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

Download PDF
i
Water Research Commission
Submitted to:
Dr Gerhard Backeberg
Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture
Water Research Commission
Pretoria
Prepared By:
Project team led by Mahlathini Development Foundation.
Project Number: K5/2719/4
Project Title: Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation strategies for the dissemination of
Waterand Soil Conservation practices and Climate Smart Agriculture in smallholder farming
systems.
Deliverable No.3:Report-Decision support system for CSA in smallholder farming developed
Date: January 2018
Deliverable
3
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 2
Submitted to:
Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture
Water Research Commission
Pretoria
Project team:
Mahlathini Development Centre
Erna Kruger
Sylvester Selala
Mazwi Dlamini
Khethiwe Mthethwa
Temakholo Mathebula
Institute of Natural Resources NPC
Jon McCosh
Rural Integrated Engineering (Pty) Ltd
Christiaan Stymie
Rhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre
Lawrence Sisitka
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 3
CONTENTS
FIGURES 6
TABLES 6
1OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND DELIVERABLE7
Contract Summary7
Project objectives7
Deliverables 7
Overview of Deliverable 38
2decision support system methodology10
Introduction 10
Decision Support System for CSA in smallholder farming systems21
Issues, constraints, risks and vulnerabilities23
Community level climate change adaptation analysis23
Farmer typology24
Potential adaptive measures and criteria for assessment24
Practices 26
Prioritization of practices for farmer innovation28
Monitoring, review and re-planning28
Indicators 28
3Process framework30
Climate Smart Agriculture: Process Facilitation30
Introduction 30
Design of the CCA community level workshop outline33
Testing the process38
4Site selection40
Introduction 40
Work Plan for measurements for KZN and Limpopo for 2017/2018 season40
Plot layout40
Participants for dryland cropping and gardening in KZN and Limpopo41
Soil and Water Measurements42
Budget for quantitative measurements43
5Communication strategy45
Introduction and Background45
Levels of Communication45
The Need for a Communication Strategy50
Partners and Stakeholders51
Promotion and Sharing of the Decision Support System53
Potential Users of the DSS53
Sharing with Smallholder Farmers54
Sharing with NGOs, Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services and other Training
Institutions/Organisations 54
Sharing Internationally54
Communication with and between the facilitators and farmers55
Introduction 55
Participatory videos55
WhatsApp 56
Radios 58
Audio cassettes59
Community Group meetings60
Demonstrations 60
Farm visits/ homestead visit61
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 4
Farmer-to-farmer Extension model62
Office Calls62
Telephone calls63
Informal contacts63
Internet-based platforms63
‘Hard Copy’ Materials63
Considerations in determining appropriate educational and communication methods65
6Capacity building66
Team Capacity building66
Postgraduate students66
Sanelisiwe Tafa-Fort Hare University (EC).66
Khethiwe Mthethwa (University of KwaZulu Natal)67
Mazwi Dlamini (UWC-PLAAS)67
Palesa Motaung (University of Pretoria)68
Sylvester Selala (UKZN)68
7Appendix 1: WRC PLANNING MEETING: 09-11 October 201769
DAY 1: AGENDA69
Decision Support System69
(Part 1)69
Decision Support System (Part 2)69
Decision Support System (Part 3)70
Deliverable 3 Outcomes70
1. Practices 70
2 Categories70
3Decision support system: implementation method71
AWARD CASE STUDY An example of CC dialogue facilitation at community level71
GrainSA Conservation Agriculture72
First Rand Foundation /WESBANK/FS Funding72
DAY 2 Agenda72
1. Presentations 73
Infrastructure/ engineering Practices: Chris73
AMANZI FOR FOOD: Lawrence74
Agroforestry: John75
Conservation Agriculture: Sylvester75
Coming up with a Decision Support System75
Categories 75
Group work: Technical aspects: Report back77
3. Quantitative measurements78
Site selection80
ToC for Deliverable 381
8APpendix 2: DICLAD Modules 2 & 3 with AgriSI stakeholders in the Lower Olifants
:24th to 26th Oct 201781
Overall purpose82
Expected outcomes82
Agenda 82
Participants 82
Recap of concepts covered in DICLAD Module 182
Botshabelo CSA practices85
Lepelle, Oaks and Finale CSA practices87
Sedawa CSA practices89
Learnings 90
Future CC actions91
Planning for DICLAD-AgriSI Module 3 (2018)91
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 5
9APpendix 3: WRC-CCA Community workshop: Sekororo (Lima)_20171128-29 93
Introductions 93
Impacts of CC94
What is CC94
Impacts 94
Past, present future of farming activities in the area94
Past: 94
Present 94
Future 95
CC predictions and understanding95
CC impact mind mapping96
Assessment of potential practices98
Practices 99
Criteria for assessing practices100
10 References 102
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 6
FIGURES
Figure 1:Disaggregated prioritisation of practices (CIAT CSA_RA, 2016) .............................................14
