022/11/15, 11/29,
2023/02/07
Limpopo: Sophaya
SKZN: Mahhehle -CCA workshop x 2 days,
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
8
2023/02/09
2023/01/18
2023/03/27
2023/06/15, 07/07
Bergville: Eqeleni
EC: Ned, Nkau
Limpopo: Madeira
KZN Midlands: Ndlaveleni, Montobello, Noodsberg, Inkuleleko primary
school
Training and mentoring for
climate resilient agriculture
2022/12/02
2022/10/26
2022/10/08-14
2022/11/23,24,29
2022/02/10
2022/02/27, 03/28
2022/03/08, 03/17,
03/28
2022/03/15
2023/03/07,08
2023/03/29,30
2023/03/24,27,30
2023/04/, 2023/05,
2023/06
2023/04/21,25, 05/26,
06/08
2023/04/19,20
2023/06/22
2023/08/07,08,10
2023/09/19
2023/10/16-19
2023/11/13-17
2023/12/04
2023/12/14
2024/02/23
2024/03/22
2024/05/28
Midlands: Ozwathinicontouring workshop SKZN: Mahhehle – tower
gardens
EC-Matatiele: Drip irrigation workshops in 5 villages
SKZN: CA demonstration workshops in 3 villages
SKZN: Plainhill Drip irrigation training
Limpopo: Sofaya trench beds
SKZN: Mahhehle tower gardens, poultry production, trench beds
SKZN: Mariathal gardens and experimentation
Bgvl: Madakaneni, Mahlathini– gardening training
EC: Ned, Nchodu poultry production
EC: Nec, Nchodu, Mzongwana- Pest and disease control
Limpopo and KZN: trench bed training with assembling of tunnels for 45
households across 8 villages, including distribution of seedlings, mixed
cropping and mulching learning inputs and drip irrigation
Limpopo: Willows, Sedawa, MametjaSophaya. Bergville-Matwetha,
Emadakaneni – Natural Pest and Disease control
Bergville, SKZN: Poultry production: eMadakaeneni, Mjwetha, Mariathal,
Mahhehle,Centocow
EC: Ned, Nkau, Rashule, Nchodu- Soil and water conservation
Matatiele: Multipurposechicken production and cage construction
(Ned(13), Rashule(22), Nchodu(23)
Matatiele: Nchodu -Value Adding training (32)
Limpopo: Boschvelder feeding and management training x 5 villages (50
participants)
Limpopo (30): CA demonstrations and farmer level experimentation:
intercropping cover crops
-Midlands: Gobizembe Youth group- seedling production training
-Limpopo: Sofaya(10) , Madeira and Willows (16) CA training and
demos
-Limpopo: advanced nutrition workshop x 5 villages
-SKZN: gardening refresher workshops (Centocow, Mahhehle,
Mariathal, Ngongonini)
-Matatiele (EC) nutrition workshops x 4 villages
Cyclical implementation through
mentoring for capacity
development for LG at local level
2022/08/16,17,18,19,30
2022/10/16
2022/11/21-24
2023/01/24-30
ONGOING
2023/10/03-06
2023/11/05-12/15
2023/11/30-2024/02/28
2024/ 03/ 30
2024/07/08
CCA review and planning workshops
-Bergville: CA review and planning (5)
-Midlands: CA review and planning (3)
-Limpopo: CCA review and planning (4)
CCA prioritization of practices
-Matatiele: 5 villages (Ned, Nchodu, Rahsule, Nkau, Mzongwana
-All areas: garden monitoring, poultry support,tunnel and drip kit
installations,VSLAs monthly meetings, CA production and monitoring
KZN-Bergville Boschvelderchicken delivery and maintenance mentoring
for 45 participants
KZN: Bergville_CA farmer experimentationplanting for 124 participants,
incl cover cropsawa collaboration with Forge Agri to Fodder Beet trials
and Zylem SA for new Maize variety trials
Midlands:Seedling nursery project initiation for youth group in
Gobizembe (11 members)
-KZN,EC and Limpopo – 2ndround micro tunnelintroduction and
deliveries (x30 tunnels)
-KZN ,EC and Limpopo- 2ndround of multipurpose chicken delivery,
training and mentoring, including introduction of incubators for local
breeding
Income diversification and
economic empowerment of
local farmers (LG at local level)
Ongoing - Monthly
Jan-December2023
July-Sept 2023
Market days: monthly farmers markets
-Midlands: Bamshela (Ozwathini)
-SKZN: Creighton (Centocow)
-Ubuhlebezwe LED Ixopo flea market
- Bergville: Bergville town
Market exploration workshops
-Midlands: Mayizekanye, Gobizembe
-EC_Ned-Nchodu market day in Matatiele
-SKZN: Mariathal
PGS follow-up w/s Limpopo
SKZN: Mahhehle
9
Ongoing- Monthly
April-June 2024
May-July 2024
VSLA meetings and share outs
-Bergville (18)
-SKZN: Ngongonini (2), Centocow (4)
-Midlands: Ozwathini (6)
Limpopo: (7)
-Youth Dialogues – Limpopo (Sedawa, Turkey, Willows, Madeira)
-Income diversificationindividual interviews - all areas(x15)
Implementation and capacity
development for innovation (3)
and multi-stakeholder platforms
(3)
2022/11/18
2022/11/10
2022/12/01
2023/02/23
2023/02/28
2023/03/08,09
2023/03/89,29,
May-July 2023
2023/03/30, 06/02
2023/04/26
2023/05/09
2023/07/10-15
2023/08/18
2023/08/29
2023/08/30
2023/09/04
2023/09/08
2023/09/13
2023/09/22-24
2023/08/23, and 09/27
2023/07-12
2024/03/12,20
-SKZN: CentocowP&D control cross visit and learning workshop
-uThukela water source forum: Visioning and action planning – Bergville
-Adaptation Network AGM
-Regenerative Agric farmers’ day in Bergville incl Asset research,
uThukela Water Source Forum, uThukela Development Agency
-Adaptation Network: CCA financing dialogue
-SANBI_gender mainstreaming dialogue
-WRC-ESS: Bglv Ezibomvini, Stulwane –resource management mapping
and planning
Bergillve:Stulwnaeweekly community resource management workdays
-Okahlamba LED forum
-Farmers X visit between Bulwer (supported by the INR0 and Bergville
around CRA, fodder and restoration
-PGS-SA: market training input: Online training Session 5
-Giyani Local Scale Climate resilience Project: Introduction of CCA model
and local water governance options.
-World Vision: CCA workshops for women cooperatives and LED project
(60 participants)
-Giyani Climate resilience project: Input into WRC reference group
meeting
-KZN DARD_ Okahlamba Agricultural Show: display and talk
ACDI: Dialogue on community adaptation and resilience (Stellenbosch)
Food systems article for newsletter
WWF-Business Network meeting (SAPPI Durban)- presentation
Joint Bergville learning group local marketing review session
Gcumisa_multistakeholder innovation meeting – with the INR, ~60
participants (value adding, stokvels and local marketing
Food systems dialogue: online event
Uthukela water source forum: Core team meeting and Multistakeholder
field visit around community resource conservation in Stulwane (Bgvl)
-LIMA -Social Employment Fund: Training for work teams and employed
youth in nutrition, value adding, climate change adaptation and
agroecological gardening practices including soil and water conservation
in 7 areas: Zululand, SKZN, Lichtenburg, Sekororo,Musina and Blouberg
(140 participants trained).
Northern Drakensberg collaborative multistakeholder meeting in
Bergville (55 participants)
Indicator development for
evidence-based indicators, M&E
and handbook development
2023/01/30- 02/03
2023/02/02
2023/01/18
2023/01/18
2023/02/20
March-May 2023
June 2023
2023/10/16-20, 11/13-
16
2024/02/26
May-July 2024
31/05/2024, 07, 12, 18
/07/2024
Limpopo: Focus Group discussions for VSLA and microfinance for the
rural poor x 3 (Turkey, Worcester, Santeng)
Garden monitoring:
-SKZN: Plainhill
-EC: 5 villages
CA monitoring
-EC:5 villages
-KZN: Bergville -30, Midlands 15, SKZN 15
-All areas: Poultry production list
-All areas: Livelihoods survey for farmgate sales and asset accumulation
-M&E resilience indicatordevelopment team meeting and process with
KarenKotschy
-Design of framework
-Development of individual interviews and Participatory impact
assessment outlines for testing. Interviewing of 120 participants across
KZN,EC and Limpopo and running of 10 PIA workshops
- Initiate development of analysis platform and dashboards for Climate
resilience impact assessments
Implementation of sustainable
water management
2023/01/03-02/03
2023/03/07
2023/03/25, 06/15
2023/04/25, 06/01,02,
06/14.
KZN: Bergville: Stulwane– Conflict man and upgrading spring protection.
EC: Nkau: Water walk and meetings for spring protection and
reticulation.
KZN: Bgvl Stulwane_ Engineer visits (Alain Marechal) for scenario
development and follow up planning meetings with community. Set up
committee, work parties and start on quotes and budget outline
10
2023/07/26-28,
09/14,10/09-14, 11/06-
10, 12/05-15,
2024/01/21-02/02
KZN: Bgvl Vimbukhalo: Governance of communal borehole water supply
KZN: Bgvl Stulwane_ Engineer visits (Alain Marechal) for scenario
development and follow up planning meetings with community. Set up
committee, work parties and start on quotes and budget outline. Work
on scheme initiated.Final implementation of scheme.
Organisational& capacity
development
2022/11/17
2022/12/05
2023/02/13
2023/02/09, 02/16
2023/03/06
2023/03/13
2023/04/17
2023/05/26
2023/06/12
2023/07/04
2023/10/09
2023/10/16
2023/10/17
2024/02/26
-MDF AGM and organisational capacity development workshop
-Mentoringand planning with new finance officer to implement SODI
financial reporting system
- Internal short learning event for rainfall and runoff results, as well as
soil fertility and Organic carbon
- Mentoring in CCA workshop implementation. Temakholo from
Midlands assisted Bergville team
-Team session on gender mainstreaming
- UKZN- Ecological mapping and use of resource planning – Bgvl team
-VSLAs review and discussion re group based rules, BLF updates
- Nutrient analysis for livestock fodder options: facilitated by Brigid Letty
from the INR
-Small business development support planning and Livelihoods survey
-MDF AGM and organisational capacity development workshop
Conservation agriculture participatory research outcomes and
presentation for CA forum with interns and staff
-Training plan development with interns
-M&E frameworks discussion with Karen Kotschy and team members
-Financial team: Introduction to online Sage platform
Communication and innovation
This aspect relates to platforms for sharing and learning with clusters of learning groups (LGs). No
activities were undertaken here between March and July2024.
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.
The table below outlines actions and meetings to date.
Table 2: Planning and multi stakeholder interactions for the CCA-DSSII research process: August2024
Organisation
Activity - Description
Dates
Asset Research-
Maize Trust, SODI
Regenerative Agriculture farmers’ open day in Bergville
Annual Maize Trust CA forum workshop,Bethlehem – MDF
presentation
9thWorld Conference in Conservation Agriculture (Cape Town).
Presentation of 3 papers (E kruger, T Mathebula and N Mbokazi and
Smallholder farmers panel member.
23rdFeb 2023
10thOctober 2023
23rd-26thJuly 2024
Zylem and Regen-Z
(sustainable
agriculture
company-KZN)
Collaboration in farmer level experimentation with application of
liquid supplements for soil health and testing of 10 varieties of
climate adapted maize with 10 farmers in Bergville, KZN. Planning
for 2ndround of experimentationand distribution of input packs to
smallholder farmers
December 2023-May
2024
9thJuly 2024
ESS research - WRC
UKZN research in ecosystem services mapping supported by MDF:
water walks, focus group discussions, planning, eco-champs, spring
protection work in Stulwane, thematic and mapping workshops in
Ezibomvini and Stulwane, local level planning and implementation.
Cross visit Ezibomvini to Stulwane to see resource management work
23rdSeptember 2022
14thOctober 2022
13,29,30 March 2023
1-30thMay 2023
29th September 2023
18th October 2023
11
Finalisation and handover of maps, updated community resource
management plans for Ezibomvini and Stulwane
Final report preparation and ref group meeting
Planning of farmer level cross-visit between Hlatikhulu and Bergville
communities involved in Community level resource management
and EbA activities (Endangered Wildlife trust and MDF
22nd November 2023
9th, 18thJuly 2024
WWF Water source
forum(Northern
Drakensberg
Collaborative)
uThukela catchment partnership: Stakeholder meetings, online and in
person at OLM board room Bergville (new name: Northern
Drakensberg Collaborative). Development ofvision, membership
profile, constitution and core team and full collaborative meetings
Core team meeting for visioning and constitution development
Multistakeholder field day for community level resource conservation
in Stulwane, Bergville.
Core team meetings and planning of stakeholder event for August
2024.9EWT farmers’ ross visit
Development of catchment partnership proposal with Lewis
Foundation
29thSeptember 2022
10thNovember 2022
11thApril 2023
23rdMay 2023
23rdAugust 2023
28thSeptember 2023
3rdMarch, 31stMay, 7th
July and 8thAug 2024.
24th-26thMarch, 8th
and 18thJuly, 14thAug
2024
SANBI- Living
Catchment Programme
Social facilitation capacity building workshop – Western Cape; M Malinga
Olifants’ water indaba: M Malinga, N Mbokazi, H Hlongwane, B Maimela and E
Kruger
Video on local initiatives in catchment management
3rd-5thOctober 2022
30thOct-2ndNov 2022
24thMarch 2023
SANBI
Climate change adaptation and gender mainstreaming dialogue –
presentation and participation
SANBI newsletter- runoff impacts of restoration and CA
CCA and gender dialogue task team for planning 2024 event
8th-9thMarch 2023
4thJune 2023
6thJune, 27thJuly 2024
Adaptation Network
Policy input and AGM
Ongoing input and involvement in the Capacity development working
group: to implement thenew Civil Society OrganisationSkills
Enhancement and Excellence Development (CSO SEED) project,
funded by the Flanders government.Some of these activities include
youth-led participatory videos on adaptation initiatives and some
thematic field visits and exchanges between AN CSO member projects.
Meetings with AN to discuss capacity building and outline CCA training
for Socio technical Interface NGO in Hammanskraal
AN newsletter: Food systems article by Tema Mathebula
AN-AGM
AN-Colloquium (Cape Town) Dialogue and presentation on CC
vulnerability assessments and MERL frameworks (Betty Maimela).
‘EbA farm’ – Adaptation fund planning with SANBI
13thOctober 2022
1stDecember 2022
7th, 8thFeb 2023
15thMarch 2023
13thJune 2024
11thMay 2023
15thJune 2023
20thSeptember 2023
16thNovember 2023
14th-17thJuly 2024
3rdmay, 27thJune 2024
PGS-SA
Quarterly meeting: Discuss mapping of PGS organisations, finalisation of
certificate and use of seals and logos. Finalisation of smallholder farm
assessment form
PGS-Certification working group
Online market development training: Input into session 5
17thNov 2022
13thFeb 2023
9thMay 2023
Okhahlamba LM
Agriculture and Land summit: MDF presentation and marketing stall: All
Bergville staff, farmers representatives and eco champs
Okahlamba LED forum meetings
OLM – support with transport for farmers’ markets and tractors for field
preparation
Okhahlamba Agricultural show
30thNovember 2022
30thMarch 2023,7thJune
2023
Ongoing
29thAugust 2023
Afromontane research
Centre
Maloti-Drakensberg Climate Change Workshop
Wageningen/UFS: Land futures course - Bgvl
12-14 December 2022
7-10thMarch 2023
Water Research
Commission/ AWARD
Giyani Local Scale Climate Resilience Project:
Support for CCA and VSLAs
8-10thMay 2023
10th-14thJuly 2023
30th-31stOctober 2023
12
3.CBCCACASE STUDIES IN 3AGROECOLOGICAL ZONES
By Nqe Dlamini, Erna Kruger, Betty Maimela,Temakholo Mathebula, Hlengiwe Hlongwane, Nqobile
Mbokazi, Siphumelelo Mbheleand Anna and Karen Kotschy.
3.1PREAMBLE
To enable the compilation of case studies in community based climate change adaptation (CbCCA) the
monitoring and evaluation framework developedin the WRC project entitled Climate change
adaptation for smallholder farmer in South Africa,(WRC K5-2179-4)(Kruger, 2021), has been reviewed
and updated to allow for greater methodological coherence and improved measurability of the
climate resilient indicator sets outlined.
The resultant framework was used to design individual interviews (resilience snapshots) and a
participatory impact assessment outline for focus group discussions, emphasising the human, social
and governance aspects of the process.
The following interviews and PIA workshops were undertaken between May and July 2024
Table 3: CbCCA interviews and focus groups undertaken in different agroecological zones.
Province/area
Agroecological zone
(HarvestChoice;
International Food
Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI), 2015)
Villages
Number of
individual
Interviews
PIAs(focus group
discussions)
Water governance and infrastructure management community
dialoguein Mayephu, Giyani – for development of guidelines and
proof of concept
WRC- ref grp meetings for: Enterprise development and innovation for
rural water schemes- GLSCRP
3rdand 29thNovember
2023, 24thJune,3rdJuly
2024
Umzimvubu
Catchment
Partnershipand ERS–
Nicky McCleod, Sissie
Mathela
Webinar toreview CRAand spring protection implementation and
plan for future projects
Planning for combined spring protection in Nkau and next deliverable
Multi stakeholder governance inputs
8thNov 2022
15thJune 2023
2ndAugust 2023
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.
Group marketing review and farm level assessments
Youth dialogues in 5 villages. Outline for proposal to DKA
2ndNovember 2022
30thJanuary 2023
22ndMarch 2023
8thMay 2023,
29thSeptember 2023
April-July 2024
Karen Kotshcy
Learning in M&E interest group meeting. Discussions re methodology
for UCP and Tsitsa project multi stakeholder engagement evaluation
Discussions and MoU development for M&E framework and indicator
developmentand submission of report for WRC deliverable 4.
Development of Climate resilient indicators for CbCCA
11thNovember 2022
15thMay 2023
24thMay 2023
16-20thOctober, 13th-
16thNovember2023
8thand 19thFebruary
2024, 27thJune, 8thand
12thJuly 2024
13
Limpopo- Mametja-
Sekororo
Tropic – warm -semi-
arid
Willows, Sedawa,
Santeng, Worcester,
Turkey
20
Willows(33)
Sedawa(19)
Eastern Cape –
Matatiele
Sup tropic-cool- semi-
arid
Nchodu, Ned, Nkau,
Rashule
17
Nchodu(18)
Ned(22)
KwaZulu Natal–
Northern Drakensberg
Sup tropic-cool-
Subhumid
Eqeleni, Ezibomvini,
Stulwane, Vimbukhalo,
Ezinyonyane
20
Eqeleni(13)
Ezibomvini(15)
Stulwane(35)
KwaZulu Natal–
Southern region
Sub tropic cool
subhumid
Mahhehle,
Ngongonini,
Centocow, Matirathal
20
Mahhehle(36)
Centocow (32)
KwaZulu Natal–
Midlands
Sub tropic warm
subhumid
Ozwathini,
Mayizekanye
13
Ozwathini(22)
Mayizekanye(26)
TOTALS
20
90
271
The three areas chosen for CbCCA case studies are Mametja-Sekororo, Matatiele and Bergville.
3.2METHODOLOGY
Revision of farmer-level resilience indicators for Mahlathini Development Foundation
a.Introduction
MahlathiniDevelopment Foundation (MDF) has spent many years developing and refining various
tools for monitoring and evaluating their work of building resilience among smallholder farmers. These
tools are varied and are used for different purposes and on different time scales, for example:
•Baseline assessments are once-off assessments of farming practices used when working in an
area for the first time.
•Regular farmer monitoring forms are used for monitoring various aspects, at different
frequencies (e.g. savings groups are monitored monthly but poultry only every 6 months).
•Seasonal reviews are done together with farmers to assess changes and benefits.
•Participatory impact assessments are done by farmers in focus groups on a less frequent basis
(e.g. every few years).
•Livelihood surveys are also carried out occasionally.
•Research projects sometimes provide opportunities for more in-depth monitoring or focused
case studies.
•The “Resilience Snapshot” tool is used to provide a summary of resilience, either annually or
at the end of a project. It is based on a questionnaire for farmers as well as bringing together
data from some of the other sources mentioned above. Farmers are asked to compare their
current situation and farming practices to their situation and practices before they started
working with MDF, to see whether resilience has indeed increased as intended.
In May 2023, MDF initiated a processto strengthen and further develop the Resilience Snapshot so
that it is more strongly tied to resilience theory and more generalisable across agro-ecological zones
and hierarchical levels.
MDF conceptualizes climate change adaptation for smallholder farmers through climate-resilient
agriculture or CRA on three nested levels: micro-, meso- and macro-levels (Error! Reference source
not found.). At the micro-level, participants are farmers interacting with each other - and possibly
14
others in their community - in peer learning groups, interest groups and committees. As one moves
to the meso- and macro-levels, the range and diversity of people and organisations involved broadens
out to include other players such as local and national government, civil society organizations (CSOs),
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and academic institutions. The
connections across the three levels or scales are important for ensuring that farmers’ issues, concerns
and preferences are understood and taken up regionally and nationally (e.g. into policy, planning and
communications), and that farmers are able to benefit from the support of these diverse stakeholders
(e.g. through relationships, learning exchanges and training).
b.A theoretical foundation for assessing resilience of smallholder farming systems
The first step in strengthening MDF’s tools for assessing smallholder farmer resilience was to
strengthen the underlying theoretical framework. This was done by combining Cabell and Oelofse’s
indicators of agroecosystem resilience (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012) with the concept of absorptive,
adaptive and transformative resilience capacities as used by Oxfam and others (Jeans et al., 2017), to
produce the theoretical framework shown inthe figure below.
Cabell and Oelofse’s (2012) indicators of agro-ecosystem resilience have a solid foundation in that
they are based on the resilience principles outlined by Biggs et al. (2012), Biggs et al. (2015) and
numerous other resilience scholars (see Folke, 2006 foran overview). Cabell and Oelofse (2012)
present thirteen behaviour-based indicators1which together provide a measure of agro-ecosystem
resilience, particularly for smallholder farmers (see Table 4). Agroecosystems are defined as social-
1These are not specific, measurable indicators, but rather aspects or dimensions of resilience that should be
included.
Figure 2: Micro-, meso- and macro-levels of organisation for climate-resilient smallholder agriculture
15
ecological systems bounded by the intentionality to produce food, fuel or fibre and influenced by
farmers’ decision-making, including the physical space and resources usedas well as related
infrastructure, markets and institutions at multiple, nested scales (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).
Cabell and Oelofse’s framework forms the basis for the SHARP+2tool (Hernandez et al., 2022;
https://www.fao.org/in-action/sharp), which is being widely used by the FAO and others to assess
household climate resilience based on the knowledge and priorities of farmers, using an integrated
approach. For example, the IFAD and GEF-financed Resilient Food Systems Impact Programme is
currently using SHARP+ in seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa as part of its monitoring and
evaluation framework, and SHARP+ has also been included in operational guidelines on monitoring
and evaluation of nature-based interventions, climate adaptation in agriculture, and implementation
of resilience thinking (Hernandez et al., 2022).