Figure 2: decision making process (Adapted from Heinemann, 1988).................................................18
Figure 3: Dimensions of Vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015)................................................................19
Figure 4: Schematic for DICLAD; Facilitating Understanding of Climate Change and Adaptation
(AWARD, 2017).....................................................................................................................................20
Figure 5: The DSS for smallholder farming systems .............................................................................23
Figure 6: Simplified model of the Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network, Middledrift Area, Eastern Cape
..............................................................................................................................................................51
Figure 7: Audio cassettes......................................................................................................................60
TABLES
Table 1: Excerpt from the Amanzi for Food Navigation Tool, 2015......................................................15
Table 2 :Community level criteria for assessment of CSA practices; Nov-Dec 2017............................25
Table 3: Community resource map description and uses.....................................................................31
Table 4: Seasonal calendar description and uses.................................................................................32
Table 5:Seasonal calendar ....................................................................................................................32
Table 6: Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo...............................41
Table 7: Measurements to be taken for the gardening trials...............................................................41
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 7
Report-DecisionsupportsystemforCSA
insmallholder farming developed
1OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND DELIVERABLE
Contract Summary
Project objectives
1. To evaluate and identify best practice options for CSA and Soil and Water Conservation
(SWC) in smallholder farming systems, in two bioclimatic regions in South Africa. (Output 1)
2. To amplify collaborative knowledge creation of CSA practices with smallholder farmers in
South Africa (Output 2)
3. To test and adapt existing CSA decision support systems (DSS) for the South Africansmallholder
context (Outputs 2,3)
4. To evaluate the impact of CSA interventions identified through the DSS by pilotinginterventions
in smallholder farmer systems, considering water productivity, social acceptability and farm-scale
resilience (Outputs 3,4)
5. Visual and proxy indicators appropriate for a Payment for Ecosystems based model aretested at
community level for local assessment of progress and tested against field and laboratory analysis
of soil physical and chemical properties, and water productivity (Output 5)
Deliverables
No
Deliverable
Description
Target date
FINANCIAL YEAR 2017/2018
1
Report: Desktop review of
CSA and WSC
Desktop review of current science, indigenous and traditional
knowledge, and best practice in relation to CSA and WSC in the
South African context
1 June 2017
2
Report on stakeholder
engagement and case
study development and
site identification
Identifying and engaging with projects and stakeholders
implementing CSA and WSC processes and capturing case studies
applicable to prioritized bioclimatic regions
Identification of pilot research sites
1 September
2017
3
Decision support system
for CSA in smallholder
farming developed
(Report)
Decision support system for prioritization of best bet CSA options in
a particular locality; initial database and models. Review existing
models, in conjunction with stakeholder discussions for initial
criteria
15 January
2018
FINANCIAL YEAR: 2018/2019
4
CoPs and demonstration
sites established (report)
Establish communities of practice (CoP)s including stakeholders and
smallholder farmers in each bioclimatic region.5. With each CoP,
identify and select demonstration sites in each bioclimatic region
and pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range
of CSA and WSC strategies in homestead farming systems (gardens
and fields)
1 May 2018
5
Interim report: Refined
decision support system
for CSA in smallholder
farming (report)
Refinement of criteria and practices, introduction of new ideas and
innovations, updating of decision support system
1 October
2018
6
Interim report: Results of
pilots, season 1
Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of
CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs in each site and the
decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,
31 January
2019
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 8
manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and
implementation.
FINANCIAL YEAR 2019/2020
7
Report: Appropriate
quantitative measurement
procedures for verification
of the visual indicators.