The Oxfam Framework for Resilient Development, The Future is a Choice, describes three types of
resilience capacity: absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacity (Jeans et al., 2016). Resilience is
seen as a result of enhancing the capacity(ability, agency, power)of peopleto proactively and
positively manage change in ways that contribute to a just world without poverty. The three capacities
are seen as interconnected, existing at multiple levels, and mutually reinforcing (Jeans et al., 2017).
This is in line with prominent resilience scholars’ characterisation of resilience as having dimensions
of persistence, adaptability and transformability in complex social-ecological systems (Walker et al.,
2004; Folke, 2006; Folke, 2016).
Absorptive capacity ensures stability because it aims to prevent or limit the negative impactof shocks.
It is the capacity to ‘bounce back’ after a shock, throughanticipating, planning, coping with and
recovering from specific shocks and short-term stresses. Adaptive capacity is the capacity to make
2Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists.
Figure 3: Theoretical framework for assessing resilience ofsmallholder farmers. Based onCabell &
Oelofse (2012) and Jeans et al.(2017).
16
intentional incremental adjustments in anticipation of or in response to change, in ways that create
more flexibility in the future. Transformative capacity is the capacity to intentionally change the deep
structures that cause or increase vulnerability and risk as well as how risk is shared within societies
and the global community (Jeans et al., 2017).
For the purpose of creating a coherent theoretical framework for resilience in this context, the
different aspects of agroecosystem resilience described by Cabell and Oelofse (2012) were mapped
onto the three types of resilience capacity as shown in Figure 3, to produce a guiding framework for
monitoring and evaluating resilience.This framework includes the different aspects of resilience as
well as the interplay between stability and change.
c.Revision of the MDF resilience snapshot tool
The SHARP+ tool was considered too complicated for MDF’s current purpose, as it involves a very
lengthy survey which MDF felt would not be practical in the contexts in which it works. Although the
length and the questions can be customised to some extent, it was considered not ideal to combine
all the monitoring and evaluation into a single survey carried out at one point in time. As described
above, MDF staff already do several different types of monitoring and evaluation activities with
farmers on different time scales, because different activities require different monitoring frequencies.
Furthermore, MDF’s Resilience Snapshot tool has been tested and refined for the South African
context over many years. It was therefore decided to align what MDF is already doing with the Cabell
and Oelofse framework, and to strengthen and modify the Resilience Snapshot where necessary.
Comparing the Resilience Snapshot indicators with the Cabell and Oelofse (2012) aspects of
agroecosystem resilience (Table 1) revealed that the Resilience Snapshot did cover most areas,
although some more strongly than others. By comparison, the Committee on Sustainable
Assessment’s (COSA)3resilience indicators used by the Adaptation Fund do not cover all the aspects
of resilience (Table 4).
The thirteen aspects of agroecosystem resilience described by Cabell and Oelofse (2012) were reduced
to ten as follows. One was removed because it was felt not to be relevant to South African smallholder
farmers (“carefully exposed to disturbance” – South African smallholder farmers do not have the
luxury of controlling the amount of disturbance to which their activities are exposed). Another
(“coupled with local natural capital”) was removed because it was felt to be sufficiently covered by
another (“globally autonomous and locally interdependent”). Finally, “functional and response
diversity” and “optimally redundant” were combined because in practice having more diversity usually
also provides redundancy, or the ability of some entities (e.g. inputs, outputs or crops) to functionally
compensate for the loss of others (Kotschy, 2013).
Table 4: Alignment of the MDF Resilience Snapshot indicators and the COSA resilience indicators with the dimensions of
agroecosystem resilience described by Cabell and Oelofse (2012)
Cabell & Oelofse (2012)
Agroecosystem resilience
MDF Resilience Snapshot
COSA resilience indicators
used by Adaptation Fund
ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY (STABILITY)
3A non-profit independent global consortium which hasdevelopedanindicator library for resilience. COSA
indicators are 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 easierfor managers and policymakers.
17
Socially self-organised- social components able to
form their own configuration based on their needs
and desires (e.g. grassroots networks, coops,
markets, associations, advisory networks)
Collaborative actions/ social agency
Reflective and shared learning- collaborations,
knowledge sharing, record-keeping, ability to learn
from past experimentation
Informed decision-making
(information used)
Access to information
Early warning systems
Ecologically self-regulated - stabilising ecological
feedback mechanisms (e.g. maintain cover, soil
health, regulate predators & pests, use ecosystem
engineers)
Embodied in soil and water
conservation practices of agro-
ecology and conservation
agriculture
SWC practices, including
integrated pest
management
Coupled with local natural capital -using local
natural resources and ES, reduced need for external
inputs
Increased water use efficiency
(including rainwater harvesting,
water holding, water access,and
water productivity)
Honours legacy- maintaining memoryof past
conditions and experiences (e.g. heirloom seeds,
elders, traditional practices)
Informed decision-making
(information used)
Access to information
Builds human capital- constructed (economic
activity, technology, infrastructure),cultural
(individual skills and abilities), and social capital
(social organizations, norms, networks)
Savings
Collaborative actions/ social agency
No. of agricultural
productive assets
(equipment, livestock,
land)
Reasonably profitable - farmers able to make a
livelihood, able to invest inthefuture (buffering
capacity), not needing to rely on distortionary
subsidies
Increased livelihood security
(income)
Increased livelihood security
(household provisioning & food
security)
Increase in farming (size)
Increased productivity
Savings (safety, security,
achievement)
Positive mindsets
Net household income
ADAPTIVE CAPACITY (FLEXIBILITY)
Socially self-organised- social components able to
form their own configuration based on their needs
and desires (e.g. grassroots networks, coops,
markets, associations, advisory networks)
Collaborative actions/ social agency
Reflective and shared learning- collaborations,
knowledge sharing, record-keeping, ability to learn
from past experimentation
Informed decision-making
(information used)
Adoption of new
practices/equipment
Access to information
Early warning systems
Appropriately connected- relationships between
system elements. High no. of weak connections
imparts flexibility, few strong connections imparts
dependency and rigidity (e.g. no. of suppliers,
outlets, farmers, crops)
Collaborative actions/ social
agency?
Functional and response diversity- diversity of ES,
inputs, outputs, markets, income sources, pest
control. Diversity of response options to
environmental & other changes.
Increased diversity in farming
Increased diversity of practices
Increased water use efficiency
Increased livelihood diversity
options
Adoption of new
practices/equipment
Diversification of income
18
Optimally redundant- duplication (partial
functional overlap) of components and
relationships in the system (e.g. crop types,
equipment, watersources, nutrient sources, sales
outlets), but not so that it is too costly/unwieldy
Increased diversity in farming
Increased diversity of practices
Increased water use efficiency
Increased livelihood diversity
options
No. of income sources
Spatial and temporal heterogeneity - patchiness of
land use, rotations, practices, in space and over
time
Increased growing season
Increased diversity in farming
(gardening/ fieldcropping/
livestock/ trees)
Carefully exposed to disturbance - disturbance not
excluded totally but managed where possible (e.g.
pest and disease exposure allowed to promote
selection and resistance)
TRANSFORMATIVE CAPACITY (STRUCTURAL
CHANGE)
Reflective and shared learning- collaborations,
knowledge sharing, record-keeping, ability to learn
from past experimentation
Collaborative actions/ social agency
Adoption of new
practices/equipment
Access to information
Early warning systems
Socially self-organised- social components able to
form their own configuration based on their needs
and desires (e.g. grassroots networks, coops,
markets, associations, advisory networks)
Informed decision-making
(information used)
Globally autonomous and locally inter-dependent
- relative autonomy from exogenous control, but
with a high level of cooperation locally
Collaborative actions/ social agency
Specific, measurable indicators were then developed for all the aspects of resilience and resilience
capacity as shown in Figure 3, using the existing indicators in MDF’s Resilience Snapshot and the COSA
indicators as a starting point. Further development is still required, for example to add the
methodology, people responsible for data collection and analysis, frequency of collection and data
limitations for each indicator.
Ongoingwork will involve developing a visually engaging way of presenting and sharing the data. This
could include:
•A “traffic light” system (red, orange, green) for each indicator to provide a simple overview of
status and progress.
•Web-based dashboards which convert the data into engaging visual representations (e.g.
graphs, charts, tables, word clouds) and make it accessible to stakeholders.
•An interactive network mapping tool such as Kumu (https://kumu.io/), which allows
stakeholders to map and visualise their connections interactively and can also be used to
gather and analyse data such as numbers andtypes of connections, strength of connections
and social self-organisation.
Table 5: Expanded and modified set of resilience indicators for MDF’s Resilience Snapshot
Indicator name and no.
Rationale
Definition
Unit of measure
Absorptive capacity
19
1. Socially self-organised (Focus on support networks)
1.1 Support
networks/groups
Support networks build absorptive
capacity by helping farmers to
absorb and survive shocks.
Networks or groups which
farmers use for emergency and
psycho-social support.
Average no. of groups, %
of farmers belonging to
different types of groups.
1.2 Increased social
agency (collaborative
actions)
Absorptive capacity is enhancedby
support networks that enable
individual and collective agency to
make farming activities more
efficient and productive.
Extent of collaboration e.g.
Market days, assistance with
ploughing, labour, seed sharing,
saving groups etc.
Average no. of
collaborative actions in
which farmers are
involved.
2. Shared learning (Focus on learning for productivity)
2.1 Increased knowledge
sharing
Sharing of knowledge helps farmers
to farm more effectively and to
mitigate the impacts of shocks and
disturbances. Also, the act of
sharing knowledge promotes
learning for the person doing the
sharing as well as the recipient.
Sharing shows that people have
internalised information.
How knowledge isshared (e.g.
informally with other farmers,
in meetingswith local orgs,
meetings withexternal orgs
such as DoA interest groups, in
coops).
What is shared: categories/
types of knowledge or sharing.
List of who shared with,
list of types of knowledge
shared.
3. Ecogically self-regulated
3.1 Increased water use
efficiency
Five fingers indicators
Pest and disease
management
Pollinators
The 5 fingers principles promote
ecological self-regulation through
improved nutrient cycling, water
use efficiency, soil health,
maintenance ofindigenous
vegetation and pollinator
populations. Important for
resilience but MDF has not had any
success withmonitoring most of
these. Most farmers are not aware
of things like pollinators, pests and
diseases, soil health.
Whether the soil's water-
holding capacity has improved
(Y/N).
% Y vs N responses
4. Honours legacy
4.1 Traditional practices,
crops and livestock in use
Traditional practices are a way of
maintaining memory ofpast
conditions and experiences.
Whichtraditionalpractices are
in use? (e.g. seed saving,
heirloom/indigenous seeds or
breeds, banana basins) - or
changes to these.
List of traditional
practices being used by
farmers
5. Builds human capital
5.1 Increased savings
Savings provide a buffer, allowing
farmers to absorb and recover from
shocks, and to plan and manage
their cash flow.
Average increase in savings
Average increase in
savings (Rands)
5.2 Use of savings for
livelihoods improvement
If farmers are using savings for
livelihood improvements, rather
than just on essentials such as food,
it suggests that human capital is
being built.
How savings are being used
List of options
5.3 Increased knowledge
and agency as a result of
CRA
Building skills, knowledge and
agency increases human capital,
which enables farmers to farm more
effectively.
What farmers areable todo
now that they weren't able to
do before
List of options
20
5.4 Increase in agricultural
productive assets
Agricultural assets enable farmers
to farm effectively and to absorb
and recover from shocks.
Change in agricultural
productive assets
List, maybe count and
categorise (equipment,
livestock, etc.)
6. Reasonably profitable
6.1 Increased income
If farmers are able to make a
livelihood through farming, they are
able to remain in their communities
and provide for their families,
avoiding the social and
psychological disruption of
migration or circular migration.
Average monthly incomes,
mostlythough marketing of
produce locally and through the
organic marketing system.
Average monthly income
(Rands)
6.2 Increased household
food provisioning
If farmers are able to produce
sufficient food locally, it reduces
their dependency on store-bought
food.
Food produced and consumed
in the household.
Overall food produced (kg
per week)
6.3 Increased food
security
Having a dependable supply of food
and a good variety of foods is
beneficial for health and wellbeing.
No. of food types and how often
eaten. A recognised food
security indicator.
No. offood types/ no. of
times per week
6.4 Increase in size of
farming activities
An expansion of farming indicates
that farmers have the resources and
commitment to make this possible.
Size of farming activities
(cropping, trees & livestock).
Cropping area (ha), no. of
fruit trees and no of
livestock.
6.5 Increased productivity
Apart from food security, increases
in productivity create opportunities
for participation in markets or
value-added activities.
Increase in yields and/or
livestock.
Overall kg produced in a
season, livestock
increase/decrease
6.6 Increased savings
An increase in savings reflects
successful livelihoods. Savings also
allow farmers to invest in the
future.
Average increase in savings.
Average increase in
savings (Rands).
6.7 Positive mindsets
This is an integrative measure of
whether farmers feel they are
"making it".
How positive farmers feel about
the future.
SCALE: 0=less positive
about the future; 1=the
same; 2=more positive;
3=much more positive.
Adaptive capacity
1. Socially self-organised (Focus on learning networks)
1.4 Learning
networks/groups
Learning networks build adaptive
capacity by promoting
experimentation and evaluation of
results.
Networks or groups to which
farmers belong which enable
learning about CRA. (Will be
mainlyjust the MDF learning
group in most cases).
Average no. of groups, %
of farmers belonging to
different types of groups.
2. Shared learning (Focus on learning for adaptation)
2.2 Use of information
from past
experimentation in
decision-making
Successful adaptation is more likely
when experimentation and learning
inform farmers' decisions.
Whether information from past
experimentation is used
% of farmers using info
from past
experimentation
2.3 Prevalence of record-
keeping
Record-keeping facilitates recallof
past events/results and analysis of
trends.
Whether farmers keep records
of anything
Question Y/N
2.4 Most significant
change in farming
practices
Changed practices indicate learning
(?)
Most significant change in
farming practices
List of practices
21
7. Diversity and redundancy
7.1 Increased livelihood
diversity options
Having a diversity oflivelihood
options increases farmers' response
diversity (capacity to adapt to
different shocks).
No. of livelihood options
(sources of income), e.g. Social
grants, remittances, farming
incomes,small business
income, employment.
Average no. of options per
farmer
7.2 Increased diversity of
farming activities
Having a diversity of farming
activities also increases response
diversity and provides for spreading
of risks.
No. of farming activities
(gardens, field cropping,
livestock, trees etc.).
Average no. of activities
per farmer
7.3 Increased crop
diversity
Increased crop diversity increases
functional and response diversity
(different crops perform different
roles, provide different nutritional
benefits, and respond differently to
stress, disease and disturbance).
No. of crops planted by farmers
which werenot planted
previously ("new" crops).
Average no. of"new"
crops added, overall and
per farmer
7.4 Increased CRA
practice diversity
Different practices have different
functions within the agro-
ecosystem (functional diversity).
No. of CRA practices usedby
farmers which were not used
previously (e.g. mulching,
trench beds, liquid manure,
raised beds, mixed cropping,
inter-cropping, crop rotation,
tunnels, drip kits, eco-circles, ,
greywater use and
management, Conservation
Agirculture, cover crops,
inclusion of legumes, pruning of
fruit trees, picking up dropped
fruit, pest and disease control
,feeding livestock on crops and
stover, cutting and baling,
fodder supplementation, health
and sanitation for poultry,
brooding, JoJo tanks, RWH
drums).
Average no. of"new"
practices added, overall
and per farmer
7.5 No. of water sources
Redundancy in water supply
reduces the impact of failure of one
source.
List of water sources available
to farmer.
Average no. of water
sources, overall and per
farmer
7.6 No. ofnutrient
sources
Redundancy in nutrient supply.
List of nutrient sources available
to farmer.
Average no.of nutrient
sources, overall and per
farmer
7.7 No. of suppliers
Redundancy in of supply of inputs.
No. of suppliers available to
farmers for gardening, field
cropping and livestock needs.
Average no. of suppliers
available, overall and per
farmer
7.8 No. of sales outlets
Redundancy in sales outlets.
No. of sales outlets available to
farmers for selling produce from
gardening, field cropping and
livestock.
Average no.ofsales
outlets available, overall
and per farmer
8. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity
8.1 Increased season
Seasonal variation of activities
determines how farming benefits
are distributed in time.
Has the seasonal extent of
farming increased? (i.e. autumn
and winter, and all-year
options).
Question Y/N
22
8.2 Heterogeneity of land
use
Spatial variation in land use
influenceslandscape connectivity,
which may influence movementof
fire, pests and diseases, pollinators
or water. It also provides response
diversity because areas under
different land use may respond
differently to shocks.
Size and spatial connectivity of
fields and natural vegetation.
?
8.3 Crop rotation / mixed
cropping
Crop rotation and mixed cropping
allow time for soil and vegetation to
recover and increase temporal
variation.
Whether farmers practice this
and to what extent.
Question Y/N with
comments, maybe a
degree
8.4 Livestock integration
Livestock and crop integration such
as through grazing management,
rotational grazing, fodder
production, buying fodder or baling,
allow for functional integration of
spatially and temporally
heterogeneous activities.
Whichlivestock integration
practices are used?
List of practices used per
farmer from drop-down
list
9. Appropriately connected
9.1 Flexibility of networks
Flexibility of networks (many weak
connections) allows configurations
to change according to members'
needs and desires.
Could be applied to networks of
suppliers, marketing networks,
governance networks etc.
No. and strength of
connections between
people
Transformative capacity
1. Socially self-organised (Focus on networks for structural change)
1.7 Inclusivity of
networks/ groups
Inclusive social and governance
structures build transformative
capacity by reducing
marginalisation, exclusion and
inequity.
Extent to which farmer learning
groups include women, youth
and marginalised individuals
(e.g. disabled, minority
languages).
Average % of group
members who are
women, youth or from
marginalised groups
1.8 Extent to which
networks cross scales or
hierarchies
Connections across scales or
hierarchies provide opportunities
for advocacy and structural change.
No. of "active" connections
between farmer learning
groups and macro-level
stakeholders (meaning that
there has been interaction or
exchange of information etc.
within the past year).
Average no. of active
cross-scale connections
2. Shared learning (Focus on learning for transformation)
2.4 Changes in personal
attitudes, motivations or
beliefs
Such changes reflect personal
transformation, which is the
foundation for and motivator of
broader transformation.
Farmers' perceptions on how
they think they have grown and
how their personalattitudes
have changed.
Average no. of farmers
reporting changes
10. Globally autonomous and locally interdependent
23
10.1 External vs local
inputs
If farmers are highly dependent on
external inputs,they will be at the
mercy of external structures and
circumstances (e.g. wars, politics,
inflation, multi-national
corporations) and will therefore
have little ability to bring about
structural change. Ifinputs are
obtained locally, it suggests local
interdependence.
No. of external inputs divided by
no. of local inputs (e.g. seed,
fertiliser, pest control products,
feed etc.)
Ratio ofexternal to
internal inputs
An important considerationin developing the indicators in Table 5 5 was how to promote coherent
monitoring and evaluation across the different scales (micro-, meso- and macro-levels as shown in
Figure 2). The two aspects of resilience shown in the intersections between the three circles inFigure
3, namely social self-organisation and shared learning, are important for all three types of resilience
capacity and at all three levels, although they are expressed in slightly different ways in each. For
example, at the micro-level, farmer self-organisation is measured by the number of local groups that
provide support, the inclusivity of groups, and the extent of collaborative actions among farmers. At
the macro-level, similar indicators for social self-organisation are used, but they are applied at the
regional or national level (e.g. collaborative actions would not be between individual farmers but
between organisations or groups). Additional indicators may also be included at higher levels, such as
whether all stakeholder groups are adequately represented.
3.3MERLTOOLS DEVELOPED
The resilience snapshot was improved and updated to incorporate the methodological considerations
in the section above. A copy of the survey form is provided in Attachment 1. These questionnaires are
called snapshots as they can be administered at any time in the individual’s progression towards
resilience. They are not project specific and are not meant as outcome assessments for projects, but
rather to highlight changes theparticipant has made to adapt to climate change and the assessment
of the improvedresilience from such changes. It is foreseen that it can be useful to undertake these
snapshots repeatedly over time to get an indication of ongoing improvement for the participant.
In addition to the individual interviews, there are aspects of resilience, notably social organisation,
changes in human capacity and learning related to climate change that is better analysed in groups as
these aspects are more relational in nature and rely on people’s understanding, thinking and opinions.
For these aspects a participatory impact assessment process was developed. The outline of these
discussions is provided in Attachment 2.
A third tool has been developed to explore in some depth the impact of the village savings and loan
associations (VSLAs) on a selected number of individuals’ income generation and business
development and expansion activities. The outline of this questionnaire is provided in Attachment 3.
Results from these three tools have been collated, analysed and summarisedinto the case studies
presented below.
3.4AGROECOLOGICAL ZONE CLIMATE RESILIENCE CASE STUDIES
The community-based climate change adaptation approach and methodology used in all three
provinces has relied on village level learning groups and clusters of learning groups undertaking
24
cyclical analysis, implementation and review processes to explore adaptive strategies and processes
for adaptation to climate change, as shown in the figure below.
Figure 4: An outline of the learning group approach and processes for adaptions to climate change.
Incorporation of aspects from different themes within the smallholder farming system andthe natural
landscape has been undertaken through a ‘Five fingers” model to allow for implementation across a
wide range of activitiesincluding climate resilient agriculture, water and natural resources
management and stewardship and local governance.
Figure 5: the Five Finger model for implementation of
adaptive strategies to allow for a coherent systemic
approach and development of synergies across activities.
Climate Resilient Agriculture and innovation
system development for sustainable and
productive use of land and waterhas broadly
included the following activities:
Conservation/ Regenerative Agriculture: (LEI)
Quantitative research support to the
Smallholder Farmer Innovation Programme;
intercropping, crop rotation, cover crops,
fodder production
Livestock integration: Winter fodder
supplementation, hay baling, conservation
agreements, local livestock auctions
Intensive homestead food production:
Agroecology; tunnels, trench beds, crop diversification, mulching, greywater management, fruit
production
Village savings and loan associations: Village based savings groups for savings and small loans for
productive activitiesand
CRA
learning
group
VSLAs
Marketing
committees
Water
committees
Livestock
associations
Youth
groups
CCA impact
assessments
Adaptive
strategies and
planning
Innovation and
practices
Implementation
Monitoring,
cyclical review
and evalution
Government
departments
Traditional
authority
Ward committees
Local Municipality
Business
community
Academia
Civil
Societ
y
Innovation
platforms –
clusters of LGs
Associations
and
organisations
Multistakeholde
r platforms
CRA learning groups: Process for development of social agency
Guiding principles for innovation system development
SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL
•Encourage crop diversity and continuity
•Ensure healthy soil and focus on natural soil
buildingtechniques
•Use water and land effectively and efficiently for all
purposes
•Protect natural resource base andecosystem services
•Minimise external inputs
•Maximise internal diversity
•Enhance understanding and skills in storage, value adding,
and marketing –go beyondimmediate markets
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Crops
Natural
resources/landscape
Livestock
Water Soil health
and fertility
SYNERGIES
Soil and water
conservation
25
Local marketing and food systems: Monthly produce market stalls organised per village, exploration
of further marketing options, small mills for maize.
Water and Natural Resource Management for sustainable and productive use of land and waterhave
broadly included the following activities:
Community owned local water access: Water committees, spring protection, water reticulation, pipes
and tanks at homestead leveland
Soil and water conservation: village-based learning groups in Climate Change Adaptation undertake
resource conservation activities.
For each CRA learning group community members prioritized the basket of activities most important
to them. Thus, different practices were prioritized and implemented in different villages and areas. In
Limpopofor example, in the dry and hot Mametja-Sekororo region participants prioritized intensive
homestead food production, while in Bergville, KZN participants strongly prioritized dryland field
cropping and livestock and Matatiele in the north-eastern Eastern Cape participants favoured
gardening and poultry production and field-cropping in others.
A.Mametja-Sekororo (Limpopo) climate resilience case study
This area falls within the Lower Olifants’ river basin.It falls within the warm sub-tropical, dry savannah
agroecological zone, with average annual temperatures of 28 ᵒC, extremely hot conditions prevailing
in summer, and warm winters.Average annual rainfall is around 550mm. Evaporate potential is
around 1200mm and far exceeds rainfall.
A key vulnerability identified for the region isthat of the potential for increasing food insecurity under
changingclimaticconditions, especially for the poor in former Apartheid bantustans into which many
people were forcibly re-settled.Communal areas tend to be densely populated and over utilisation of
natural resources combined with a lack of management of these resources has led to erosion and
reduction of water availability, leading to severe water stress in these villages. In addition, between
70-80% of inhabitants are entirely reliant on social grants (child grants and pensions) for their incomes.
Thus, pressure on existing natural resources to fulfil basic needs (grazing for livestock, firewood, plants
for food and medicine and water) is likely to continue and intensify.Not only are poorland-use
practices impacting production and ecological health and integrity, but these impacts are greatly
exacerbated under hotter andmore erratic rainfall conditions that are predictedfor the lowveld
through climate change(AWARD-BOOKLET-Climate-smart-agriculture-lower-Olifants-Catchment-
2018-v3.pdf).
Climate change impacts of increased heat (throughout the year) and increased variability in rainfall
patterns with associated decrease in water availability, cop failures, livestock mortality and increased
pest and disease incidence as well as the decreasein natural resources, were strongly perceived by
community members in this region. The negative impact on participants’ livelihoods and the social
fabric of their communities has also been emphasised.
Mahlathini Development Foundation has been implementing a systemic approach to climate change
adaptation and climate resilient agriculture in partnership with AWARD in the Mametja-Sekororo
region of Limpopo since 2016. Work was conducted under 2 large USAID programmes – RESILMO and
Resilient Waters and more recently under a SODI-BMZ funded community- based climate change
adaptation programme. Close cooperation and sharing of information and learnings with other NGOs
26
such as K2C, CSA, Seeds of Light, Lima-RDF, World Vision and ACB was important throughout the
implementation processes. Other major stakeholders in the lower-Olifants water and biodiversity
stewardship landscape have included SANBI and the WRC, among others.
Work has beenundertaken in 7 villages, with around 250 smallholder farmers. The case study focused
on 5villages (Willows, Sedawa, Santeng,WorcesterandTurkey), with 20 individual snapshot
interviews conducted and two participatory impact assessment (PIA) sessions in Willows(33
participants)and Sedawa(19 participants)respectively.
The following table provides a summary overview of the Adaptiveand Absorptive capacity indicators
for Limpopo (n=20)
Absorptive capacity
Socially self-
organised
Collaborative
actions/social
agency
Change in no of groups (Ave). E.g., Learning groups, savings
groups, water committee,livestock association, policing
forums
2
Shared learning
Increased
knowledge sharing
Change in types of knowledge shared (Ave). E.g.,Written
information, learning groups, local facilitators, other farmers
2
Ecologically self-
regulated
Water use efficiency
Change in no of practices forimproved water holding (Ave).
E.g.,trench beds, tunnels, tower gardens, mulching, small
dams, mandala beds, JoJo tanks
4
Change in no of practices for reduced run-off (Ave). E.g.,
Diversion ditches, furrows and ridges, banana basins, stone
bunds
2
Improved soil health
Improved soil structure (% of respondents)
80%
Improved organic matter
50%
Fewer pests and diseases
90%
Better able to deal w drought
50%
Honours legacy
Traditional practices
No of practices in use (Ave). E.g.,Timing and planting of
Bambara groundnuts, seed saving, traditional seed storage
techniques
1
Reasonably
profitable
Increased livelihood
options
Ave change in no ofoptions. E.g.,Farming, small business, part
time employment
1
Increased income
Ave monthly income change (ZAR)
R1 222,22
Increased food
security
Ave no of food types consumed weekly. Five food types eaten
1-3 times per week - shows good nutritional diversity for rural
communities
5
Increased
productivity
Ave change in no ofcrops (garden and field). Includingspring
onions, kale, brinjal, green pepper, beetroot, carrots, Sun
hemp, Dolichos, Sorghum, lucerne mustard spinach,
coriander, parsley, broccoli, lettuce,
11
Change in no offruit trees. Including lichi, mango (Tommy,
Kiet), avocado and Macadamia
3
Incrreased savings
Change in monthly savings (ZAR)
R462,50
Positive mindsets
Scale(0to 2).0=same or worse, 1=somewhat improved and
2=much improved
2
Adaptive capacity
Increased diversity in
farming
Farming activities
(gardening, field
cropping, livestock,
fruit trees)
Ave change in no of farming activities. Mostly dueto now
doing gardening activities that weren't undertaken before and
fruit production. A few participants have included small
livestock in the form of poultry.
2
Increased CRA
practise diversity
Adoption of new
practices
Ave change in no ofCRA practices. Including tunnels, trench
beds, shallow trenches, eco-circles, tower gardens, drip
irrigation, mulching, liquid manure, underground rainwater
harvesting, smalldams, crop rotation, mixed cropping,
Conservation Agriculture, furrows and ridge , banana basins,
seed saving and propagation from seed.
8
27
Increasedwater
sources
Names of sources
Ave change in no of watersources. New group based local
schemes with boreholes, rainwater harvesting, but mostly no
new water sources for access
1
Redundancy in
nutrients, inputs
supplier
Names of inputs
Ave no of inputs/supplier types. Including VKB, Obaro,Alzu,
Parma, Provet.
4
Names of nutrients
Ave no of nutrient types. E.g.,Kraal manure, compost,
mulching, liquid manure
1
Names of suppliers
Ave no of sales outlets. IncludingLocal(farmgate), market
stalls in Hoedspruit, Meat Natural Auctions, Makhona
supermarket
1
Spatial and temporal
heterogeneity
Increased growing
season
Gardening (% of respondents)
100%
Field cropping (% of respondents)
0%
Livestockand/orFruit (% of respondents)
40%
Mixed cropping
Now practising (% of respondents)
100%
Crop rotation
Now practising (% of respondents)
90%
Livestock integration
practices
Grazing management, restoration, firebreaks, fodder
production etc
0%
In Mametja-Sekororoin Limpopo the CRA learning group participants have primarily focused on
household food production (gardening, small livestock integration and fruit production) as the change
in climate has already rendered dryland field-cropping untenable as an activity. Even at household
level access to water for production is severely limiting for most households in the region. Learning
group members have been involved in local water access group-based schemes from drilling of new
boreholes and have increased their rainwater harvesting and storage options. They have
enthusiastically incorporated many climate resilient agriculture (CRA) practices introduced through
the interventions, with an average of 8 new practices for each participant and have equally
enthusiasticallyincorporated a range of vegetable, field and fodder crops into their farming system,
with an average of 11 crop types that were not cultivated prior to the interventions. They have also
increased their growing seasons by planting at different times and more consistently through the year
as well as including different crop types that yield better under the changing seasonal conditions. They
are using mixed cropping and crop rotation to good effect to improve soil fertility and soil health as
well as water use efficiency.
IN terms of absorptive adaptive capacities participants have increased their livelihood options through
farming and small businesses and have managed to improve their productivity, incomesand savings.
They are socially better connected and collaborate and learn in a number of new ways and generally
fell a lot more positive about their future.
The sunburst diagram below shows the proportion (%) of participants who have undertaken different
CRA practices. Those practices where only <6% of participants undertook the activity have not been
named in the diagram.The largest uptake was for trench beds, mixed cropping, crop rotation, micro-
tunnels and mulching. These practices had the most immediate impact on crop growth and improving
yields and have been very popular with participants.
28
Figure 6: Diagram indicating uptake of CRA practices by learning group members in the Mametja-Sekororo region of
Limpopo. July 2024. (n=20).
In the focus group discussions,participants also undertook a matrix ranking exercise to outline the
effectiveness of the various CRA practices according to criteria that are important to them as farmers.
The outcome of the exerciseis shown in the table below, using a scale of 1-3 where:
1=worse/no change/harder
2= some positive change
3=a lot better
Soil
Trench beds, 82%
Microtunnels, 65%
Shallow trenches, 12%
Furrows and ridges,
35%
Compost, 24%
Manure, 18%
Water
Tower gardens, 12%
Greywater use, 24%
Rainwater harvesting,
29%
Drip irrigation, 24%
Mulching, 53%
Diversion ditches, 12%
Plant production
Liquid manure, 12%
CA, 35%
Natural P&D control,
18%
Mixed cropping, 76%
Crop rotation, 76%
Livestock Integration
% Adoption of a range of CRA practices by Mametja-Sekororo participants: July 2024
29
Table 6: Effectiveness of CRA practises taken up assessed with criteria developed by the group members for Sedawa, Limpopo,
June 2024
EFFECTIVENESS OF PRACTICES: Limpopo, Sedawa_June24
Name of practice
P&D
control
Water
Crop
quality
Climate
control
Accessibility
Labour
Soil fertility
1
Tunnel
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
16
2
JoJo tank
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
11
3
Tower garden
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
15
4
Mulching
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
19
5
Underground RWH
tanks
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
9
6
Trench beds
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
14
7
Kraal and chicken
manure
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
17
8
Mandala beds
1
3
3
1
3
2
3
16
9
Diversion ditches
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
10
10
Stone bunds
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
17
11
Furrows and ridges
1
2
1
1
3
2
2
12
12
Compost
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
17
13
Mixed cropping
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
15
14
Poultry and livestock
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
12
15
Fruit production
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
12
16
Indigenous plants
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
16
28
35
33
21
35
39
37
Figure 5: A picture of the original matrix diagram
developed by the Sedawa participants, from which
the above table was developed.
For the participants the most significant
changes have been in greater efficiency in
labour and improved soil fertility fromthe
range of practices they have assessed. The
most significant CRA practices have been
introduction of mulching, micro-tunnels,
use of kraal and chicken manure, mandala
beds, stone bunds, making of compost
and incorporation of indigenous plants.
In Willows participants made the
following comments based on their matrix
ranking:
Participants who have been using tunnels have explained how grateful they are to have these andthe
huge impact on production that these tunnels have had. it has also encouraged them to work even
harder and extend the shade netting area in their gardens toprotect crops that are not inside the
tunnel. Not burning of tree leaves and using them as mulch in their gardens has saved them water. In
addition, participants implemented trench beds in numbers because they have observed the results
of trench beds and tunnels from other participants and loved the results. Boshvelder chickens(a multi-
purpose indigenous breed) were introduced last year, and more farmers want them, because they are
30
much better to house and look after, while selling both eggs and chicken as meat. The meat is found
to be tastier than the broiler and indigenous chicken.
Forcropyields and income,the following table summarizesthe annual quantities for 5 of the villages
in Limpopo where farmers have undertaken the climate resilient agriculture practices: a combination
of gardening, field cropping, fruit and small and large livestock.
In this region due to the change in climatic conditions, participants have focused mainly on homestead
food production as dryland field cropping has become untenable as an option. In the two villages –
Sedawa and Turkey, where MDF assisted the communities with water access, the average production
(amount in kgs) is substantially higher than in the other threes villages- Willows, Worcester and
Santeng where lack of access to water for both household purposes and multiple use options is
severely restricted.Average annual farming incomes in Willows and Turkey are substantially higher
(~R44000) than in the other three villages, mainly because livestock farming is prioritized, better
organised and linked to external support related to local auctions for livestockMeat naturally and
CSA). Santeng, which has the lowest average annual income (~R1100) is also the village with the least
access to water. For a large portion of the year, the villagers need to buy water to survive as there is
no access to surface waterin the village and springs and boreholes have been drying out.
On average the annual income for these farmers is around R36600 and they have managed to increase
their annual incomes by R 8440 on average, through implementation of the CRA practices(See
Attachment 4).
Figure 6: Average production and income figures for farmers participating in CRA in Limpopo for 2023-2024.
The focus group discussions also explored the different organisations at village level, their
relationships, importance to community members and their functions. In addition,they provided a
focus for outlining the learnings and changes people have been making, to provide a qualitative view
on adaptive capacity and improved resilience. The table below summarizes the different categories
and numbers of both internal and external organisations present in their villages.
Table 7: Number and categoriesof internal and external organisations in two villages in Limpopo (July 2024)
Santeng
Sedawa
Turkey
Willows
Worcester
Santeng SedawaTurkey Willows Worcester
Average of increase in incomeR 385.50R13 438.30R12 304.74R5 251.88R2 604.00
Average of IncomeR1 152.50R24 470.00R41 659.00R46 515.00R34 476.50
Average of Inc in amount115.0 474.31301.9284.4 193.0
Average of Amount in kg675.01430.5 2200.5650.4523.8
Average of Eaten75% 59% 62% 73% 82%
Average annual village level productionand income figures in Limpopo,
2023 (n=20)
31
Organisational clusters(Limpopo)
Sedawa (19)
Willows (33)
Farming, livestock
Internal
3 (poultry and crop farming
coopsand livestock association
– DoA)
1 (Livestock association-
DoA)
A numberof NGOs operate in the region:
AWARD, K2C, CSA, Meat naturally, World
Vision, LIMA-RDF and MDF, but generally are
quite specialised and work with a restricted
number of individuals in the community.
DoA is important but provides limited and
sporadic support
External
2 (MDF, DoA)
4(MDF, LIMA, Meat
Naturally, Department of
Agriculture (DoA)
Water
Internal
1
Support for multipurpose water provision is
lacking in Willows and no internal self-supply
options were mentions
External
1 (MDF)
Community engagement
Internal
3 (drop-incentre, football)
4
Cultural clubs,child supportcentres, feeding
schemes
External
2 (CWP, Hlokomela)
Church
Internal
4
In some villages churches aren’t seen to
support the community, but in others
church members provide social support to
the needy in their area
Savings
Internal
14
9
Stokvels are a traditional practise and are
common in the villages. The VSLAs are seen
to differ as here people can save for
productive activities and small businesses
external
1 (MDF)
1 (MDF)
Funeral and ceremonies
Internal
9
10
These groups are seen as important to
maintain the social fabric and also assist
people in managing cash flow for these
ceremonies, which can be very expensive.
MahlathiniDevelopment Foundation was given a central role in both villages as very important, being
the only organisation explicitly assisting the communities to adapt to the quite devastating climate
change impacts.Comments from farmers have included the following:
Willows: Things are easy as we can use space available in our gardens and we do not have to purchase
vegetables from shops. Farmers can implement different practices that work for their gardens and
these practices have helped increase production and hunger will never affect them. It isthe most
important as it has helped farmers to do things on their own.
Sedawa: They have learnt to continue farming under difficult climatic conditions (hot and dry), sell and
make an income. One can eat wellfrom your garden and generate an income from a small garden.
Life is better and less stressful.
The Department of Agricultureis considered important, with the caveat that in recentyears farmers
have received little support. Presently they are assisted through the livestock associations buthave
not received any support in production for the last 4-5 years.
Support from the Traditional Authorities (TAs) appears to be a mixed bag, with those from Willows
mentioning that the TA only assists with land allocations and community conflicts, but in Sedawa the
TA plays a big role in the community for which the community is grateful. Theyhavehelped with
32
borehole installation for people to have access to water in the community, land allocations, help to
solve community conflicts, installed WIFI hotspots for the community and have hired nighttime
security patrols to control crime in the area.
Municipal Ward councillors only work in solving conflicts in the community,identifyingpoor people in
the community, reportingelectricityand waterissues andtheneed for housing, but they do not assist
in agricultural, livelihoodor environmental management issues.
NGO support seems to be patchy, as they are present in some villages but not others and also tend to
support specific smaller numbers of community members. NGOs such as AWARD, LIMA-RDF, World
Vision, K2C, World Vision, CSA and Meat naturally provide learning, collaboration and limited support
for agricultural, livelihoods, nutrition, livestock and resource managementand small business
development. There is little to no focus on climate adaptation, community organisation for resource
management, wateraccess andwater management– functions that only MDF provide for in these
communities.
Both the internally organised funeral and savings groups are well distributed within the two villages.
Generally,groups have between 10-40 members, with a few being larger. This process has developed
as whole community organisations suffered from difficulties with some of the households not
contributing to the schemes but expecting support. These groups are seen as important, as
participants feel it is better to work together to support each other and that this also assists with being
able to afford biggerexpenses and helpspeople to plan for unforeseen events. The vast majority of
participants in these groups are women (~80%).
The Venn diagram below indicates the importanceof organisations to the community (those closest
to the middle) as well as their relationships. The orange dotted lines in the diagram below depict
strong and good relationships and the blue lines depict neutral relationships where organisations are
aware of each other but do not proactively interact.
33
Figure 7: Venn diagram of importance of organisationsand relationships between them for the Willows community in
Limpopo. July 2024
From the Venn diagram one can note that the community find support from external organisations
both NGOS and the Department of Agriculture to be very important (Larger orange cards)and that
they deem their relationships to be good. They more often than not rely on the NGOs to bring the
government Departments, including Agriculture, but also health, social welfare, roads, water service
authorities and education closer to them. In this village the groups formed for supporting funerals and
local ceremonies are also seen as very important. These groups know about each other but do not
pro-actively collaborate. The local stokvels and savings groups are not considered that important
(smaller blue and yellow cards). Again, the groups are aware of each other but donot interact.
When asked whatthey have learntand how things have changedthrough being involved in local
organisations farmers made the following comments:
ØThe groups have been very helpful. Burial groups started in thecommunity, and everyone had to
contribute when there was a funeral, but people were not all participating knowing that they
wouldbe assistedregardless. Now there are smaller groups where only those who are prepared
to or can contribute and benefit from the support.Funerals happen almost every week and are
very expensive, so taking part allows one the peace of mindthat you will bury your loved one with
dignity.
ØThe MDF learning group hashelped small scale farmerswho were active but withlowyields. It
also has helped poor households change their livelihood, by having a small back yard garden and
makingan income from it to provide for their families.
ØThey have started small business by being part of the savings groups.Savings groups have also
decreased their debt from loan sharks. They are able to loan money and buy agricultural inputs
and households essentials, start-up small businesses and pay for their children’scollege fees.
ØWorking together as a communityhas helped a lot of people have things they have in their
households even in the state where they depend on social grants and selling vegetables from their
gardens.
ØLearning groups of farmers have taught them more on how to feed their families in these states
of high employment and make an income. This alone has improved their livelihood because some
are now able tofarm in big fields and employ people to work.
With regards to how organisationshave assisted the community to adapt to climate change the
villagers (Sedawa and Willows) made the following comments:
ØMDF has helped with a lot of things, starting with managing the water they have, use of grey water
and harvesting rainwater.They havestopped burning of organic matterbutinstead use this
material for mulching and in the deep trenchbeds to improve soil fertility and reduce evaporation.
They no longer payfortractors to plough, instead using conservation agriculturewhen planting
field crops.
ØThey used to do mostly dryland cropping, but this practise was becoming very difficult due to lack
of rain and changing weather patterns, with many crop failures and low yields.Now they know
how to collect water from far to use for both consumption and irrigation in their household
gardens. They would not have thought of doing this if they were working on their own.
ØThey know how to control soil and water movement in their households and outside their yards.
34
ØThey have lessened conflictsin the community. An example are the smaller groups of community
burial societies, which reduces conflict and also assists the community as there are a high number
of deaths
ØThe MDF learning group has helped them adapt to climate change. They have been active in
farming for years, and some use borehole water in their homesteads for irrigation. They have been
struggling with pests and diseases in their farming activities and also suffered a decrease in
productivity, but through the Climate Resilient Agricultural trainings and support they are able to
make organic sprays for both pests and disease control, they know the importance of improving
soil health and protecting the soil from extreme heat. They also use tunnels that help protect their
crops from the extreme climate and pests.
ØThey have learnt how to grow fodder for their livestock and savethatfor winter when there is
littlegrass and a lotofburning happening in the villages.
ØThey have also learnt the importance of farmers networks and working together with both
livestock and crop farming.
The table below outlines the participation of community members in different internal and external
organisations and groups. It highlights the greater participation of women when compared to men
and youth. It also highlights that a reasonably large proportion of inhabitants in these villages do not
belong to any groups or organisations.
Table 8: Participation in internal and external organisations for community members in Willows, Limpopo. June 2024
Village
Organisation
Type
No in
village
No of
participants
Men
Women
Youth
Internal
External
Importance
(Scale 1-3)
Willows
Farming
Livestock
committee DoA)
1
200
200
1
1
3
No of
community
members~
800
CRA learning
group (MDF)
1
69
10
53
6
1
1
3
Meat naturally-
auctions
1
100
80
20
1
2
LIMA RDF (food
security)
1
26
7
2
17
1
3
Funeral
suport
Funeral groups
8
200
28
172
1
3
Savings
Stokvels
10
141
7
134
1
2
VSLAs (MDF)
2
37
3
30
1
1
3
Clubs(farming
and saving)
1
24
24
1
3
Community
Development
Primary health
care
(Hlokomela)
2
7
1
2
4
1
2
NGOs
Climate and
food security
3
132
13
85
23
1
3
Govt
Deprtments
CWP and DoA
2
200
1
3
TA
Land and
conflict
resolution
1
800
1
2
Municipal
council
Services,
poverty
1
800
1
2
In summary, the complexity of local and self-organisation in the villages is quite low and restricted to
socially important aspects of funerals, ceremonies and saving for household needs. Connections, both
35
local and cross-scale are generally made through linkages with external organisations who focus on
this aspect- invariably certain NGOs. In these villages, where the CRA learninggroups have been active,
participants implemented a range of farming, as wellas water and resource management activities
that have made a huge differencefor them. Many can now have food on the table and make a modest
living from farming and small business activities – which they have found to be crucial in the present
economic downturn and lack of employment opportunities.However, some ofthe climate change
impacts mentioned such as destruction of houses, roads and infrastructure (such aselectricity),
increased poverty, crime and impacts on human health could, to date, not be coherently tackled by
the communities. There is little to no institutional support for these aspects. Youth are considered
disinterested in contributing to village life often waiting for better opportunities rather than getting
involved in household foodproduction.