Set up farmer and researcher level experimentation
1 May 2019
8
Interim report:
Development of indicators,
proxies and benchmarks
and knowledge mediation
processes
Document and record appropriate visual indicators and proxies for
community level assessment, work with CoPs to implement and
refine indicators. Link proxies and benchmarks to quantitative
research to verify and formalise. Explore potential incentive
schemes and financing mechanisms.
Analysis of contemporary approaches to collaborative knowledge
creation within the agricultural sector. Conduct survey of present
knowledge mediation processes in community and smallholder
settings. Develop appropriate knowledge mediation processes for
each CoP. Develop CoP decision support systems
1 August
2019
9
Interim report: results of
pilots, season 2
Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of
CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs in each site and the
decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,
manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and
implementation.
31 January
2020
FINANCIAL YEAR 2020/2021
10
Final report: Results of
pilots, season
Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of
CSA and WSC strategies , working with the CoPs in each site and the
decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,
manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and
implementation.
1 May 2020
11
Final Report: Consolidation
and finalisation of decision
support system
Finalisation of criteria and practices, introduction of new ideas and
innovations, updating of decision support system
3 July 2020
12
Final report - Summarise
and disseminate
recommendations for best
practice options.
Summarise and disseminate recommendations for best practice
options for knowledge mediation and CSA and SWC techniques for
prioritized bioclimatic regions
7 August
2020
Overview of Deliverable 3
The design of the decision support system is seen as an ongoing process divided into three distinct
parts:
Practices: Collation, review, testing, and finalisation of those CSA practices to be included.
Allows for new ideas and local practices to be included over time. This also includes
linkages and reference to external sources of technical information around climate change,
soils, water management etc and how this will be done;
Process: Through which climate smart agricultural practices are implemented at
smallholder farmer level. This also includes the facilitation component, communities of
practice, communication strategies and capacity building and
Monitoring and evaluation: local and visual assessment protocols for assessing
implementation and impact of practices as well as processes used. This also includes site
selection and quantitative measurements undertaken to support the visual assessment
protocols and development of visual and proxy indicators for future use in inactive based
support schemes for smallholder farmers
Activities in this four month period have included:
-Team planning meeting(9-11 October 2017)
-Dialogues in climate change adaptation- including assessmentof practices Limpopo (25-27
October 2017)
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 9
-Design and implementation of process methodology for introduction of climate smart
agriculture and practices at community level; 4 villages across KZN and Limpopo(27Nov-1
Dec and 4-8 Dec 2017)
-Training of trainers process for introduction of process methodology(20 Nov 2017)
-Visual and descriptive outlines of all practices in the database; Attached as a separate
document
-Set up of sites for quantitative measurements: KZNfield sites(Ezibomvini, Eqeleni,
Mhlwazini); garden site (Ezibomvini), Limpopo field sites (Sedawa, Mametje, Botshabelo)
garden site (Sedawa)
-Capacity building and publications: Research presentations and chapters,newsletter
articles (GrainSA), conferences (PLAAS postgraduate conference) and awareness raising
events (Swayimane Conservation Agriculture day); Attached as separate Documents.
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 10
2DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM METHODOLOGY
By Lawrence Sisitka
Introduction
Section 2.3.3 in Deliverable 2 provided a broad introduction to and analysis of some existing
Decision Support Systems (also known as Decision Support Frameworks) in the global agricultural
sector. It was made clear that most such DSS have been developed to inform policy making at
national or regional levels. The developers of the framework “targetCSA” for example are very
specific that: The spatially-explicit multi-criteria decision support framework “targetCSA” … aims
to aid the targeting of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) at the national level(emphasis added)
(Brandt, Kvakić, Butterbach-Bahl, & Rufino, 2017)
Similarly the CCAFS Climate Smart Adaptation Prioritisation (CSAP) toolkit is intended to: … arm
policymakers with the information that they need to choose the best climate-smart interventions
in the short, medium and long term under varying climate scenarios(emphasis added) (Corner-
Dolloff, 2015).
Such wide-scale DSS can certainly provide a broad picture of where particular crops and particular
CSA practices may be most appropriate, according to bio-geographic and climatic zones, climate-
change predictions and other metrics such as soil types and fertility. In this way they can frame
the options for farmers in different areas.