B.Bergville, KwaZulu -Natal case study
This area falls within the upper uThukelariver basinin the Northern Drakensberg. It falls within the
cool sub-tropicalsub-humid, montane and alpine grassland zones, with average annual temperatures
of around 15ᵒC, with good summer rainfall(650-1300mm/annum)and cold dry winters.Rainfall
variability has increasedsignificantly in the last 10 years as has temperature and heatwaves.
Occurrence of extreme weather patterns wind, hail and storms has also increased significantly in the
region.
A key vulnerability identified for the region isthat of the potential for increasing food insecurity under
changingclimaticconditions, with very high levels of unemployment and poverty. Over-utilisation of
natural resources combined with a lack of management of these resources has led to erosion and
reduction of water availability, leading to water stress in these villages. In addition, between 70-80%
of inhabitants are entirely reliant on social grants (child grants and pensions) for their incomes. Thus,
pressure on existing natural resources to fulfil basic needs (grazing for livestock, firewood, plants for
food and medicine and water) is likely to continue and intensify.Not only are poor land-use practices
impacting production and ecological health and integrity, but these impacts are greatly exacerbated
under hotter andmore erratic rainfall conditions that are predicted for the region.
Climate change impacts of increased variability in rainfall patterns(late onset of rain, storms, and hail)
with increased heat and reduced rainfall, with associated decrease in water availability, increased
erosion and alien vegetation, decrease in grazing quantity and quality linked to damage to houses and
infrastructure such as road and electricity, were strongly perceived by community members in this
region. The negative impact on participants’ livelihoods and the social fabric of their communities has
also been emphasised.
Mahlathini Development Foundation has been implementing a systemic approach to climate change
adaptation and climate resilient agriculture in partnership with the Maize Trust for conservation
agriculture and SAEON/EFTEON, UKZN-CWRR, the INR, WWFand the Wildtrustfor water and
resources stewardship processes for around 8-10 years, across 5-18 villages in the area.Close
cooperation and sharing of information and learnings with other stakeholders through a strategic
water source area partnership called the Northern Drakensberg Collaborative has beenimportant
throughout the implementation processes. Other major stakeholders in the upper uThukela region
have included SANBI and the WRC, among others.Close collaboration also with the local authorities –
traditional Councils, Ward councillors and the Local Municipality as well as the KZNDARD has been a
hallmark of work in this area.
36
Work has more recently been undertaken in 5 villages, with around 150 smallholder farmers. The case
study focused on 4 villages (Vimbukhalo, Stulwane, Ezibomvini and Eqeleni), with 20 individual
snapshot interviews conducted and threeparticipatory impact assessment (PIA) sessions in Stulwane
(35 participants), Eqeleni and Ezibomvini (25 participants)respectively.
The focus group discussions explored the different organisations at village level, their relationships,
importance to community members and their functions. In addition, they provided a focus for
outlining the learnings and changes people have been making, to provide a qualitative view on
adaptive capacityand improved resilience. The table below summarizes the different categories and
numbers of both internal and external organisations present in their villages.
Table 9: Number and categories of internal and external organisations in Bergville, KZN, June 2024
Organisational clusters(Bergville, KZN)
Stulwane (35)
Eqeleni (12)
Ezibomvini (16)
Farming, livestock
Internal
5 (poultryand
livestock
association,
stock theft
association,
Firewood
cutting and sale
group, CA work
group)
3 (Livestock
association and
stock theft group
and agricultural
cooperative)
4 (Marketing group,
livestock
association, stock
theft association
and agric coop)
DoAsupports with livestock, dipping and
vaccinations. In the pastassisted with field cropping
but COVID and climate change has stopped this.
MDF is importantinthe villages. FSG has supported
with biochar experiments, some fencing, and limited
fencing andmarketing support.Agricultural
cooperatives were formed in 2016, but have not been
active due to lack of support from DoA)
CRA learning groups: Ezibomvini (52), Stulwane (30),
External
2 (MDF, DoA)
2(MDF,Farmer
Support Group-
FSG, DoA)
2 (MDF,FSG,DoA)
Waterand natural resource management
Internal
4 (Water
committee,
resource
management
committee, craft
group,
community
burial forest)
1(River cleaning
group)
2Water and
resource
management
committees)
Committees look after the 2 self-supply water
schemes (94 households) in Stulwane and 1 scheme
in Ezibomvini (11hhs), undertake grazing
management, alien clearing, and erosion control
activities
MDF supports the Climate resilient agriculture
learning groups, to which other committees are
linked.
External
1 (MDF)
1 (MDF)
1 MDF)
Community engagement, social
Internal
3 (soccer,
hunting group)
3(youth group,
hailstorm group,
men’s group)
2 (youth group,
hailstorm group)
Cultural clubs, sport, hunting, prayer groups,
traditional ceremonies)
External
Church
Internal
1
2
4
Savings
Internal
5
3
4
Stokvels are a traditional practise and are common in
the villages.In Bergville the stokvels are arranged
according to purpose e.g. firewood,building,
Christmas, food and funeralsThe VSLAs are seen to
differ as here people can save for productive
activities and small businesses
External
2 (MDF- VSLA
and BLF-bulk
loan fund)
3 (MDF)
4(MDF VSLAs incl
new youth group)
37
Health
External
Dept of Health –
Mobile clinic
MahlathiniDevelopment Foundation was considered very important in all three villages, as the only
organsiation that has consistently supported smallholder farmers and villagers to adapt to climate
change and find avenues for improved livelihoods despite difficult environmental and economic
conditions. The table below outlines the analysis of climate change impacts by community members
and their adaptive strategies.
Table 10: Climate change impacts with strategies and actions undertaken and thoughts of Bergvillecommunity. June 2024
Natural
CC Impact
Solutions Tried
Facilitated
by MDF
(*)
Solutions Thought Of
↓Rain
-Clearing alien trees and Greywater use
-Avoiding veld fires
-Trench beds and drip irrigation
-Micro-tunnels and mixed cropping
-Mulching,No-till, cover crops
-Rainwater harvesting
*
*
*
*
*
*
↓Access to water
-Locally led water access -spring
protection, pipes, taps
*
↓Grazing lands
(grasses)
-Stopped veld fires
-Make fire belts/breaks
-Rotational grazing *
-Herding of livestock and fencing of
fields and gardens to avoid conflicts of
crops being eaten by livestock.
↑Heat
-Cover crops and tunnels
*
-Reduced burning of veld and waster
to reduce emissions
-Promoting recycling
↑Floods
-
↑Soil Erosion
-Herding livestock and interchanging
grazing points
-Stone and brush packing
*
*
↑Winds
-Ukuteta ikhomani(traditional method
where a woman puts a calabash on her
back like a baby, it is believed to calm
heavy winds)
-Planting of trees and fruit for wind
protection
↑Alien vegetation
-Alien clearing
*
↑Hailstorms
-Ukuzila inhlabathi (traditional method
of stopping using the soil for that
particular period)
↓Houses
-Water channellingusing gutters and V-
drains
-Cutting grass around the houses to
prevent catching fire during windy
seasons
-Buildingstronger houses (using
cement/concrete)
-Diversion furrows
↓Roads and bridges
-Stone packs
-Diversion furrows
-Cleaning of Blockage in pipes
*
*
-Digging furrows for water drainage
next to the roads
↑Car accidents
-Speed humps
-Reducing speed
↑Falling of trees (along
the road/next to
houses)
-Cut trees that look cracked near the
roads
38
↑Diseases and
increased mortality
-Ukuchatha
-Use traditional herbs and medications
-Eating healthy foods- more organic
and traditional food *
-Regularclinic check-ups
↑Hunger/Poverty
-Climate resilient agriculture:CA,
livestock integration, intensive
homestead gardening, poultry (borilers,
layers, Boschvelders)
*
-Workshops to learn about financial
management
-Diversification of enterprises
↑Crime
-Not buying stolen goods
-Selling livestock
-Spreading awareness and
consequences of crime to children
↑Drug abuse
-Educating children about
consequences of drug abuse.
↑Divorces
Farming inputs (Need
more as fertilisers get
washed away by rains)
-Micro dosing of fertilizer
*
↑Prices
-Farm largerarea with diversity of crops
*
↑Infrastructure costs
(re-building costs)
-Applying for government assistance
↓Jobs
-Farming for selling
*
-Venture into other business
enterprises
This table provides a good overview of the CC impacts in the region and of activities undertaken or
thought of at community level to mitigate against these impacts. It also shows that communities are
experiencing very high levels of shocks and stressors related to climate change. The more integrated
approach used by MDF with the learning groups has helped to provide answers and action in quite a
number of these categories.Community members have commented on the range of new activities
now undertaken includingConservation Agriculture, taking care of the environment and natural
resources, poultry production as a business, saving water, taking care of water sources and working
together. They have gained knowledgeand skills to be self-sustainable through new methods and
approaches to farming(including fodder production and planting of cover crops), support for access
to inputs, business development skills, saving and support in marketing as well as access to water
closer to their homes.The mentioned repeatedly that they are now a lot more self-sustainable than
before and that their livelihoods have improved considerably.
These interventions have led to a number of groups and committees that have formed as a result,
including for example water committees, resource management committees and marketing groups.
More recently youth groups have formed, and youth have also set up their own village savings and
loan associations.
The Department of Agricultureis seen as important and has in the past provided support with
ploughing, seed and seedlings as well as training in value addition and livestock management.
Presently support is restricted to dipping and support for the livestock associations. They were rated
as a 2 on a scale of 1-5 in increasing importance due to the low level of service presently provided.
The Traditional Authorities and Ward committees (councillors) in this region do provide some support
in Land allocation, community conflicts, planting and harvesting times and in RDP housing
respectively, but generally do not have meetings with the community and provide little ongoing
support or services. Ward councillors in particular have little respect in the community and are seen
to only be interested in community affairs when elections are looming.
39
The stokvels, funeral groups and church groups are important internal organisations for maintaining
the fabric of the society and allowing householders to function in a cash deficit environment.
In general, the lack of government and institutional engagement in infrastructure and service delivery
support is notable, as is the ‘dis-engagement’ of both the Traditional Councils and the Local
Municipality in the development needs and processes of these communities.
When asked whatthey have learnt and howthings have changed through being involvedin local
organisations farmers made the following comments:
ØWe have learnt many new practices and approaches in farming and looking afterour
environment. For example, we have learnt how to save water in our farming and the
importance of planting cover crops.We have learnt about
-soil maintenance- soil cover, intercropping, crop rotation, run-off, crop mixing.
-Poultry both meat and egg production as well as multipurpose breeds.
-Building micro-tunnels, now able to see improvement of crops inside the tunnel
compared to outside.
-Trench beds which have a lot of organic matter and produce very good crops
-Water saving through drip irrigation and using greywater
-Hay baler making, making our own protein blocks, planting winter and summer crops
and supplements have helped our livestock
-Alien treesand bushes are the invading space for indigenous plants and finish the
grazing land, and water. There is improvement when these are removed.
-Closing dongas, land rehabilitation and reducing runoff and
-Cleaning our environment to protect our land from pollution
ØWe have learnt how to worktogether as groups which hasmade many things possible that
we couldn’t do before- such as running our own water access schemes, improving our grazing
lands and doing firebreaks, negotiating with our TraditionalCouncil and ward councillors. The
savings groups work together for improving livelihoods
ØWe have improved our financial status through saving money andspecifically saving for
farming inputs which has allowed us to continue farming despite the very difficult conditions.
In our neighbouring villages most people have stopped farming, but we have even expanded.
We have also learnt how to do farming for/as abusinessand have improved our business
skills. Before we were planting only for food.
ØWe have learnt about marketing,including advertising our production, pricing, working out
profits and have also included food exchange as a way to work with our produce.
ØWe have learnt about livestock integration and now can provide feed and supplementation
during winter to allow our livestock to survive. We have learnt about better medications and
management of our livestock. We now have healthy-looking well-fed livestock.
ØWe have learnt about spring protection tostop contamination and make water available for
both households and livestock and have learnt to look after our streams to improve the quality
and quantity of water.
With regards to how organisationshave assisted the community to adapt to climate change the
villagers (Stulwane, Eqeleni and Ezibomvini) made the following comments:
ØThe farming practices that we have learnt and our now using has improved our production
and the quality of our produce while most other community members have stopped farming
all together. We now have enough food and can even at times sell some surplus produce.
40
ØWe have learnt how our actions have increased the lack of water availability in our landscape
and are now implementing practices to ensure better management of our veld and water
including for example alien clearing, spring protection, firebreaks, control of livestock
movement and winter feeding of cattle.
ØBy working together,we candeal with some of the negative impacts of increased storms and
flooding. We assist those farmers and households which were impacted, rather than just
leaving them to cope by themselves. We fix our roads and bridges and do not wait for
someone to come and help us.
The table below outlines the participation of community members in different internal and external
organisations and groups. It highlights the greater participation of women when compared to men
and youth.
Table 11: Participation of community members in local organisations for the Stulwane village in Emmaus, Bergville. June 2024
KZN: Bergville
Stulwane village
No of community members `400
Organisation
Type
Organisation Name
No of
People
Men
Women
Youth
Internal/
external
Importance
(Scale 1-3)
Agriculture
MahlathiniDevelopment
Foundation
30
3
24
3
External
3
Poultry Group
10
3
6
1
internal
3
Livestock Farmers association
150
145
5
0
internal
3
Agricultural extension
20
3
17
0
external
3
Governance
Ward Council meetings
400
100
250
150
external
1
Stock Theft Association
50
35
15
0
internal
3
Economic
Poultry Group
10
3
6
1
3
VSLA
30
0
18
12
External
3
Small Entrepreneurs (grass
matts)
14
0
14
0
internal
1
Religious, Social
& Infrascture
Soccer team
32
0
0
32
internal
1
Beverages Stokvel Group
19
19
0
0
internal
2
Firewood stokvel
50
0
50
0
internal
2
Church
8
1
7
0
Internal
2
Amanqina (Hunting group)
60
45
0
15
internal
2
Funeral stokvel- umdiklizo
170
0
140
30
internal
2
Grocery stokvel + Christmas
Stokvel
90
0
60
30
internal
2
Ukutina (group that helps
each other make blocks for
house building)
13
0
13
0
internal
2
Water & Natural
Resources
Water Committees
30
10
20
0
internal
3
Grazing Land Management
30
24
6
0
internal
2
Alien species Cutting
20
5
12
3
internal
2
Health
Department of Health (local
mobile clinic)
400+
+-100
200+-
-+200
External
3
Note: Blocks marked in green are those community members that interact directly with MDF.
In summary, the complexity of local and self-organisation in the villages is quite low and restricted to
socially important aspects of funerals, ceremonies and saving for household needs. Connections, both
local and cross-scale are generally made through linkages with external organisations who focus on
this aspect- invariably certain NGOs. In these villages, where the CRA learninggroups have been active,
participants implemented a range of farming, as well as water and resource management activities
that have made a huge difference for them. Many can now have food on the table and make a modest
41
living from farming and small business activities – which they have found to be crucial in the present
economic downturn and lack of employment opportunities. However, some of the climate change
impacts mentioned such as destruction of houses, roads and infrastructure (such as electricity),
increased poverty, crime and impacts on human health could, to date, not be coherently tackled by
the communities. There is little to no institutional support for these aspects. Youth are in these villages
have started to become involved in the activities, an aspect that was also supported through the
provision of stipends to eco-champs. These youth learnt a lot about their environment and
management options through this process and also provided a service in their communities that was
valued by their elders, enabling them to integrate a lot better into the learning groups and activities
undertaken.
3.5DEVELOPMENT OF A MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLATFORM AND DASHBOARD
This aspect is part of the development and refinement of the overall MERL process for measuring and
reporting climate resilience for community level engagements in adaptation. The intention is that this
tool can be available to all stakeholders involved inthis field upon completion and will form part of
the MERL handbook that is being developed as well.
The intention of this tool is also that it is interactive and willhave the capability built in to compare
data from different sites and regions.
The framework of using absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities has been used to group,
analyse and visualise data.
Below, the recent snapshotinterviews (n=20) undertaken in Matatiele, Eastern Cape will be used as
an example.
C.Matatiele, Eastern Cape case study
This area falls within the Umzimvubu catchment of the Southern Drakensberg, bordering on Lesotho.
It falls within the cool sub-tropical semi-arid agroecological zone, with average annual temperatures
of around 17ᵒC, with summer rainfall averaging ~600mm and cold dry winters, with potential for snow.
Rainfall variability has increased significantly in the last 10 years as has occurrence of extreme weather
patterns wind, hail and storms.
A key vulnerability identified for the region isthat of the potential for increasing food insecurity under
changingclimaticconditions, with very high levels of unemployment and poverty. Over-utilisation of
natural resources combined with a lack of management of these resources has led to erosion and
reduction of water availability, leading to water stress in these villages. In addition, between 70-80%
of inhabitants are entirely reliant on social grants (child grants and pensions) for their incomes. Thus,
pressure on existing natural resources to fulfil basic needs (grazing for livestock, firewood, plants for
food and medicine and water) is likely to continue and intensify.Not only are poor land-use practices
impacting production and ecological health and integrity, but these impacts are greatly exacerbated
under hotter andmore erratic rainfall conditions that are predicted for the region.
Climate change impacts of increased variability in rainfall patterns(late onset of rain, storms, and hail)
with increased heat and reduced rainfall, with associated decrease in water availability, increased
erosion and alien vegetation, decrease in grazing quantity and quality linked to damage to houses and
infrastructure such as road and electricity, were strongly perceived by community members in this
region. The negative impact on participants’ livelihoods and the social fabric of their communities has
also been emphasised.
42
Mahlathini Development Foundation has been implementing a systemic approach to climate change
adaptation and climate resilient agriculture in partnership withEnvironmental and rural Solutions
(ERS), SaveAct and Lima-Rural Development Foundation also working in the region.
The dashboard- LANDING PAGE
The first dashboard is the Landing page, which includes a map, overall description of the area and
basic demographics of the communityor communities in question.
For Matatiele (n=20) the gender of respondentsto the snapshots were 71% women and 29% men and
the age group categories are as shown in the figure below with 5,9% between the ages of 18-35yrs,
35,3% between the ages of 36-50yrs, 52,9 %between the ages of 51-65yrs and 5,9% over the age of
65 yrs. These two small graphs are considered representative ofthe target group in Matatiele, showing
beneficiaries as primarily women and between the ages of 51-65 years of age, with a slightly smaller
beneficiary grouping between the ages of 35-50years. This indicates that participates are no longer
dominated by retirees, which is typical of these communities but working age unemployed people
farming to make a living. Included in these two target groups is what we have coined as the ‘missing
middle’ which is a sub-category of people who do not receive any social grants - astheir children are
grown-up, but they are still too young to receive pensions. This group has in recent years been shown
to be the most vulnerable, but also the most active grouping in these communities.
Figure 8: Gender and age distribution for resilience snapshot respondents in Matatiele, June 2024
43
Figure 9: The Landing page in the dashboard visualization tool for smallholder farmer climate resilience in South Africa
44
The dashboard_ ABSORPTIVEand ADAPTIVECAPACITY
Thesedashboards focus on indicators that provide an indication of change in a number of facets and
has the following resilience indicators and information sets.
Resilience indicator
Datasets
Socially self-organised
- Increased participation in collaborative action/ social agency groups
- Average number of new groups that individuals belong to
Shared learning
- Increased diversity of knowledge-sharing mechanisms
-Increase number of information sources
Ecologically self-regulated
- Improved water use efficiency
- Improved soil health
Honours legacy
- Traditional practices (number in use per participant)
Builds human capital
- Use of savings
- Use of loans
Reasonably profitable
- Increase in income
- Increase in savings
- Increase in size of farming activities
Diversity and redundancy
- Increase in income sources
- Increase in number of farming activities (gardening, field cropping, livestock,
trees and natural resources)
- Increased crop diversity
- Water sources and reliability
- Number of sources for nutrient, suppliers and sales outlets
Spatial and temporal
heterogeneity
- Increased growing season
- Crop rotation/mixed cropping
- Livestock integration
The results for these indicator sets for Matatiele are shown below:
SOCIALLY-SELF ORGANISED
Figure 10:Above left and right: Shows the
different groups farmers belong to and the
number ofnew groups on average which each
individual has joined since undertaking climate
resilient agriculture (CRA).
From the graph above the changes in social organisation are primarily belonging to the CRA learning
group, initiating new savings groups, setting up a building stokvelas well as the water committees and
water scheme participation. It indicates that participants now belong to differentcategories of groups
and ones that have as a focus agricultural and environmental concerns in the area.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Building stokvel
Church
CRA learning group
Funeral stokvel
Grocery stokvel
Loan
Local insurance
Savings
Selling group
Water committee
Water scheme
% of farmers
Collaborative action groups and the
percentage of farmers involved in each
before and now
Before
Now
Average number of new group types
per farmer
1
Matatiele:
45
SHARED LEARNING
For this indicator respondents were asked
about how they learn and share knowledge
and how this was done before their
involvement in CRA and now. The figure
below outlines these sharing mechanisms.
From the graph it can be seen that there has
been an increase in sharing between
community members, participation in the
learning group and significantly a significant
increase in using cell phones, ‘Whatsapp’
and written informationin recent years.On
average participants used 3 information
sources in the past and now are making use of 6 different sources. This provides evidence of greater
interconnectivity between community members and with the broader environment which is a strong
building block towards the use of more digital platforms for information and knowledge sharing.
ECOLOGICALLY SELF REGULATED
This indicator encompasses concepts of ecological integrity, eco-systems services and functionality of
ecosystems. It is difficult to assess directly, given that these smallholder communities live in areas
where ecological functioning is already compromised through overuse and erosion.
Practices that improve water and soil management were taken as proxies for self-regulation and the
percentage of farmers using each of these practices was measured, as shown in the graph below
Figure 11: Percentage of farmers using different water use efficiency practices.
By far the largest proportion of participants were using
mulching (88%),trenchbeds (53%), rainwater
harvesting drums (47%), Jo-Jo tanks (24%)and micro-
tunnels (24%) in their homestead gardens to improve
water use. The use of greywater andtowergardens
was quite low (6%). Erosion control measuresincluded
furrows and diversion ditches (18%), stone packing
and brush-packing(6%)- mostly also in and around the
homesteads. These practices combined with soil improvement (organic matter and soil health), as well
as crop diversification, mixed cropping and integrated pest and weed management provide a suite of
practices building self-regulation in the homestead farming system. To explore this one of the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Community members
Facebook
Home visits
Learning groups
Meetings
Phone calls
WhatsApp
Written info
% of farmers
Knowledge sharing methods and the
percentage of farmers using each before
and now
Before
Now
Bottles
and
bucket
s
Brush
packin
g
Diversi
on
ditches
Drip
irrigati
on
Drums Furrow
s
Grey
water
Jojo
tanks
Mulchi
ng
Raised
beds
Shallo
w beds
Stone
packin
g
Tower
garden
s
Trench
beds
Tunnel
s
Total 18 618 12 47 18624 88666653 24
0
20
40
60
80
100
% of farmers
Efficient water use practices and the percentage of farmers currently practicing each
Water use efficiency
Average number of
efficient water- use
practices per farmer:
4
46
questions asked were the participants assessment of the improvement of their soil health in their
production system.
Figure 12: Percentage of farmers who have noticed an improvement intheir soil health functions.
From the graph above around 75% of farmers have noticed a reduction in pests and diseases since
implementation of the CRA system in their gardens and fields, 53% of farmers have noticed an
improvement in the organic matter content of their soil, 47% have seen an improvement in soil
structure (less compaction and increased friability of soil) and 35% have noticed an improved ability
of the soil to deal with heat and drought (reduced wilting and heat stress in crops).
A number of aspects were looked at interms ofproduction, productivity, diversity and livelihood
options. Smallholder farmers work within a mixed farming system of gardening, field cropping,
livestock production and production of trees and multi-purpose species. Not all farmers undertake all
these activities. An assessment of the number of farmers who increased their activities, as well as the
seasonality of these activities was undertaken.Examples for increased seasonality include planting
vegetables in both winter and summer, increasing field cropping by planting winter or cover crops
going into autumn, changing small livestock practices and breeds to be able to do poultry husbandry
also in winter
Figure 13: Percentage of farmers who increased their farming activities and also increased their growing season for different
farming activities.
From the graphs it can be seen that involvement in gardening and livestock husbandry has increased,
field cropping has remained constant and tree production has decreased. 18% of farmers have
35
76
53 47
0
20
40
60
80
100
Ability to deal with heat
and drought
Fewer pests and
diseases
Organic matter contentSoil structure
Percentage of farmers with improved soil health in each soil health category
Total
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Field cropping
Gardening
Livestock
Trees and other resources
% of farmers
%of farmers participating in each
farming activity before and now
Before
Now
Increased growing season
Field
cropping Gardening Livestock
Total 47 94 59
0
50
100
% farmers
% of farmers that experienced
an increased growing season
47
increased their farming activities.Most of the farmer (94%) increased their growing season in their
gardens (winter and summer production), 59% increased the season for livestock production (mostly
through better housing and introduction of multipurpose breeds of poultry) and 47% increasedtheir
field cropping growing season (through production of winter cover crops).
Mixed cropping and crop rotation were also introduced to farmers. These practices increased from
29-59% for field cropping and 88% of farmers introduced these practices in their gardens.
Farmers werethenasked about the range of livelihoods activities (income generation activities) they
have access to. The intention was to get some indication of the contribution of farming to their
livelihoods. The graphs are shown below
Figure 14: Above left: Percentage of farmers using crop rotation and mixed cropping and above right, the percentage of
farmers who have access to different livelihood options.
Categories for incomes have shifted in the last 4-5 yearsand many more people are relying on farming
to provide a livelihood (from 29-76%). This is other options (usually day labour or part-time
employment programmes) have decreased. Mostly formal employment opportunities in the cities and
other regions has decreased dramatically since the COVID pandemic. These figures point towards the
possibility that practicing CRA is making farming a viable option for these households, reducing
migration for employment.
The CRA practices implemented by farmers were also assessed. These would include practices related
to soil, water, plant production and livestock integration. Examples of practices mentioned by farmers
were:trench beds, mixed cropping, crop rotation, rain water harvesting, drip kits, grey water,
mulching, planting of herbs, Conservation Agriculture, use of compost and manure, shallow trenches,
poultry housing, micro tunnels, liquid manure, foliar spray, natural pest control, diversion ditchesand
furrows& ridges. Average increase in the number of CRA practices per farmer in the last three years
has been 4 practices, as
shown in the figure
alongside.
The tree diagram below
shows the percentage of
farmers that have
undertaken the range of
practices.
Field croppingGardening
Before 29 0
Now 59 88
0
20
40
60
80
100
% of farmers
Percentage of farmers practicing crop
rotation and mixed cropping before and now
CRAparticipation
0
20
40
60
80
% of farmers
1 year
2 years
3 years
> 3 years
Average increase
in number of CRA
practices
practiced per
Average number
of traditional
practices
4
4
1
Farming Other Remitta
nces
Small
busines
s
Social
grants
Before 29 71624 35
Now 76 53 18 24 59
0
20
40
60
80
100
% of farmers
Livelihood diversity options (income sources) and the
percentage of farmers deriving income from each
before and now
48
Figure 15:Percentage of farmers undertaking different CRA practices in Matatiele, June 2024
Soil
Trench beds 82%
Microtunnels 65%
Shallow trenches
12%
Eco-
circl…
Furrows and
ridges 35%
Compost 24%
Manure
18%
Water
Tower
gardens
12%
Greywater
use 24%
Rainwater
harvesting
29%
Drip irrigation 24%
Mulching 53%
Diversion
ditches
12%
Plant production
Liquid
manure
12%
Foliar
spray
6%
Conservation
agriculture 35%
Plantin
g herbs
6%
Natural pest
and disease
control 18%
Mixed cropping 76%
Inter
croppin
g 6%
Crop rotation 76%
Livestock Integration
Impr
oved
housi
ng …
Fodd
er
prod
uct…
Cover
crops
6%
Winter
supplementa
tion 12%
Grazing
management
12%
Fireb
reaks
6%
Cutti
ng
and
fee…
Traditional practices
Seed saving 53%
Indig
enou
s
live…
Tradi
tiona
l pest
con…
Fruit
canning 12%
Traditional
planting
18%
Traditional
seed
storage 18%
CRA practices and % farmers who practice them
49
3.6CONCLUSIONS
These case studies, although highly complex and detailed in nature clearly indicate the improved
climate resilience of smallholder farming communities working within a community-based climate
change adaptation framework,working to implement climate resilient agriculture practicesacross
their mixed farming system and including water and resources stewardship and management into the
portfolio of activities. This has alsoincreased annual farmer incomesby roughly R16000/annum, over
and above providing for household food security. This is in a context where rural poverty has
deepened substantially. This research has indicated that smallholder households not involved in
coherent adaptation activities have experienced an average of a 40% reduction in incomes post-
COVID. The process has also significantly increased human capacity, through improved knowledge and
skills as well as local governance, leading to the concept of self-sustainability emerging in these
villages.
These case studies provide a strong evidence base for the success of this approach and theurgent
need for expanding the reach of these interventions to many more rural communities.
4.EXPLORATION OF FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS GREATER SUCCESS AND
SUSTAINABILITY OF FARMING BUSINESS ENTERPRISES PARTICIPATING IN THE
MAHLATHINI DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROGRAMMES:ACASE STUDY
By Nqe Dlamini
ABSTRACT
Sustainable livelihoods, food security, climate sensitive farming, financial services for small-scale
farmers and promotion of enterprise development interventions underpin strategic development
interventions meant to address poverty, under-development andecosystem challenges in Africa.
Savings groups and farm-based microenterprises are being widely promoted as crucial steps toward
economic empowerment, sustainable livelihoods and conservation restoration. This case study
reports on factors that contributetowards greater success of farm-based enterprises that are
operated by 18 participants in the Climate Resilient Agriculture (CRA) programme implemented by
Mahlathini Development Foundation. The study concludesthat focused savings groups that employ
Village Savings and Loans Association (VSLA) methodology provide a springboard for participants to
improve their incomes through starting and operating farm-based microenterprises and income
generating activities. The study also concluded that participants alsoengage in non-farming income
generating activities to supplement their farming incomes and better their livelihoods.
Key concepts:Sustainable livelihoods, resource-based view, resource-dependency theory
4.1INTRODUCTION
This case study presents factors that contribute towards greater success of farm-based enterprises
that are operated by small-scale farmers. Farm-based business enterprises play a significant role in
most countries, and in particular in the African continent as they contribute immensely to food
security and improved household incomes. A growing body of literature and practical experience
demonstrates huge potential for small-scale farmers not only for income generation, but also for
50
advancing integrated rural development objectives and sustainable livelihood agenda (Maican et al.,
2021; Adobor, 2020; Mubanga & Umar, 2020).
Farm-based microenterprises that are specifically operated by small-scale farmers are viewed as
strategic accelerators for transitioning towards Climate Resilient Agricultural (CRA) practices. These
microenterprises include survivalist enterprises that arenot formally registered with government
regulatory bodies. Challenges facing small-scale farmers are known and in the main include lack of
access to production infrastructure, financial resources, extension services and sustainable markets.
In response tothese challenges, many farm-based microenterprises turn to informal financial services
to support their production activities. Mahlathini Development Foundation (MDF) has given
considerable attention to Village Savings and Loans Associations (VLSAs). Thisis because VSLAs
promise to provide alternative finance for people and microenterprises that are unable to secure
operating credit and other related financial services from the mainstream financial institutions such
as Development Financial Institutions (DFIs) and commercial banks.
The study noted the complexity in defining business enterprises that are operated by small-scale
farmers. There are three main reasons for this.
•First, the difference between a business enterprise and its owner-operator may be distorted. This
is because the decisions and transactions that happen in a business enterprise tend to shift and
favour consumption priorities of a household. In many instances, activities that sustain a
household and business operations are mixed and treated as one.
•Second, the size and limited production resources may be perceived to box farm-based
microenterprises into subsistent production which may not be the case.
•Third, a business enterprise is generally described as a unit of production and/or distribution for
a specific market for the sole purpose of generating profit. This is the mainstream definition of a
business enterprise. It is based on a premise of the owner’s ability to recover cost of production
and generate profit. However, microenterprises that are operated by small-scale farmers are too
diverse and complex to be confined by profit-maximisation objectives. This complexity has been
observed by Fairhead and Leach (2005) in Wale and Chipfupa (2021) who noted that African
agriculture is completely embedded on diverse development priorities of rural people hence the
misfit between mainstream characteristics of a business enterprise and what farm-based
microenterprises do.
The study acknowledges the difficulty in understanding the characteristics and traits of the owners of
farm-based microenterprises. This is because farm-based microenterprises operate in complex
environments that demand owners to attend to competing and insome cases, conflicting priorities.
Wale and Chipfupa (2021) argue that the analysis of a farm-based microenterprises should
acknowledge attributes such as prioritising food for the household, mixing household and farm
operations, using family labour and sometimes relying on indigenous knowledge systems. In many
instances, they may not be too concerned with administrative duties such as record keeping.
The study also noted that farm-based microenterprises operate whether they are formally registered
or not (Sharrif & Peou, 2008). Informed by this reality, this study critically explored factors that
contribute towards greater success and sustainability of microenterprisesthat are operated by small-
scale farmers that are supported by MDF. These factors were measured against the widely accepted
assumptions and characteristics of a business enterprises.The significance of this study is that it can
51
benefit research institutions, development agencies, practitioners, policy makers, financiers and grant
makers with regards to resourcing non-governmental organisations that support small-scale farmers,
microenterprises and advancement of CRA agenda.
4.2MAINFEATURESOFABUSINESSENTERPRISE
So far, this article has made reference to farm-based microenterprises and their operators (owners).
The purpose of this section is to identify main features and characteristics of a business enterprises.
The main features were drawn from various researchers on the subject of Enterprise Development
(ED). Four main features were found sufficient to describe creators and owners of business
enterprises. Generally, creators and owners of business enterprises are referred to as entrepreneurs.
An entrepreneur hasan ability and skills to:
•create and operate a business activity where none existed before (Cunningham, 2014);
•align vision to willpower and resourcefulness, tolerate and rise above failures (Díaz-Pichardo et
al., 2012), while at the same time learn and earn profit (Gartner, 2008);
•be visionary, identify a new income generating opportunity and take conscious decisions to act on
it (Thompson, 2009), and use technical skills to produce, promote and distribute products and/or
services (Gartner, 2008); and
•enjoy internal locus of control which includes independence and self-reliance (Karr et al., 2018).
Owners of business enterprises adopt certain indicators to measure the performance of their
enterprises. Profitability of an enterprise is the most common indicator of measuring success (Mitton,
2009; Vesper, 2014). However, Liles (2014) observed that someentrepreneurs would still consider
themselves successful if their business enterprises help them achieve personal autonomy even if they
earn lower incomes than their peers in the employment. In addition, some researchers list business
experience, businessskills, technical skills, innovation, continuous education and training as critical
success factors of a business enterprise (Rankhumise & Van Niekerk, 2010). The combination of these
factors is important as they enable business owners to take informed decisions, manage cash flow,
identify and mitigate risk, grow customer base and continuously afford to finance the operations of
the business.
4.3PROMOTIONOFENTERPRISEDEVELOPMENTINSOUTHAFRICA
The purpose of this section is to present the South African historical context in relation to the
enterprise development national agenda. Torppa (2006) shares a view that the promotion of
microenterprises began in the 1970s as a response to a series of economic crises which affected
national economies world-wide. Torppa (2006) further notes that in the 1970spolicy makers and
economist perceived microenterprises as quick job creators and disseminators of social benefits, and
such enterprises were less enormous to establish and comparatively required modest resources.
In South Africa, small businesses are categorised into groups such as survivalist, micro, small and
medium, hence the acronym SMME, which refers to small, medium and micro enterprises (National
Small Business Amendment Act, 2004). Post the first inclusive democratic elections in 1994, the South
African government focused on promoting and supporting the SMME programmes to foster inclusive
economic participation that was hoped to bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth. Using
its power, the government focused on policy changes and support interventions for survivalist, micro
52
and small enterprises that were dominated by previously disadvantaged black operators. This meant
that all three spheres of government were responsible for creating enabling and regulatory
environment were legislatively mandated to develop and support the SMME sector.
Informed by this legislative mandate, development of SMME sector policies, promotion of
entrepreneurship, strengthening enabling environments and enhancing competitiveness were pillars
of SMME support agenda. These pillars of support rested on core thrustssuch as expanding access to
finance; improving market opportunities; localising support and co-funding minimum business
infrastructure facilities for targeted enterprises. The target enterprises included informal
microenterprises which were specifically owned by previously disadvantaged individuals, women and
youth.
However, despite noble intentions of the government, the majority of stakeholders in the SMME
sector complained that the public sector support services were failing to benefit survivalist and
microenterprises. The dominant perception is that survivalist and microenterprises tended to rely far
more upon informal than upon formal sources of support. It appeared that this category of enterprises
lost faith on government institutions in providing support services. Further to this, proxies that were
used to define SMMEs were complicated to apply especially for survivalist and informal
microenterprises operating in rural communities.
Drawing from the International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) and the International Labour
Organisation (ILO), informal enterprises are mainly found in the informal economy and their economic
activities are insufficiently covered by formal regulation (ILO, 2015; ICLS, 2018). In most basic terms,
informal enterprises include survivalist, small and unregistered enterprises. Originating from urban
centres, informal economy would include a multitude of informal enterprises such as street traders,
vendors, hairdressers, caterers, dressmakers, etc.
Historically, targeted enterprise development forsurvivalist and small-scale enterprises been
associated with philanthropy – where non-profit organisations would help poor people to operate
Income Generating Activities (IGAs) and microenterprises as vehicles to help the poor and vulnerable
claw their way out of poverty (Midgley, 2008, cited by Lateh et al., 2017). Lateh et al. (2017) affirm
that this category of enterprises are largely owned and operated by individuals, and are often
supported by their family members.
Microenterprises very often operate in local value chains by offering commodities and services
specifically for local customers. Obviously, such microenterprises are known to provide fresh produce,
food products, household goods and any specialised servicethat would respond to typicaldemands
of local market. In this way, such microenterprises add value to local economies by generating incomes
for their owners and workers, and by extension support the established urban enterprises. However,
the failure rate of microenterprises in general is highbecause they often do notfind adequate business
training and mentorship, production inputs, production infrastructure, sustainable markets and
operating capital. Such experience is significant for the study becauseit represents business hardships
and failures of farm-based microenterprises and non-farming IGAs operated by small-scale farmers.
4.4OVERVIEWOFFOCUSEDSAVINGSGROUPS
The purpose of this section is to introduce the concept of focused savings groups which employ the
VSLA methodology. This section also shows the reason behind the adoption of VSLA methodology by
many non-governmental organisations that recognise the potential of community-based and savings-
53
led microfinance programmes. Some NGOs promote saving groups programmes as a means of
providing poor and vulnerable communities with basic financial services. In this context, savings
groups are seen as a springboard to promoting financial education, savings and income generating
activities.
There are two main branches of savings groups. These are ROCSAs and ACSAs. VSLAs are part of the
ASCAs. Generally, savings groups described as user-owned and operated informal financial institutions
and are also known as stokvels in South Africa. In all instance, creators, founders or members of
savings groups agree to save regular amounts of money, and in the case of South Africa, they meet
monthly to conduct their business which is to pool savings, build and re-purpose group funds to
provide small loans to borrowers during a saving cycle. A saving cycle is a measure of time a savings
group takes to execute and complete its business, and in the case of South Africa a saving cycle is
usually 12 months.
The difference between ROSCAs and ASCAs can be simplified in this fashion. Members make fixed
contributions in a ROSCA and the entire group fund in a month is given as a lump sum to members on
rotational basis (Samer, 2015). For ASCAs, and specifically forVSLAs, members decide to make fixed
or varying contributions at the start of a new saving cycle. There are two ways of distributing group
funds to members at the end of each savings cycle. Group funds are either distributed proportionally
to the individual savings in the case of varying savings or equally in the case of fixed savings (Allen&
Staehle, 2009).
Many non-governmental organisations promote VSLAs as a strategy to address financial exclusion, the
consequences of poverty and to strengthen their Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) programmes (Dallimore,
2013; Delany & Storchi, 2012; Hugh & Staehle, 2009; Hamadziripi, 2008). This is because VSLAs are
unique in the sense that they use members’ regular contributions to self-capitalise or to build group
funds that are used to provide microloans to internal borrowers. In this instance, a VSLA builds a group
fund, provides interest-bearing short-term microloans and distributes a group fund proportionally to
individual members’ savings at the end a saving cycle. This means that all the money in the group fund,
which includes savings, interest and fines is paid out to the members proportionally to their savings
at the end of the savings cycle.
Based on extensive implementation and evaluation studies of VSLA programmes by researchers such
as Mahlalela-Dlamini (2022), Ncube (2020), Ngocbo (2019), Bophela and Khumalo (2019), Allen (2018),
Frisancho and Valdivia (2017), Burlando and Canidio (2017), Entzet al. (2016), Custers (2016), Dlamini
(2016), Banerjee, et al. (2015), Mader (2015), Waller (2014), Matuku and Kaseke (2014), Dallimore
(2013),Delany and Storchi (2012), Duvendack etal. (2011), Högman (2009) and Hamadziripi (2008),
Verhoef (2001) many non-governmental organisations have found innovative ways to integrate VSLAs
in their strategic community development programmes including the promotion, training and support
of rural microenterprises. A flexible curriculum and learning programme was pioneered in Niger by
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere(CARE) as early as 1991, and this curriculum had
since been constantly adapted and refined by many non-governmental organisations. This, however,
does not mean that microfinance programmes have been free from criticism. Some challenges and
failures of microfinance programmes have been researched and published. For example, Mahlalela-
Dlamini (2022), Ncube (2020), Mader (2015), Bateman and Chang (2012), Duvendack et al. (2011) and
Dichter (2006) raise concerns that the positive impacts ofsavings groups programmes maybe
oversold. The critique of microfinance and savings group programmes was not the focus of this study.
54
4.5THEORIESRELEVENTTOFARM-BASEDMICROENTERPRISES
This study reviewed sustainable livelihoods (Chambers and Conway, 1992), resource-based view
(Barney, 1986; Wernerfelt, 1984) and resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) in
order to understand factors that contribute towards greater success and sustainability of farm-based
microenterprises.
4.5.1Sustainable Livelihoods
The concept of Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) dates back in 1987 when the advisory panel of the World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) made a call for a revised and integrated
approach to poverty, under-development analysis and intervention programming (WCED in Ashley &
Carney, 1999). Chambers and Conway (1992) assert that “a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope
with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and
provide SL opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other
livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term (p. 7).”
Krantz (2001) andRengasamy (2009) share the significance of SL as a development theory. They
contend that SL theory:
•goes beyond household incomes and takes into consideration all other signs and symptoms of
poverty, which include vulnerability and social exclusion (Krantz, 2001);
•recognises that poverty relates to other dimensions other than income;
•promotes integrated and participatory rural development approaches; and
•puts people at the centre of development and believes that poor people have solutions to
development problems they face
The SL theory gave rise to the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA). The SLA is now widely used by
many development agencies, research institutions, policy makers and grant makers. The significance
of the SLA is that it provides a set of guiding principles, helps with crafting of measurable development
objectives and provides an analytical framework for a development intervention, programme or
project. The elements of SLA are brought together in the Sustainable LivelihoodFramework (SLF). The
SLF is an analysis tool that helps in understanding the complexities of poverty by showing how basic
elements of SLA relate to each other (Rengasamy, 2009; Krantz, 2001; Carney, 1988).
4.5.2RESOURCE-DEPENDENCY THEORY
Chambers and Conway (1992) assert that the SLF is the foundation for the resource-based theory
(RDT). TheRDT is concerned with the interdependence between the business and the external
environment. In other words, RDT is concerned with influences external resources have on the
performance of a business enterprise. Tehseen and Ramayah (2015) maintain that the external
environments provide the most critical resources that businesses require to survive and grow. Given
the inherent dependency of farm-based microenterprises on external resources, RDT provides a lens
for understanding how farming microenterprises (and related enterprises) navigate forces in the
external environment and continue meeting market demands and improving the incomes of their
owners.
By applying RDT, this study was able to identify areas where farm-based microenterprises were able
to build relationships with external players, such government and non-governmental agencies,
extension officers, fellow small-scale farmers and other stakeholders to secure access to critical
55
production resources and markets. In this instance, small-scale producers and related farming
microenterprises rely onnetworking, building and nurturing mutually benefiting relationships with
value chain actors and value chain supporters in the external environment in order to access quality
and usable information. Quality and usable information may include market linkages, support
institutions, commodity knowledge and trends, access to finance, and access to training and
supervision services. Such networking is not different from the practice of established and large
business organisations. Established businesses also depend on other external organisations for
resource acquisition – and mainly capital, production inputs, road, water and telecommunication
infrastructure.
4.5.3Resource-based View
The concept of resource-based view (RBV) is one of the most influential theories in small business
research that is used to dissect and explain reasons behind the success and/or failure of small
businesses (Xin et al., 2023). RBVis concerned with internal resources. The concept of RBV was first
used by Wernerfelt (1984) and later expanded by Barney (1986) to explain that the success of
microenterprises is dependent on careful integrationof internal capabilities and internal resources
(Barney, 1986, 1990).In other words, RBV’s focus is business management in terms of allocation and
control of internal tangible and intangible resources by business owners for them to continuously
improve the performance of their enterprises (ibid). Intangible resources may include reputation,
information, knowledge, skills and competencies that business owners employ to improve business
performance for tangible resources to yield profitability (ibid). Obviously, tangible resources are all
income generating assets which may include physical resources such as cash in-hand, access to credit,
skilled labour and property. In this instance, property may include production inputs such as land and
irrigation water, buildings, tools and equipment (Radzi et al., 2017). The significance of RBV is that all
the business resources remain within the control of each individual business operator in ensuring that
the business is profitable and remains on the growth trajectory.
In conclusion, the presence of an enabling (or disempowering) environment, either promotes or
inhibits enterprise development activities and growth (Barney, 1991). SLF, RBVand RDT have been
found to complement each other in providing a coherent analysis microenterprisesthat are operated
by small-scale farmers and participants of the FLGs and VSLAs:
•Firstly, RBV provides a lens to analyse the relationship between resources and capabilities that are
deployed by operators to improve performance and profitability of their microenterprises. Within
the context of small-scale farming operators, RBV provides a useful framework that enables
researchers to pinpoint the essential internal resources, both tangible and intangible which are
critical for the success of a business enterprise. In other words, RBV underscores the significance
of each individualbusiness owner to leverage tangible and intangible resources to achieve farm
success and profitability.
•Secondly, RDT offers a valuable framework for understanding the dynamics of the external
environment in terms of business operators accessing external resources that are critical for the
success of small-scale famers and their microenterprises. Access to land, access to capital and
credit and access to training and supervision services play a significant role with regards to the
success of farm-based microenterprises.
•Lastly, SLF provides researchers with an analytical tool to measure if microenterprises operators
are able to combine assets and capabilities that they need to maintain and/or improve quality of
life; and to identify risks, opportunities, internal and external forces that help them to cope with
and recover from stresses and shocks they may experience.
56
4.6RESEARCHDESIGN
This study adopted an exploratory qualitative research design using a case study approach (Alkarney
& Albraithen, 2018; Yin, 1984, 2018). The exploratory approach aimed to provide the opportunity to
dissect the nature of small-scale farmers’ experiences and perspectives regarding operating small-
scale enterprises. The goal was to obtain a richer understanding of the experiences of small-scale
farmers relating to what they perceive as success factors in running their microenterprises.
Cited in Maree (2012), Yin (1984) defines the case study research method as “an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporaryphenomenon within its real-life context when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used”
(Maree, 2012, p. 75). Specifically, an explanatory case study seeks to explain the presumed causal links
in real-life situations (Yin, 2003). A case study strategy was found most suitable to obtaining an in-
depth characteristics of business enterprises that contribute towards greater success and
sustainability of microenterpriseswithin the small-scale farming space. A case strategy was also found
appropriate because it allowed for exploration of more than one case, leading to rich empirical
descriptions (Saunders et al., 2019).
4.6.1SAMPLING
The significance of a case study method is that it provides tools to study a specific phenomenon (Rule
& John, 2011). The study was conducted in selected rural villages KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo
provinces and specifically in rural communities where MDF implements its CRA programme. The study
was conducted amongst participants of FLGs found in these rural villages. These rural villages shared
at least three common features. Firstly, the economy of these villages is predominantly agrarian. This
makes small-scale farming the lifeline for better livelihoods, local economic development and rural
development objectives. Secondly, these villages are dependent on small rural towns for public
services and in particular accessing production inputs. Lastly, these villages generally face landscape
degradation, water scarcity and harsher climatic changes.
A total of 18 respondents, 15 adult women (83.3%) and 3 adult men (16.7%) were purposively selected
and were considered adequate for this study. Respondents in the study were all members ofFLGs and
the majority of them participated in VSLAs. However, 3 respondents were not part of the VSLA
programme. Data saturation was reached, as no new information was brought out after 11 (42.3%)
interviews. Respondents were purposively selected in consultation with extension officers of MDF.
Purposive sampling was used to identify cases that would best answer the research questions and
meet the objectives of thestudy (Saunders et al., 2019). Involvement of the extension officers was
important because they have in-depth knowledge of the participants of the FLGs and VSLAs. Selected
respondents in the study have been part of the MDF development for more than five years.
4.6.2DATA COLLECTION
Semi-structured interviews were used to obtain lived experiences and insights from the respondents.
All interviews were conducted face to face at respondents’ homesteads and production facilities. The
study was guided by the case study data collection principles that allow the use of multiple sources of
evidence (Yin, 2018). A questionnaire was prepared to guide semi-structured interviews (Cresswell &
Creswell, 2018). The interviews were conducted over a period of 3 months. The duration of an
interview session ranged from 60 minutes to 90 minutes. The interviews were recorded and then
transcribed into a written document to enable data analysis. In addition to interviews, site visitations
57
were conducted in order to gather additional data. Pictures were also captured with the consent of
the respondents. The combination of interviews and site visitation of production facilities enabled the
researcher to obtain a comprehensive understanding ofthe phenomenon under investigation (Yin,
2018).
Ethical considerations were observed in this study. The purpose and the approach of the study was
presented and discussed with the respondents before the interviews. This time was also use to secure
consent to participate in the study. This was also done to improve the credibility of the study and to
help the respondents to prepare for the interviews (Saunders et al., 2019).
All the respondents were initially contacted by the extension officers to ask for their willingness to
participate in the study. Full details about the study were presented to the respondents. It was
explained that their participation was voluntary and they hadthe right withdraw from the study at
any point they decide to do so.The right to refuse to respond to questions that respondents deem
uncomfortable was also explained. Respondents were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality
of their identities before consenting to participate in the interviews. Thereafter, extension officers
contacted the respondents via their mobile phones to set up interview appointments based on their
preference of time and day.
4.6.3ANALYSIS
Thematic analysis was used because it provided flexibility in identifying, analysing, and reporting data
patterns (Braun & Clark, 2013). This meant going through interview and observation notes for the
purposes of identifying categories and emerging themes(Rule & John, 2011).The following were key
steps that were taken in analysing data. Firstly, data was coded in order to develop categories.
Connections between the categories were identified. Secondly, common overarching themes from the
responses of all respondents were identified. Lastly, a deeper analysis and focus on thick description
of primary data was undertaken. Reading of data was iterated several times before coming up with
categories and themes (Braun & Clark, 2006).
4.7RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
The results revealed seven main themes as success factors for farm-based microenterprises and are
discussed below. These findings resonate with the SL, RBV and RDT. They demonstrate the significance
of the internal resources and capabilities in encouragingthe respondents and driving the success of
their enterprises.
4.7.1STORIES OF CHANGE
The experiences of the two respondents below describe the type of the participants in the MDF CRA
programme. MaMkhize and Bab’Mlangeni (fictitious names) volunteered to have their stories of
change published. Fictitious names have been used to protect the identity of the respondents.
MaMkhize
58
Pictures showing production facilities in MaMkhize’s homestead
MaMkhizeis a middle-aged widow who earns her income from a number of activities. Her husband
passed away about 4 years ago and she was left to take care of the household alone. Her passion in
agriculture dates years back when her migrant husband was still alive and working in Johannesburg.
Her eldest son is about 18 years old and her younger daughter is very active in farming activities and
helps her a great deal.
As shown by the three pictures above, she has over just over 1.5ha of a vegetable and over 2ha maize
field. She produces and sells mainly cabbages, spinach, green pepper, onions and potatoes to her
village. Currently she has over 300 heads of cabbages thatwill be ready for harvesting in about two
weeks. She also produces beans in her maize field. She produces other vegetables but mainly to feed
her family. She mainly uses maize to feed her traditional chickens and goats. The bulk ofthe dry maize
is consumed by her family. She was able to invest in small gravity-fed irrigation reticulation system
and shares water from a protected spring with her neighbours. She has also drilled a private borehole
in her vegetable production area for more secure water accessfor farming. The size of her vegetable
garden, small irrigation and a tunnel allows her to produce vegetables in throughout the year. She also
produces broilers and eggs that brings money into the household. Lastly, she operates a tuck shop
where she alsosells farming inputs closer to the planting seasons.
She is also an active member of a VSLA. In the past 12 months she has accessed about R13000 from
her VSLA to finance her production activities. Although she struggles with record keeping, her records
show an annual income of over R87 000 from farming enterprises and about R48000 from her tuck
shop. Together, these enterprises had generated over R43000 profit in the last 12 months giving here
an average of R3600 net profit per month. She is very grateful of the support that she constantly
receives from MDF.
Bab’Mlangeni
Pictures showing production facilities in Bab’Mlangeni’s homestead
59
Bab’Mlangeni is also a middle-aged married man. He is a very active farmer. As a family, they have
managed to fence the fields and vegetable garden. Theywere able to buy a small electric water pump.
Bab’Mlangeni installed a small irrigation reticulation on his own to extract water from the nearby river.
Together with his wife, they produce a range of vegetables that they sell mainly in Winterton. They
have vendors that they supply Bergville as well. His wife is responsible for going to Winterton at least
three times a week to sell fresh produce. She makes just over R300 per day, or R3 600 per month.
They produce maize as well, which they mainly use to feed pigs, goats and cattle. Currently, they have
28 piglets that are ready for sale. Each piglet is sold for R200. They sell an average of 6 piglets per
month to the villages.
They recently exchanged four cows for a bakkie. They use this bakkie to transport farming inputs and
fresh produce to Winterton. They have made about just over R62000 in the last 12 months and
achieved a net profit of about R42000. They are able to make just over R3 500 average net profit from
all enterprises. They are not members of any VSLA in the village.
Their plan is to save for a small abattoir to slaughter pigs and chickens and may be beef in few years
to come. His biggest worry though is regulatory compliance issues. He believes that MDF willhand-
hold him through this journey. He is also worried that his children do not want to support them in all
farming activities. He is also very thankful of the support of they are receiving from MDF.
In total, respondents similar to MaMkhize and Bab’Mlangeni managed to change their livelihoods for
the better by participating in the CRA programme implemented by MDF. The table below shows
capital outlays for both farm and non-farm enterprises.
Table 1showing the split between farm and non-farm business enterprises
As shown in table 1 above, the study found that respondents collectively mobilised about R593 300 in
a year to finance both farming and non-farming IGAs. The study found that 59.1% was used for non-
farming and 40.9% for farming enterprises. Non-farming IGAs were used to supplement incomes from
farming enterprises and ultimately household livelihoods. The study also found that about 35% of the
operating capital was received from the VSLAs in the form of microloans and lump sum cash pay-outs.
Further analysis of average earnings and profit is discussed inthesub-sections below.
4.7.2Responsive Small-scale Farming Enterprise
!"#$%F'()#*#+,),%
-.'/!"#$%F'()#*#+,),%
!"#"$%&'"()
**+,-)
))))))))))./),/,))
0123)(456()
7.+8-)
))))))))*/8)88,))
9:%;<()
/+=-)
))))))))))>>).,,))
?"'';<#)451("45'@);$"A()
>+/-)
))))))))))7*),,,))
B:5;'":()
*>+=-)
))))))))))8*)C,,))
9:%(()A%$)A%3;<#)
*+7-)
))))))))))))=),,,))
D##)'%E":()
8+8-)
))))))))))/*)F=,))
B%3;<#)
/+*-)
))))))))))>,),,,))
95%$()
*+.-)
))))))))))))F).,,))
9%:A"<$)A%3;<#)
F+7-)
))))))))))/C).,,))
G%$$'")
,+7-)
)))))))*),,,))
H;(2"''%<"51()&1(;<"(("()
*>+>-)
))))))))))=F)7,,))
012/(.("3%
45678%
%%%%%%%%949%:95%%
%
;76<8%
%%%%%%%%=;5%:>5%%
?.("3%@"*+("3%.1(3"A%B.#%2.(C%B"#$%"'D%'.'/B"#$%)'()#*#+,),%
N;7=%=55%
)
60
Although respondents clearly understood that the goal of any business enterprise was making profit,
making profit is not their main concern. Their primary incentive for operating farming
microenterprises was to meet the consumption prioritiesof their individual households. Therefore,
their main indicator of success was the ability of a farming microenterprise to generate adequate
yields that satisfy main consumption needs for a family before generating additional income. The
majority of respondents revealed that they spend substantial amounts of money to grow maize for
the purposes of providing food for their families and supplementary feeds for their livestock. They
also revealed that they only sold small quantities of surplus dry maize when they were certain that
they would have enough maize to take them to them to the next harvesting season. They used money
earned from maize, and added it to other savings to finance the future production seasons.
In addition, farming microenterprise owners were fully aware of opportunities in their agricultural
value chains. They were also aware of some inherent institutional challenges in the small-scale farming
space that were likely to drive them to extreme poverty if they chased opportunities that were
perceived lucrative in their local value chains.It was not failure on their part to act on lucrative
opportunities, but the recognition of constraints such as lack of resources and knowledge to take
advantage of such opportunities. This finding suggests that the owners of farming microenterprises
had a different views of business success. For them, food security, household survival (making ends
meet) and the ability ofmitigate perceived future risk were main indicators of success. Small-scale
farmers do this by supplementing their incomes by running non-agricultural IGAs such as tuck shops,
garment making, services, baking and selling of household products.
Graph 1: Capital Outlay
Graph 2: Income Earned
Graph 3Profit Earned
Graphs 1-3showing percentage of capital outlay, income and profit earned from farming activities
Graph 1 above shows that 39.2% was used to produce broilers, vegetables, eggs and grains (mainly
maize). These are most popular commodities that are produced by the respondents. Vegetables had
highest returns in terms of revenue and profit compared to the other three commodities. The main
reason for higher returns on vegetables that was cited by the respondents is that production costs for
vegetables are usually once-off and lower compared to broilers and egg layers. Respondents also
revealed that they do not record quantities of produce they consume or donate to needy neighbours
and relatives. Interestingly, the returns on grains do not match the size production costs. In fact,
farmers incurred losses. However, farmers increased their monthly earnings shown in the graph 4
below.
!"#$%
!!#&%
G#G%
(#$%
)*+,-.*/0.1.234-./ 5116738.*/9*3,:/
!"#"$
!%#&$
G#&$
"#($
)*+,-.*/0.1.234-./ 5116738.*/9*3,:/
!"#$%
&&#G%
$#$%
(&#)"%
*+,-./+01/2/345./0 6227849/+0:+4-;0
61
Graph 4showing averag capital outlay and earned income
Graph 4 above shows an average increase in farming income ofaround R16000 per annum (or R1300
per month) of an individual farmer. This is based on investing and recycling about R13 000 into more
than one farming activity that generates income. Findings showed that farmers earn profits despite
them incurring losses from maize. The study found thatall farmers produce maize but not for direct
commercial goals. There are few reasons associated with this practice and are explained next.
Farmers plant maize but not for commercial goals. In fact, respondents argued that producing maize
was not a loss to farmers. They revealed that having enough maize produce was most beneficial for
their households and livestock. This is because maize is used for human consumption. In all instances,
having maize for human consumption meant reduced spending on monthly grocery items for the
household. A small percentage of maize is used for animal feeds (for traditional chickens and
supplementing feeds for goats, pigs and cattle) which always keeps production costs to levels farmers
could afford. In return farmers were always ready to sell one or two cows and few traditional chickens
only when approached by buyers outside their villages. Further to this, there are intangible gains that
respondents enjoy in non-commercial activities. However, intangible gains are not easy to quantify in
monetary terms. This practice clearly demonstrates that respondents involve themselves in a range
of activities that are geared towards improving the well-being of their households. The SLA recognises
the significance of mixing of income generating activities and non-commercial activities. This is
because the SLA accepts that there are multiple paths that people take in order to improve the well-
being of their households.
In closing, the study found three defining features of a successful farming microenterprises. First,
operators of farming microenterprises are willing to invest time, patience and hard labour for
intangible returns which in many cases exclude immediate profits. Farmers believe that there are
commodities like maize that are not produced for immediate financial returns, but for the
psychological and emotional health of the head of the family – by knowing that there is enough food
that is always available for the family and livestock. Second, their measure of success and sustainability
is their ability to afford production inputs come the next season. In many instances, commodities that
generate higher incomes would be used as a cash-cow for the family. Third, owners of farming
microenterprises constantly looked for additional income sources to supplement farming incomes.
!"#$%F#
F!#'(F#
"$#)*!#
F%#")"#
+,-./#0.12-./
,3-/.4
5.67289#0.12-./
,3-/.4
5.67#96,::
280,7;
5.67#280,7;
2806;.:;
62
4.7.3NON-FARMING IGAS
The study found that respondents used almost 60% to finance non-farming IGAs to supplement
farming incomes. For many small-scale farmers, sticking to farming-only commodities was tantamount
to income stagnation and exposing their household livelihoods to risk.
In this instance, IGAs refer to a set of activities that fall outside farm-based enterprises operated by
participants of the FLGs. IGAs that fall outside agricultural value chain that respondents operate
include small home-based retail outlets (tuck shops), grass cutting, grass mat making, operating local
cab, baking, garment making, and buying and selling of household products. Grass cutting, grass mat
making, operating local cab and baking are grouped as miscellaneous businesses in the graphs below.
Graph 5: Capital Outlay
Graph 6: Income Earned
Graph 7: Profit Earned
Graphs 5-7showing percentage of capital outlay, income and profit earned from non-farm IGAs that
are used to supplement farming enterprises
The issue of non-farming IGAs was commonly raised by the respondents. As shown in the in graphs
above, tuck shops, miscellaneous business, garment making, and buying and selling household
products were found to be the most popular income supplementing activities amongst the
respondents. The findings reveal that retailing which include tuck shops and selling of household
products account for 25.4% income and 20.5% profit from 30.3% capital outlay. However, garment
making had thehighestprofit of 17.3% from 9.2% capital outlay. The findings also revealed that
respondents engaged in non-farming IGAs for two reasons. Firstly, to sustain household incomes while
waiting to harvest. Secondly, to strengthen the relationships and build loyalty with regular their
customers. Some respondents wished that they could receive more guidance and supervision on
business management and marketing so that they can be able to invest more on farming activities.
These respondents have noticed that vegetable production give them high returns in the shortest
space of time which is usually three months. However, other respondents felt that non-farming IGAs
were drifting them away from agricultural enterprises hence some IGAs were providing them with
substantial incomes. This was the case with garment makers and buyers and sellers of household
products. They observed that some IGAs tended to operate throughout the year. In fact, three
respondents had more non-farming IGAs financing their main farming activities.
Some key lesson relating to business management and financial planning can be drawn from this
experience. Respondents who were successful in running multiple enterprises gained some
experience regarding maintaining a balance between farm andnon-farmenterprises. These
respondents knew if there were crop failures, prices would go through the roof,and they would make
huge profits. They were also aware that if supply outstripped the demand,they were likely to make
losses hence their focus on non-farming IGAs. These respondents revealed that they would spend a
percentage of their profits on things such as production infrastructure, equipment and inputs they are
likely to need for one or two years to come. Some examples of equipment bought by farmers include
!"#$%
&G#"%
G#!%
(#)%
*+,-./0123453,.6+357833839:;<87=.4:-57> /8??57>.01+3801?@
5=8<3
!"#$% !"#&%
!G#(%
(#)%
*+,-./0123453,.6+357833839:;<87=.4:-57> /8??57>.01+3801?@
5=8<3
!"#$%
&#G%
!&#(%
!"#!%
)*+,-./012342+-5*2467227289:;76<-39,46= .7>>46=-/0*27/0>?
4<7;2
63
electric water pumps, fencing materials,small delivery van, baking stoves, sewing machines and brush
cutters.
Findings revealed willingness to participate in learning events, basic literacy and numeracy of small-
scale farmers and their household members as the most important asset. Assets, such as literacy,
numeracy, harmonious relationships, technical skills suchas raring chickens and cropping have been
used by farmers in a number of productive activities. Combining such assets, small-scale farmers have
been successful in allocating labour to different activities to produce outcomes such as food security,
income and profit that is shared between household consumption and income generation.
Findings also showed a clear relationship between farming and non-farming enterprises. It would
appear that the relationship between certain farming and non-farming enterprises were influenced
by three realities:
•first, were food security concerns for the households,
•second, was the magnitude of financial returns based on demand and supply and general patterns
of development in the village, and
•third, was access to, and the ability to use productive assets for consumption and profit.
This provided some insights into how the promotion of certain enterprises influenced the path that
small-scale farmers took in order to improve the overall well-being of their households.
4.7.4VSLAS AS ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL RESOURCES
One of the key success factors pointed out by the respondents was access to cash that was provided
by the VSLAs. This is consistent with previous studies that suggest access to finance determines
success of any business enterprise (Sroka et al., 2023; Lekhanya & Mason, 2014). However, access to
useful financial services and especially credit by microenterprises and small-scale farmers remains the
most frustrating impediment. Formal financial institutions and mainly banks do not have appetite to
service small-scale farmers and microenterprises. Qing et al. (2021) have also found that small-scale
farmers struggle to access to financial resources they need to participate meaningfully in agricultural
value chains in their local spaces.
This reality had forced owners of microenterprises to look for alternative financing mechanisms, i.e.
outside the banks, state-grant makers and Development Financial Institutions (DFIs). In this instance,
the respondents would top their personal savings with money they receive from the VSLAs in the form
of microloans and lump sums they receive at the end of each savings cycle. This makes VSLAs
important sources of start-up and operating capital for microenterprises. Findings show that at total
of R593300 to finance production activities. Graph 8 below shows that about 35% of operating capital
was sourced from the VSLAs. The significance of this can be summarised as follows:
•Operators of microenterprises in rural communities were very aware of the fact that they had to
save in order to produce enough food to consume and to sell.
•VSLAs were most usable and responsive platforms that savers used to build loan funds. These loan
funds were used to give internal borrowers microloans which they returned with interest. Non-
entrepreneurial savers earned interests while entrepreneurial savers earned both interest and
profits from their individual enterprises.
•VSLAs helped savers to re-purpose and recycle incomes households receive for improving the
quality of life. In this instance, respondents used a portion of pension grants, child support grants
or remittances to participate in their VSLAs.
64
These findings suggest that VSLAs are instrumental in reorienting and re-purposing savings groups to
providing some production finance and contributing towards sustaining livelihoods. Provision of
production capital by VSLAs resonates with RDT. By participating in the VSLA programme, owners of
microenterprises joined hands with VSLAs and created collective schemes that provided them with
operating capital outside the formal banking institutions.
Graph 8showing sources of capital
The findings revealed that VSLAs could not solve all the challenges facing the respondents in terms of
farm production and development of their microenterprises. This is because VSLAs have a few
inherent limitations. Institutionally, VSLAs draw from a tradition of providing short-term consumption
loans and lump sum pay-outs at the end of saving cycles, usually 12 months. In most cases, both short-
term loans and cash pay-outs struggle to align with production schedules of many small-scale farming
enterpriseshence the appetite for non-farming enterprises. Loan terms are very restrictive as
borrowers are expected to begin servicing their loans from the first month and to settle loans in about
3 to 4 months. Besides this, generally, loans are too small to finance large enterprise production costs.
The result is that risk-averse borrowers become discouraged to take out business loans fearing that
their businesses may not generate sufficient profits to service loans. However, the study also found
that owners of enterprises that had passed survivalist phases and had multiple sources of income
tended to have more appetite to take substantial business loans. For example, respondents had used
loans to buy large quantities of feeds for broilers and egg layers. They werealso bold to take out loans
to buy large quantities of production inputs, tuck shop stock and buy equipment such as brush cutters.
This study noted a significant role played by the VSLAs. VSLAs are largely under-recognised financial
institutions by the formal sector and are mostly used by financially excluded populations as alternative
financial service providers. For the respondents,they saw VSLAs as enabling financial institutions
which provided them with access to cash when they needed it. Respondents liked the fact that savings
and interest earned stayed within the VSLAs. Informal financial institutions and VSLAs are a worldwide
phenomenon mainly in under-served communities and are testimony to the resourcefulness of the
marginalised populations.
4.7.5USEFUL KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION
Knowledge and skills as a result oftraining and supervision mainly by MDF emerged as a prominent
theme from all respondents. Knowledge acquisition through workshops and knowledge application in
their production facilities came out strongly from all respondents. All respondents confirmed their
participation in various training events and information sessions organised by different stakeholders
!"#$%
&"#$%
'()*+ ,-./01+2304/+
65
and mainly MDF. Informations sessions, training events and field supervision exposed the participants
to a range of skills that enhance their livelihoods. Respondents regarded knowledge acquisition and
application as a key resource for strategic decision making, adoption of CRA practices, selection of
profitable income generation activities, financial literacy, production planning and scheduling of
production activities.
Knowledge acquisition and application aligns very well with RBV as respondents used acquired
knowledge to better their livelihoods by engaging in specific production areas. Respondents reported
that new skills helped them to improve farm yields, understandtheir finances better, and identify
profitable commodities and IGAs to supplementary their farm incomes. Respondents also reported
that they saw value in knowledge acquisition that was accompanied by practicalapplication. Evidence
was shown that constantsupervision by MDF’s extension officers drastically improved key aspects of
farm production, strategic use of VSLA in production and tactical integration of non-farming IGAs. This
finding aligns with past studies that argue that small-scale farming enterprises that enjoy constant
support and supervision are more likely to succeed because of their enhanced abilities to prevent
and/or mitigate risks associated with production and markets (Adeola & Gyimah, 2020).Lastly, the
study also found that FLGs and VSLAs promoted peer learning beyond formally organised learning
events.
4.7.6ADOPTION OF CRAPRACTICES
Adoption of improved farming practices was cited as an important factor by all respondents. This
finding aligns with past studies that confirm new agricultural practices add value to the performance
of small farms by improving quality and yields. The findings indicated that respondents adopted the
recommended CRA practices as a result of training interventions and constant supervision provided
by MDF’s extension teams.
Conversely, more women farmers mostly observed that the adoption of CRA practices had made a
fairly good contribution to household food security and income generation. The main benefits
identified by women farmers included constant availability of food, small but regular incomes and
limited livestock feeds. Respondents revealed that production was enhanced by two additional
factors, which were the availability of production resources (water, fence, tunnels, etc.) and constant
supervision by MDF’s extension officers. MDF’s supported spring protection and small reticulation did
not only provided portable water, but surplus water which made it easy for farmers to irrigate their
gardens and tunnels. In two instances, respondents had invested in small irrigation reticulation
infrastructure and small electric water pumps.
4.7.7SUCCESS FACTORS OF SMALL-SCALE FARMING ENTERPRISES
Production and farm management practices emerged as a crucial factor in the context of small-scale
farming and income generation. Production and farm management practices encompassed a number
of activities such as business planning, capital acquisition, financing, crop diversification, production
scheduling, marketing planning, supplementary enterprises, financial management and
recordkeeping. These production and farm management practices underscore the importance of
internal capabilities of the small-scale farmers that determine survival, success, competitiveness and
profitability of their enterprises. However, most respondents did not prioritise business planning and
record keeping, but instead they prioritised production planning (scheduling), financing and operating
IGAs that would supplement their farm income. For them, production planning meant early
preparation of their fields and having enough capital to secure production inputs ahead ofplanting
seasons.
66
Although most of the respondents acknowledged the importance of recordkeeping as a way to
monitor the financialperformance of theirenterprises, we found that recordkeeping was not
significant component in the operation of microenterprises. It was found that many respondents
would measure theperformance of their microenterprises by their ability to recover cost of
production, provide for the family, improved cash circulation and the ability to buy production inputs
for future production cycles.
All respondents had a background in their respective operations such as subsistent farming, baking
and garment making before they embarked on their own microenterprises. The findings reveal that
some production background gave respondents an added advantage by way of motivation, discipline,
focus and eagerness to acquire and apply new knowledge. However, the findings revealed that few
respondents were pushed into farming and business by retrenchment and/or death of a spouse or a
breadwinner.
Motivation, dedicated focus on sustaining householdincomes for better livelihoods, patience,
resilience, financial discipline and willingness to participate and learn were common characteristics of
successful small-scale farming enterprise operators. Generally, these shared characteristics
demonstrate the importance of human capital resources in operating a successful business enterprise
and ensuring sustainable livelihoods.
Possessing financial discipline and restraint, and specifically the ability to save money meant for
production activities in the face of household’s financial pressures is one of the key success factors
reported by the respondents. Faced with scarce resources and competing consumption needs,
respondents reported the significance role their VSLAs played in helping them to saving money. They
reported that saving money was not an easy task and financial discipline was paramount in avoiding
misappropriation of savings meant for farming and business activities.
Resilience was another characteristic that participants shared by relating it to surviving the negative
effects of climate change. Some participants had encountered stresses and shocks in their operations
that could potentially put them out of business, but they managed to pull through. With financial
discipline and resilience, respondents were able to achieve food security and availability of cash when
they needed it.
The findings revealed that respondents that were involved in farming microenterprises could sustain
their businesses over a number of years as they didn’t have other alternatives for survival. The findings
also showed that although there was a desire to make these businesses more securely sustainable,
risk aversion by some operators discouraged their growth. Findings and field observations suggested
that taking entrepreneurial activities that promised high returns was tantamount to exposing their
householdsto high risks and unmanageable stresses. This finding may explain the reluctance of
respondents to venture into high-value entrepreneurial activities such as producing high-value crops,
value-addition and supplying formal markets. Instead, they preferred supplying their produce to cash
buyers like street vendors, bakkie traders and caterers.
4.7.8SOCIAL NETWORKS
Findings revealed that social networks which involved building and maintaining social relations and
business partnerships were very popular amongst the respondents. There were two obvious reasons
for this. First, good social networks promoted and sustainedreciprocity amongst collaborating peers.
Second, ability to build and maintain social networks was a major contributor to building business
relationships and collection action.
67
Findings also suggest that respondents were actively involved in networking activities such
participating in FLGs, VSLAs, informal social interactions, joint marketing events, and participating in
meetings and information events organised by public sector institutions. For instance, in the province
of KwaZulu-Natal, respondents appreciated invitations from the Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (DARD), Okhahlamba Local Municipality, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma Municipality,
Ubuhlebezwe Municipality, Harry Gwala Development Agency and uThukela Economic Development
Agency to discuss LED andagricultural development initiatives. Besides MDF,the respondents had
interacted with other non-state institutions on the subject of agricultural development. Through
networking, respondents had improved access to information, knowledge and support – and mainly
establishing and operating a market stall in rural towns.
The findings also showed that collaborative platforms – and specifically FLGs and VSLAs enabled
respondents to own and control financing, production and marketing activities. Besides facilitating
learning and development, such collaborative platforms also made it easy for respondents to procure
farming of inputs and selling their produce. Through consistent support from MDF, respondents
voluntarily organised themselves rather than relying on government institutions. Such collaborative
platforms had a numberof benefits to the farmers:
•These platforms helped small-scale farming enterprises to get access to urban buyers and to set
common prices for their fresh produce.
•Farmers with fewer quantities of produce were able to refer customers to other farmers with
adequate quantities.
•In some ways, these platforms helped farmers to lower cost of production through bulk buying
and sharing transport cost.
•Supporting agencies like MDF were able to reach many farmers, share of new information and
promote the adoption of new CRA technologies.
•VSLAs in particular improved the availability of cash beyond amongst savers.
Evidence submitted by the respondents showed that, indeed FLGs and VSLAs were most useful
knowledge sharing and learning platforms for participating small-scale farmers and supporting
institutions.
4.8RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on empirical evidence from interviews and field
observations.
•Targeted beneficiaries
The ultimate beneficiaries were mainly women who come from very low income households who
generally have depended on state welfare grants, had unstable income sources and precarious
finances. Institutionalised and coherent support is therefore key for farming microenterprises just as
established businesses. The key need is for intelligently-designed, coherent and well-managed training
and mentoring programmes targeting not only the specific commodities, VSLAs and green-friendly
businesses. Interventions that empower participants to see their situation differently; that dispel the
myths about what it takes to be a successful agri-business entrepreneur; to see that success in
business is not about fate, but rather, about hard work, self-confidence, and application of basic
business principles; and to see that money making opportunities in agriculture are everywhere and
available for everyone.
•Targeted financial education
68
Financial education is much more than learning financial concepts and how to manage money.
Financial education includes the ability of acquiring and transforming economic and financial
knowledge into skills that enable individuals to make informed and responsible decisions in the areas
of personal finance. Financial education also draws for psychology. Individuals must be able to manage
their finances with confidence, understand and use financial concepts, and plan to achieve their
financial goals. With a solid knowledgeand skills base, one must be empowered to decide with greater
confidence how to budget, earn, save and spend money. This means financial education must help
individuals to gain more control and security over their financial futures. Personalfinancial education
establishes a solid foundation for starting and operating an IGA or a business enterprise. For this
reason, promotion of VSLAs must include intensive component of financial education and spending
time on budgeting, recording of income and expenses, creating emergency funds and making income
and expenditure projections. The reality is that everyone is bombarded with images of luxurious
consumer goods and lifestyles. Media often drives this envy, leading to many to get caught in the
allure of living beyond their means. The significance of personal financial education is that it prepares
operators of microenterprises in particular to appreciate financial planning, budgeting, record keeping
and delayed gratification.
•Responsive financial services
Responsive financial services is about empowering microenterprises to put in place systems that help
them respond better to opportunities and challenges. This makes access to production finance
extremely essential. At the same time, it is crucial to ensurethat there is a good match between
financial and non-financial resources made available to the small-scale farmers.
The goal is to help microenterprises to use informal financial services (savings groups) to provide for
their operational expenses, improve cash flows and profitability. For this reason, promoting and
support farm-based enterprises should commence by professionally-conducted PVCAs to help
programme participants to understand the concept of supply and demand and using it to identify most
profitable commodities and/or services.
A database of targeted farming microenterprises, production resources (i.e. land, water, infrastructure
and equipment), and suppliers of production input, and buyers of commodities should be developed
and assessed at the beginning of all development interventions by external developmentagencies
similar to MDF.
•Promote networks and partnerships
Networks, or even partnerships withlarger, established operators or with seasoned entrepreneurs
within the agricultural value chains must be promoted and established. This is because networks are
likely to pay dividends in terms of access to production inputs, skills enhancement, market penetration
and familiarisation with quality expectations of the market.
•Promote social enterprises
There are two factors that must be considered here. The first one is concerned with identifying the
most paying products/commodities that are likely to pay better dividends. This means putting
emphasis on encouraging products and services that cannot be easily threatened by competition from
imported products. However, at the same time, one would not want to get trapped in a niche market,
and for this, it becomes important to diversify product offerings as a defence against changes in
market conditions. The second one is concerned with ensuring that production of commodities
advances the realisation of the SL and CRA objectives. This means that farmers must take consistent
69
actions and champion community-based social enterprises such as communal water management
(including springs and wetlands protection), conservation restoration, prevention of soil erosion and
dongas, rangeland management and so forth.
4.9CONCLUSION
This study aimed at identifying characteristics of business enterprises that contribute towards greater
success and sustainability of microenterprises within the agricultural value chains. The study collected
data from a sample of 18 operators of farm-based microenterprises that had been participating in the
MDF programmes in the last 5 years.
The study revealed seven themes that align with SLA, RBV and RDT perspectives that are responsible
for helping farm-based microenterprises to leverage internal and external resources. The findings
provided a number of implications for development programmes geared towards supporting small-
scale farmers as well as considerations for development agencies and stakeholders within the CRA
space. The findings revealed three actions that development agencies must consider in packaging
community-based intervention programmes.
Firstly, development agencies should consider investing time in social and stakeholder mobilisation
processes, understanding value chains and operators, profiling of microenterprises and developing of
databases. Similarly, owners of enterprises should be encouraged to network with other like-minded
local and regional stakeholders by participating in sector events, such as field farmer days, information
sessions and agricultural shows.
Secondly, development agencies must provide integrated and coherent training and supervision of
operators of farm-based microenterprises. This means providing production training, promoting CRA
and aligned conservation restoration practices, focused ED andlong-term on-site supervision and
business mentoring to participating operators of farm-based microenterprises. Similarly, participating
farm-based microenterprises must participate in all learning and development events and invest time
in the applicationof the newly acquired knowledge. Regarding the application of newly acquired
knowledge, farm-based microenterprises should also focus on new agricultural practices and
technologies, business management, market penetration and strict recordkeeping.
Lastly, access to useful financial services for farm-based microenterprises is key. This requires a
collaborated effort from promoters of alternative financial services provision. This means promoting
interventions that gradually move VSLAs to higher levels so that they are able to provide substantial
production loans on affordable terms. This also means that development agencies must continue
engaging with government institutions to partner with them and provide tactical subsidiesto
microenterprises that empower recipients to graduate to independence.
4.10FUTURERESEARCH
Suggestions for future research are based on the few limitations of the case study approach. It is
important to note that theperformance of operators of farm-based enterprises vary by region,
climatic conditions, crop type, type of land/farm, proximity and access to production inputs and
markets. Therefore, the results of this study can be used in many ways, and including the following:
70
•Using the results of the study as an input in a qualitative study to understand the strength of the
relationships between informal farm-based small-scale enterprises and their landscapes and with
a focus on CRA and aligned practices.
•Focus on compiling financial diaries of farm-based enterprises in relationship to their economic
performance variables such as cost of production, revenue generation, profitability, growth,
environmental friendliness and enterprise sustainability.
•Exploration of the future of VSLAs in financing productive activities and the role of supporting
institutions. This study can proposed an analytical framework that can be used to package future
interventions geared towards promoting production-focused VSLAs.
•Exploration of collaborative/partnership frameworks between farm-based enterprises and
supporting non-governmental organisations such as MDF. The focus of such studies can include
understanding the extent NGO support influence the overall success of farm-based enterprises in
relation to CRA objectives.
Insights from such research assignments could inform policy interventions and strategic initiatives
aimed at fostering strategic relationships between farm-based enterprises and supporting
stakeholders.
4.11REFERENCES
Adobor, H. (2020). Entrepreneurial failure in agribusiness: Evidence from an emerging economy.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(2), 237–258. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-04-2019-013
Barney, J.B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage?Academy of Management Review, 11: 656-665.
Barney, J.B. (1990). The debate between traditional management theory and organizational
economics: substantive differences orintergroup conflict?Academy of Management Review, 15: 382-
393.
Chambers. R. (2006).Vulnerability, coping and policy(editorial introduction).IDS Bulletin Vol. 37. No
4. Anthology. Institute of Development Studies.
Chambers, R., and Conway, G. (1991).Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st
Century.Brighton: Institute for Development Studies.
Chambers, R., and Conway, G. (1992).Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st
century.London: Institute of Development Studies.
Creswell, J.W., and Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. (5th edition). California: Sage Publications
Cohen, L. Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. (8th Ed.). London:
Routledge
Cunningham, J.B. and Lischeron, J. (2014). Defining Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business
Management, 29, p45-61.
71
Dallimore, A.(2013).Banking on the poor: savings, poverty and access to financial services in rural
South Africa.PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Delany, A. & Storchi, S. (2012). SaveAct Savings and Credit Groups and Small Enterprise Development.
Understanding Strategies and Opportunities to Promote LivelihoodsStrategies and Small Enterprise
Development, including in Agriculture, through SavingsGroups in a Rural Setting. FinMark Trust:
Johannesburg.
Dichter, T. & Harper, M. (2007). What’s wrong with microfinance? Bourton on Dunsmore: Immediate
Technology.
Dlamini, N. (2016).An Exploration of Group Learning in SaveAct Education Programme: A Case Study.
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
Donnelly, S. (2008).Underinvestment in Savings-Led Microfinance. A Costly MarketFailure. Harvard
Kennedy School, Cambridge.
Duvendack M, Palmer-Jones R, Copestake J, Hooper L, Loke Y, & Rao N, (2011). What is the evidence
of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people?London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Gartner, W.B. (2008). Who is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 13, p47-68.
Högman, A. (2009).Microsavings Effects on Consumption Smoothing. A Case Study of South Africa.
Sweden: Uppsala University
Hulme, D. (2009).The Story of the Grameen Bank: From Subsidized Microcredit to Market Based
Microfinance.Routledge. New York
ICLS. (2018). Policy brief prepared for the Labour Caucus in the Jobs Summit Small and Microenterprise
Support working group by the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ).
Irving, M. (2005). Informal savings groups in South Africa: investing in social capital. Working Paper
Number 112. Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town.
Lateh, M., Hussain, M.D., & Halim, M.S.A. (2017). Micro enterprise development and income
sustainability for poverty reduction: a literature investigation. International Journal of Business and
Technopreneurship, 7(1), 23-38.
Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991).Communities of practice.http://www.learning-theories.com
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Liles, P.R. (2014). New business venture and the entrepreneur, Illinois: Homewood.
Mader, Philip. (2015). The Political Economy of Microfinance: Financialising Poverty. London: Palgrave.
Mahlalela-Dlamini, K.A. (2022). Microfinance for better lives? Learning experiences of women
beneficiaries of the Inhlanyelo Fund in Manzini Region, Eswatini. Thesis presented for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Education University of KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg.
72
Maican, S. Ș., Muntean, A. C., Paștiu, C. A., Stępień, S., Polcyn, J., Dobra, I. B., Dârja, M., & Moisă, C. O.
(2021). Motivational factors, job satisfaction, and economic performance in Romanian small farms.
Sustainability, 13(11), 5832. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115832
Mitton, D.G. (2009). The Complete Entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship, theory and practice, 13, pg 9- 19.
Mubanga, F. C., & Umar, B. B. (2020). Environmental discounting behaviour of smallholder farmers in
Chibombo District, Central Zambia. Land Use Policy, 95, 104551. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104551
Moliea, H. (2007). Stokvels as Alternative Microfinance Institutions: Conversations with Women from
Venda. master’s thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria
Ncube, F. (2020). Experiences of NGO capacity building on microfinance: Zimbabwean life histories.
Thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Education University of
KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg.
Ngcobo, L. (2019). The dynamics of education and stokvels in South Africa. Acta Univ. Danubius.
Œcon.15, 70–81.
Rule, P., and John, V. (2011).Your guide to Case study research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Saha, A., Sabates-Wheeler, R., & Thompson, J. (2022). Insights into smallholdercapacity for
agricultural commercialisation: Evidence from four African contexts. European Journal of Development
Research, 34(4), 1757–1802.
Samer, A. (2015). Understanding the savings behaviour of poor households: Evidence from Egypt.
American University: Cairo.
Sharrif, M.N.M & Peou, C. (2008). The relationship of entrepreneurial values, firm financing and the
management and growth performance of small-medium enterprises in Cambodia, Problems and
Perspectives inManagement, 6 (4), pp. 55-64.
Thompson, J.L.(2009). The facets of the entrepreneur: identifying entrepreneur potential, London:
Macmillan.
Torppa, R. (2006). A Market Approach to Small-Scale Enterprise Development in South Africa, Master
of Management Research Report, University of the Witwatersrand.
Verhoef, G. (2002). Money, Credit and Trust:Voluntary Savings Organisations in South Africa in
historical perspective. Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University
Wenger, E. (1998).Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000).Communities of Practice.New York, Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, NS: Fernwood
Publishing.
Yin R. K. (2003).Applications of case study research(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods, applied social research methods series.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2011).Qualitative research start to finish.New York: Guilford Press.
73
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (Vol. 6). Sage.
5.CAPACITY BUILDING
5.1POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS
Two postgraduate students are a part of this research process.
NQE DLAMINI- PhD: Learning values through participation in savings groups in Kwazulu-Natal: An
Afrocentriccase study. UKZN_Dept of Education (registered in February2023) and
TEMAKHOLO MATHEBULA –MPhil: The socio-politicaldynamics influencing farmer adaptation to
climate change in Ozwathini, Kwazulu-Natal.PLAAS_UWC (registered in February 2024
For Nqe Dlamini the following summary of his thesis applies:
Problem statement: Users of savings groups may not be aware that they learn while they participate
in their groups. Thereis a possibility that users unknowingly resolve the tensions between Eurocentric
values and Afrocentric values while they participate in their groups.
Purpose:To explore/understand what values people learn through participation in savings groups and
how they learn these, and how people navigate possible tensions between Eurocentric values and
Afrocentric values.
Objectives:(1) To explore what values people learn through participating in savings groups; (2) To
understand how people learn these values; (3) To understand how people navigate possible tensions
between Eurocentric and Afrocentric values
Data collection: Commenced in February2024.
For Tema Mathebula the following summary of her thesis applies:
Problem statement: In South Africa, the rise in temperatures and instances of extremeweather
conditions have had devastating effects on infrastructure, livestock, and crop yields. These critical
events have intensified the pressure on smallholder farmers to develop strategies to enhance the
resilience of their farming systems. Research and experience have shownthat approaches to
adaptation and mitigation have been disproportionate and ineffective without an in-depth
understanding of the socio-political processes embedded in communities
Purpose:This study aims to provide insight into how unequal distribution of power and political
processes undermine the ability of smallholder farmers to cope with climate change. It also seeks to
provide a more nuanced understanding of the differentiated impactsof climate change across gender,
caste, age, and ethnicity. Lastly, this study aims to investigate the factors which lead to maladaptation
of climate change interventions in smallholder farming systems.
74
Political ecology will be used as a theoretical framework for the study.It is underpinned by two
theories, namely, “political economy”, which focuses on the dynamics of power distribution and
productivity; and “ecological analysis” which focuses on environmental factors.
Research questions: What are the existing socio-political dynamics that influence smallholder farmer
adaptation to climate change?
Sub Questions
- What do farmers understand about climate change and its influence on their farming activities?
- What are the existinginstitutional structures for smallholder farmers and how do these influence
adaptation to climate change?
- What are the core values, norms and belief systems and how do they shape the allocation and
distribution of resources?
- What are the major causes of inequality, power imbalances and social injustice in the agricultural
sector and how do these entrench vulnerability?
Data collection: Through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion. To commence in
September 2024.
5.2COMMUNITY LEVEL TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
The table below gives an overview of training that has been conducted at community level. It is
indicative rather than exhaustive. These trainings are done in the community usually at one of the
participants’ homesteads and is planned as one day events that include both theoretical and practical
sessions.
Table 12: Community level capacity building:2022-2024
ACVTITY
DATES
DESCRIPTION
Training and mentoring for
climate resilient agriculture
2022/12/02
2022/10/26
2022/10/08-14
2022/11/23,24,29
2022/02/10
2022/02/27, 03/28
2022/03/08, 03/17,
03/28
2022/03/15
2023/03/07,08
2023/03/29,30
2023/03/24,27,30
2023/04/, 2023/05,
2023/06
2023/04/21,25, 05/26,
06/08
2023/04/19,20
2023/06/22
2023/08/07,08,10
2023/09/19
2023/10/16-19
2023/11/13-17
2023/12/04
2023/12/14
2024/02/23
Midlands: Ozwathini contouring workshop SKZN: Mahhehle – tower
gardens
EC-Matatiele: Drip irrigation workshops in 5 villages
SKZN: CA demonstration workshops in 3 villages
SKZN: PlainhillDrip irrigation training
Limpopo: Sofaya trench beds
SKZN: Mahhehle tower gardens, poultry production, trench beds
SKZN: Mariathal gardens and experimentation
Bgvl: Madakaneni, Mahlathini– gardening training
EC: Ned, Nchodupoultry production
EC: Nec, Nchodu, Mzongwana- Pest and disease control
Limpopo and KZN: trench bed training with assembling of tunnels for 45
households across 8 villages, including distribution of seedlings, mixed
cropping and mulching learning inputs and drip irrigation
Limpopo: Willows, Sedawa, Mametja Sophaya. Bergville-Matwetha,
Emadakaneni – Natural Pest and Disease control
Bergville, SKZN: Poultry production: eMadakaeneni, Mjwetha, Mariathal,
Mahhehle, Centocow
EC: Ned, Nkau, Rashule, Nchodu- Soil and water conservation
Matatiele: Multipurpose chicken production and cage construction
(Ned(13), Rashule(22), Nchodu(23)
Matatiele: Nchodu -Value Adding training (32)
Limpopo: Boschvelder feeding and management training x 5 villages (50
participants)
Limpopo (30): CA demonstrations and farmer level experimentation:
intercropping cover crops
-Midlands: Gobizembe Youth group- seedling production training
-Limpopo: Sofaya(10) , Madeira and Willows (16) CA training and
demos
-Limpopo: advanced nutrition workshop x 5 villages
75
2024/03/22
2024/05/28
-SKZN: gardening refresher workshops (Centocow, Mahhehle,
Mariathal, Ngongonini)
-Matatiele (EC) nutrition workshops x 4 villages
5.3STAFF CAPACITY BUILDING
The table below gives an indication of the sessions and processes that have been undertaken with
MDF staff and interns.
Table 13: Staff capacity building 2022-2024.
Organisational& capacity
development
2022/11/17
2022/12/05
2023/02/13
2023/02/09, 02/16
2023/03/06
2023/03/13
2023/04/17
2023/05/26
2023/06/12
2023/07/04
2023/10/09
2023/10/16
2023/10/17
2024/02/26
-MDF AGM and organisational capacity development workshop
-Mentoringand planning with new finance officer to implement SODI
financial reporting system
- Internal short learning event for rainfall and runoff results, as well as
soil fertility and Organic carbon
- Mentoring in CCA workshop implementation. Temakholo from
Midlands assisted Bergville team
-Team session on gender mainstreaming
- UKZN- Ecological mapping and use of resource planning – Bgvl team
-VSLAs review and discussion re group based rules, BLF updates
- Nutrient analysis for livestock fodder options: facilitated by Brigid Letty
from the INR
-Small business development support planning and Livelihoods survey
-MDF AGM and organisational capacity development workshop
Conservation agriculture participatory research outcomes and
presentation for CA forum with interns and staff
-Training plan development with interns
-M&E frameworks discussion with Karen Kotschy and team members
-Financial team: Introduction to online Sage platform
6.WORK PLAN:SEPTEMBER2024-AUGUST2025
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, Northern
Drakensberg collaborative
ØUpdate on postgraduatestudents’progress: Nqe Dlamini (PhD) _UKZN and temakholo
Mathebula (MPhil)_ UWC.
ØFinalizationof climate resilience monitoring framework and indicator sets, analysis
frameworks and dashboards.
ØDiscuss potential collaboration with the Climate systems Action group(Dr Peter Johnston)
from UCT, to provide datasets for the decision support (dss) platform that incorporate climate
change aspects more directly than the present sets and update the tool accordingly.
ØUpdating practices and online dss platform and formalize collaboration with the Amanzi for
Food platform for dissemination
ØFinalize manual for a framework for successful implementation of multi stakeholder platforms
and
ØPrepare the final report
Table 14: Work plan –September-December2024
WorkplanSept-
December2024
Team
Activities
Sept-Oct
24
Nov-Dec
24
Submission
76
Refined CbCCA
decision support
framework with
updated
databases and
CRA practices
MDF: Erna
Kruger,
Matthew Evans,
Anna Kotschy
Update CRA practices and expand
agroecological zones
2024/12/13
MDF and ELRC
(Rhodes)Wilma
van Staden
Finalise sharing of Amanzi for Food
platform and including of dss
MDF and CSAG
(UCT- Dr Peter
Johnston
Discuss collaboration in updating
modelling data for the dssplatform to
incorporate climate change and more
accurate regional climate data into the
model
MDF: Erna
Kruger INR:
Brigid Letty
COPs: Northern Drakensberg
Collaborativecontinuation
Proposal development through Lewis
Foundation
MDF; Erna
Krugerand
Karen Kotschy
Finalise climate resilience MERL
framework and develop online tool with
dashboards
7.REFERENCES
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E.L., BurnSilver, S., Dakos, V., Daw, T.M., Evans, L.S.,
Kotschy, K. et al. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 37:421-448 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-
123836
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M. and Schoon, M.L. (Eds.) (2015). Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining
Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240
Cabell, J.F. & Oelofse, M. 2012. An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem resilience.
Ecology and Society, 17(1): 18.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Global Environmental Change, 16: 253-267.
Folke, C. (2016). Resilience (republished). Ecology and Society, 21(4): 44.
HarvestChoice; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2015). Agro-Ecological Zones for
Africa South of the Sahara. .Harvard Dataverse, V3. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/M7XIUB,
Hernández Lagana, M., Phillips, S. and Poisot, A. (2022).Self-evaluation and holistic assessment of
climate resilience of farmers and pastoralists (sharp+), a new guidance document for practitioners.
Rome, FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/cb7399en/cb7399en.pdf
Jeans, H., Castillo, G. and Thomas, S. (2016). The Future is a Choice: The Oxfam Framework and
Guidance for Resilient Development. Oxfam. http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/the-
future-is-a-choice-the-oxfam-framework-and-guidance-for-resilient-developme-604990
77
Jeans, H., Castillo, G. E. and Thomas, S. (2017). The Future is a Choice: Absorb, Adapt, Transform –
Resilience Capacities. Oxfam GB for Oxfam International, Oxford, UK.
Kotschy, K. (2013). Biodiversity, redundancy and resilience of riparian vegetation under different land
management regimes.Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Kruger, E. (2021). Climate Change Adaptation 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 ResearchCommision Reportno.
TT841/2/20.
78
8.ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1:RESILIENCE SNAPSHOT INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW FORM
RESILIENCE SNAPSHOT
Date
Province, area
Village
Name and
Surname
Gender
Age
No of years in
CRA
Increased
diversity in
farming
Yes/No
Before
Y/N now
Size/no before
Size/no now
Comment:
why or why
not
Gardening
Field cropping
Livestock
Trees and
other
resources
Increased
growing season
Yes/no
Before
Yes/no
Now
Comment
Gardening
Fieldcropping
Livestock
Trees and
other
resources
Increased CRA
practice diversity
No of practices
Before
No of
practices
Now
Name new practices (Use water, soil ,crops, livestock and
naturalresources)
Traditional
practices
List of practices
Comments
Examples are seed saving, traditional livestock breeds, banana
basins, aloes and ash for pest control ….
Increased
productivity
List crops and
livestock types
Amount before
(in kgs/tons),
10,20,50kg
bags/containers,
Proportion
consumed vs
sold (e.g.) 70%
(thus 70% eaten)
Amount now(in
kgs/tons, 10,20,50kg
bags/containers
Proportion
consumed vs
sold (e.g.) 70%
(thus 70%
eaten)
Gardening
79
Fieldcropping
Livestock
Trees and
other
resources
Increased food
security
No of food
types, no of
times/week
Before
No of food types,
no of times/week
Now
Comment: Where has increase or decrease come from
Increased crop
diversity
No of crops
planted before
No of new crops
now
Comment: give names of crops
Gardening
Fieldcropping
Trees and
other
resources
Mixed cropping /
Crop rotation
Yes/No Before
Yes / No Now
comment: give example
Gardening
Fieldcropping
Trees and
other
resources
Livestock
Integration
practices
Yes/No Before
Yes / No Now
Description;e.g rotational grazing,
herding, fencing, water sources
e.g. erosion control, clearing of aliens,
re-planting
80
Grazing
management
Restoration
firebreaks
fodder
production
Cutting and
baling of veld
grass
Winter
supplementatio
n
Cutting and
feeding or
storage of
fodder crops
List of water
sourcesavailable
to farmer
Sources of water
(incl RWH
Before/now
Reliability of
each (Score_
enough all the
time (1), some
,some of the
time (2), little
and sporadic (3))
Comment
Water use
efficiency
Implemented practices to
increase water holding
capacity
Implemented practiced to
reduce water run-off
Comment
Improved soil
health
List of options
Yes/no
Comment
Softer (improved
structure)
Darker
(improved
organic matter)
Fewer soil pests
and diseases
Better able to
deal with heat
and drought
Redundancy in
nutrients,
inputs and
suppliers
List of nutrient
sources available
to farmer.
List of suppliers
(gardens, fields
livestock)
List of sales outlets
(gardens, fields,
livestock)
Comments
81
Increased
livelihood
diversity/
options
Income options
Before
Income options Now
Comments
Scale:1=social grants; 2=
remittances; 3=farming
income;4= small business
5=other (describe)
Increased
income
Income before (ave
monthly from
farming)
Income now(ave
monthly from
farming
Comments
Savings (safety,
security,
achievement)
Amount per
month Before
Amount per
month Now
Use of savings;
1=food
2=household use
3=education
4= production
5=small business
6=other
Change in agricultural productive
assets (categorise in equipment,
livestock, etc..)
Village Loans and
Savings
Associations
Are you part of
VLSA group Y/N
Name of the
VSLA group
Number of years
participated
Average
amount
loaned
Use of loan
Collaborati
ve
actions/so
cial agency
Activities in groups
Before- name
Activities in groups Now
How is the
group/social
agencies helpful?
What does the
group do? (incl
emergency
support)
E.g. savings, stokvels, local insurance
church, learning groups, coops, farmers
associations, work teams, selling, inputs,
farmers centres, water committees,
livestock groups …
1
2
3
4
82
5
Informed decision
making
Information used to choose activities
Before
Information used to choose activities Now
e.g. Other community members, learning in groups, written info, radio, facilitators, extension
officers, etc
1
2
3
4
Knowledge
sharing
How did they share
knowledge before?
How do they share
knowledge now?
What type of knowledge is shared? Categorise eg.
Livestock, farming, water, business
1
2
3
4
Positive mindsets
Rate your
mindset Before
Rate your
mindset now
Comment(look into personal attitudes, motivations and
beliefs)
SCALE: -1=less positive about the future;
0=the same; 1=more positive about the
future; 2=much more positive
83
ATTACHMENT 2:PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OUTLINE
PIA workshop outline
1. Recap climate change impacts
ØExplore what people have noticed about impacts and make lists under headings: natural,
physical, economic, human and social
Group level brainstorming of ideas; written on cards under the headings given, with arrows for
increase or decrease.
2. Recap adaptive strategies/ practices
ØWhat have people been doing to adapt to this, fix the problems, make things better?
Group level brainstorming; Elucidate adaptations for each category: natural, physical, economic
human, social.Write on different cards (those done and those thought of) and place next to the
impact, indicate with a * which of these have been facilitated or introduced (and by whom) – this can
be other farmers, projects, extension officers….
3. Practices: Recap 5 fingers and list all practices under each category
ØRe-introduce the 5 fingers concept – and include a further category of the whole hand –
which is the social and personal/ human
ØWhich practices have been implemented (introduced and other)?
Go around in the circle and each person mentions what s/he has done (productive, economic, social,
personal actions) and what she would still like to try
ØAdd these practices to the five fingers diagram
Make an A1 diagram of the five finger and then add practices on cards
4. What have been the changes or benefits from each practice
ØWhat changes have there been?
Brainstorming changes – an interrogate to get to the more
ØHow important are these changes to your lives? How do you decide? Which criteria would
you use to decide?
Do a matrix ranking: changes (in columns), criteria (in rows) – Use proportional piling, working down
each column by asking “how important is this practice for the criteria” and comparing the practices
with each other (to an extent) as you go down the list.
oQuestions To Include
84
A more in-depth exploration. Dialogue around human and social dimensions of CC impact and
changes made.Impact of CC on social organisation, human capital, pests and diseases incidence and
severity. Conflict resolution – how this is done, changes, impact of CC.
Absorptive and capacity:
•Learning networks/groups:networks or groups farmers belong to that allow learning around
CRA and adaptation
•Flexibility of networks:(many weak connections) allows configurations to change according
to members' needs and desires. Network mapping for number and strength of connections
(internal and external) -venn diagram
•Functions of support networks: Dialogue to discuss types of support, and in relation to
gender and equity issues.What groups do and help with (list).Physical, social, emotional,
economic, emergency (and any categories that came out the list)
•Increased knowledge sharing - learning for productivity and ability to continue: What is
shared – categories/types of knowledge sharing. What farmers have learnt and how that will
change how they do things in the future
•Increased knowledge and agency: what farmers are able to do now that they weren’t able to
do before- list
Transformative capacity:
•Inclusivity of networks: Extent to which networks includes women youth and other
vulnerable groups.% of group members disaggregated into the categories
•Extent to which networks cross scales or hierarchies:No. of "active" connections between
farmer learning groups and macro-level stakeholders (meaning that there has been
interaction or exchange of information etc. within the past year). List of connections and
average no. of active cross-scale connections' meetings/events with people outside the
community - other villages, stakeholders.
•Changes in personal attitudes, motivations and beliefs: farmers’ perceptions on how they
think they have grown and changed, and no of farmers noting changes.
85
ATTACHMENT 3:IN-DEPTH LIVELIHOODS CASE STUDY SURVEY FORM
Participants:small farming businesses (including farming related businesses) whose operators participate in
the farmer learning groups and Village Savings and Loans Association (VSLA) programme
QUESTIONNAIRE
Date of the interview_____________________ Gender of respondent _________________
Name of respondent _________________________________________________________
Name of community _________________________________________________________
Name of regionSouthern KZN |KZN Midlands |Bergville |Matatiel |Limpopo
UNDERSTANDING A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND FOCUS
1.In your own words and experience, how do you define a business enterprise?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
1.1.What is the focus of your farming/agricultural business? List commodities that you produce and sell
starting with the most profitable commodities.
Commodity
When do you sell
your during the
year?
Who are your
main buyers?
How much
money do you
put in?
How much
income do
you make?
Vegetables
Crop 1:
Crop 2:
Crop 3:
Crop 4:
Crop 5:
Grains
Green/fresh milies
Dry maize
Beans
Other
Livestock
Broilers
Eggs layers to sell eggs
Indigenous chickens
Boschvelders
86
Commodity
When do you sell
your during the
year?
Who are your
main buyers?
How much
money do you
put in?
How much
income do
you make?
Goats
Pigs
Calves
Cows/bulls
Other
Trading(specify)
Product 1:
Product 2:
Product 3:
Processing
Makes maize products
Makes livestock feeds
Makes sorghum
Other
Respond to the following questions by drawing from the responses from the table above.
Question
Vegetables
Grains
Livestock
Trading
Processing
On average, how many production
cycles do you have per year?
How much do you make per
production cycle (yields)?
How much is profit from this
production cycle income?
THEN CALCULATE ANNUAL INCOME AND PROFIT
Vegetables
Grains
Livestock
Trading
Processing
Average income per year
Average profit per year
1.2.How do you know that each time you finance your business you make a profit? ___
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
1.3.What prompted or encouraged you to operate this business? Demand and supply. _
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
1.4.How exactly do you sell your produce? Choose/tick the most appropriate in the table below.
Home
Farm gate
School
Clinic
87
Taxi rank in the community
Market stall in the community
Marker supported by MDF
Local shops and tuck shops
Bakkie traders
Vendors in town
Mainstream shops like Spar, Boxer
Pension pay points
Other, describe
1.5.What do you do in order to make sure you have enough produce to sell? In other words, meeting the
demand of your customers. _________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
1.6.What external factors that help you meet the demand from your customers?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
1.7.What external factors make it hard for you to meet the demand for your customers?
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
ACCESS TO FORMAL/MAINSTREAM MARKETS
2.Do you sell your produce to formal markets? For example, retail/chain stores like Spar, Pick & Pay, Boxer,
etc. [Yes| No] If yes, respond to questions 2.1 to 2.4 and if no, jump to questions 2.5 to 2.9.
2.1.Who are those buyers/shops? ___________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
2.2.What do they buy? ____________________________________________________
2.3.How often to you supply them? __________________________________________
2.4.What has been your experience in dealing with these shops? ___________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
2.5.Have you approached them/tried to sell to them? ____________________________
2.6.What do you need to know and do in order to sell to these shops? _______________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
88
2.7.What has been your experience the last time you approached these shops? _______
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
2.8.What you think you still need to know and do in order to sell your produce to these shops?
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.9.Do you think you really need to sell your produce to these shops? [Yes| No] If yes, why?
___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIES/SOURCES
3.In the event you are unable to sell your main produce/products, that is, when the demand is low, or when
you are still growing your crops, what else do you do/sell in order to generate income for your household?
Give details of your top 3 income generatingactivities (IGAs) that you use to supplement your household
income.
Type of IGA
IGA 1
IGA 2
IGA 3
Who are your main customers?
Exact time of the year the IGA is operated
Level of effort needed to operate the IGA
Level of demand
Average capital outlay
Average income
Average profit
NOTES_____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
FINANCING YOUR BUSINESSES
Use the table in the next page to respond to the following questions.
4.Have you used money from your savings group(s), loans of share-out to finance your business and/or
IGAs; how much, and did you make profit?
When?
Loan: How
much?
Share-out: How
much?
What was it used for?
Did you make
profit?
Last month
3 months back
89
When?
Loan: How
much?
Share-out: How
much?
What was it used for?
Did you make
profit?
6 months back
A year back
Last 2 years
TOTAL
NOTES_____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
FINANCING YOUR BUSINESS AND IGAs USING SAVINGS GROUPS
5.Use of short term loans from your savings group(s).
5.1.How many times have you taken out business loans from your savings group to finance your business last
year? __________________
5.2.How much were these loans in total? ____________________________
5.3.How much profit did you make from this loan/these loans? ___________________
6.Use of share-out money from your savings group(s).
6.1.How much have you received as share-out last year? ________________________
6.2.How much of this share-out was used to finance your business? _______________
6.3.How much profit did you make from this part of share-out that you used in your business?
______________
7.Total business finance:Looking back last year and until now, how much have you spent on your business
activities? __________________________
KEEPING BUSINESS RECORDS
8.Keeping business records.
8.1.What business records do you keep? Chose the most appropriate below.
•Cash/till slips
•Invoices
•Quotations
•Your logbook
•Your airtime and data purchases
•Your travel expenses/taxi fares
•Labour register and logbook
•Production asset register
•Register/journal of expenses, i.e. items consumed by the household
•Sales journal/cashbook
•Journal of expenses
•Month-to-month budget
•Month-to-month cash flow
8.2.Why is it important to keep these business records? _________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
90
8.3.Why do you struggle to keep business records? ______________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
8.4.What can you do to make record keeping easy for you? _______________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
WORKING TOGETHER
9.How have you worked together with your fellow producers with regards to the following activities?
Areas of working together
Yes
No
Planning together
Learning and sharing knowledge with regards to:
•production
•business management
•access to markets
•product/produce diversification
•operating supplementary IGAs
•Other (explain)
Buying inputs together and sharing transport costs and related logistics
Operating a savings groups specifically for production purposes/goals
10.What are your key business lessons from your experience? _______________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
11.Now that you have operated your business, what are characteristics of a successful business enterprise?
Refer to responses given in question 1 above._________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
FURTHER SUPPORT NEEDED
12.Having operated your business this far, what further support, e.g. business training and/or business
mentoring do you think you need in order to grow your business and your IGAs?
_____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
13.Do you have questions for me/MDF? _________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your time and participation.
91
ATTACHMENT 4:SUMMARY OF PRODUCTIVITY AND INCOME GENERATION FOR ALL FARMING ACTIVITIES
IN LIMPOPO –FROM ESILIENCE SNAPSHOT INTERVIEWS (N=20),JUNE 2024
92
Province
Village
Name
male
female
Yrs
under
CRA
Eaten
Amount
in kg
Inc in
amount
Income
increase in
income
Livestock
Cattle
Goats
Indigenous
poultry
Boschvleders
Broilers
Layers
Pigs
Limpopo
Turkey
Mgalangake Mogale
1
8
52%
6107,0
5360,0
R57 920,00
R50 288,00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Turkey
Magelina Shai
1
6
68%
1417,0
211,0
R9 890,00
R6 890,00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Turkey
Nkhurwane Sahi
1
8
64%
1891,0
1124,6
R148 790,00
R8 710,00
18
10
20
48
0
0
0
Limpopo
Turkey
Norah Thsehla
1
8
49%
1612,0
797,0
R8 259,00
R5 408,16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Turkey
Lydia Mogofe
1
8
59%
1235,0
265,0
R22 365,00
R2 320,00
0
0
All stolen
0
0
Limpopo
Turkey
Sarah Mohlala
1
8
78%
971,0
54,0
R2 730,00
R372,30
0
0
23
5
Goats stolen
0
0
Limpopo
Willows
Esther Monyela
1
4
69%
735,0
230,0
R58 350,00
R842,50
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Santeng
Lethabo Malepe
1
4
86%
430,0
160,0
R210,00
R211,00
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Santeng
Fridah Khokhlwane
1
4
64%
920,0
70,0
R2 095,00
R560,00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Willows
Reginah Pako
1
4
82%
125,0
45,0
R405,00
R405,00
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Willows
Silas Malepe
1
4
82%
1052,5
592,5
R75 805,00
R10 805,00
0
10
10
30
400
0
0
Limpopo
Willows
Moses Mogofe
1
4
59%
682,0
270,0
R51 500,00
R9 000,00
49
9
4
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Worcester
Melita Malatji
1
4
59%
682,0
270,0
R51 500,00
R9 000,00
0
0
25
0
0
0
9
Limpopo
Worcester
Madike Nkhekhe
1
4
100%
270,0
60,0
R35 000,00
R0,00
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Worcester
Nuame Manaso
1
4
67%
573,0
243,0
R82 976,00
R9 976,00
12
18
28
28
0
0
0
Limpopo
Worcester
Annah Ramoshaba
1
4
77%
732,0
437,0
R19 690,00
R250,00
0
12
36
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Sedawa
Miesie Mokwena
1
8
84%
867,0
287,0
R24 840,00
R630,70
0
6
0
10
0
0
0
Limpopo
Sedawa
Magdalena malepe
1
8
83%
920,0
465,0
R42 460,00
R42 460,00
0
0
15
30
0
60
0
Limpopo
Sedawa
Christinah Thobejane
1
8
32%
2725,0
405,0
R21 080,00
R3 650,00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Limpopo
Sedawa
Ronny Sekgobela
1
4
37%
1210,0
740,0
R9 500,00
R7 030,00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
116
65
189
151
400
60
9
5
15
6
67%
1257,8
604,3
R36 268,25
R8 440,43
23
11
19
25
400
60
9