In Deliverable 2 it was also made clear that South Africa currently does not have a DSS, or
equivalent, for agriculture in relation to climate change, at either national or provincial levels,
although it has been proposed that the National Climate Change Response Policy (NCCRP) (DEA,
2011) can, together with the Climate Change Sector Plan for AgricultureForestry and Fisheries
(CCSP) (DAFF, 2013) provide something of a framework for CSA. However it has also been suggested
that these are both too broad and too commercial in focus to be of much value to the small-scale
and emergent farmers who are the focusof this CSA project. This is not to say that they have no
value, and any development of a DSS within this project must certainly correlate with these
policies. But without clear national and provincial frameworks within which decisions can be made
at a local level, such decision-making will inevitably be based on understandings of local
conditions, augmented by knowledge of wider-scale climate predictions. In relation to the latter
South Africa is fortunate to have the South African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas (SARVA) portal
(www.SARVA.dirisa.org), through which up-to-date information on climate predictions for all parts
of the country, and a host of related information, can be accessed. However, in the form presented
in the portal, much of this information is perhaps not readily accessible to the majority of farmers,
or indeed, many people working with them.
As a DSS at a more local level, the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) has
developed a Climate Smart Agriculture Rapid Appraisal (CSA-RA) methodology, described as “A tool
for Prioritisation of Climate Smart Agriculture across Landscapes”(Mwongera, et al., 2016)(. This is
designed for use at the household-farm, community-landscape, and sub-regional scales, and is
based on a participatory approach, with farmers and external specialists, to the identification of
site-specific CSA interventions.
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 11
Access to information of all kinds is absolutely essential for effective decision-making, and much of
the information generated and used in formal DSS, such as those described above, is highly
technical and captured in ways inaccessible to most farmers. Many national and regional-scale DSS
are internet-based, and involve complex analyses, using sophisticated modelling and computational
tools considerably beyond the capacity of all but the specialists who develop such tools to grasp.
While such information and analyses can to some degree be mediated through careful facilitation,
the ownership of information, and process and indeed the decisions themselves is often left
strongly in the hands of the specialists. In developing DSS for farmers, the more information is
directly accessible and understood by them, and the more open and comprehensible the analyses,
the better, as they will then have stronger ownership of these, and of the decisions taken through
them. The CIAT approach, described above, draws strongly on information from the farmers
themselves, although also incorporating specialist technical information on climate change
predictions and would appear to place the ownership of decision making quite firmly in the
farmers’ own hands.
Criteria
DSS require the identification of a range of technical and social criteria relevant to the context,
which decision-makers need to analyse in order to reach their decisions. The basis of the analysis
in Decision Support Systems is often an assessment of vulnerability. TargetCSA, for example uses a
range of ‘climate change vulnerability indicators’ as follows:
Biophysical
Annual precipitation (as an indicator for water availability and ecosystem productivity)
Soil organic matter (as an indicator of soil fertility and ecosystem productivity)
Social
Percentage of households with access to safe water sources (as an indicator of household well-
being)
Literacy rate (as an educational indicator for adaptive capacity, i.e. for making informed decisions)
Economic
Female participation in economic activities (as an indicator for women’s empowerment and
gender equity)
Connectivity through transport infrastructure (as an indicator of farmers’ accessibility to markets)
It is worth remembering that targetCSA is a DSS developed for a broad spatial analysis, at either
national or regional levels, with the decision makers being mostly policy-makers, albeit with input
from some farmers. These fairly broad indicators are essentially proxies for complex biophysical,
social and economic realities, and are prone to considerable variation when applied on such a broad
scale. Their relevance in some situations may also be questionable, such as with literacy levels as a
proxy for adaptive capacity, suggesting that farmers with some formal education are more likely to
have this capacity than those without education. There is also the issue that on this scale farmers
are seen as a homogenous entity, rather than, as is the reality, a group of individuals with
individual circumstances, needs and aspirations.
In targetCSA these vulnerability indicators are linked to a range of generic CSA practices, or
practice approaches considered appropriate responses in the light of particular combinations of the
indicators. The practices identified, with their suggested links to the indicators are:
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 12
CSA Practices
Improvement of soil fertility and soil managementlinked to: soil organic matter and literacy rate
Identification and distribution of drought tolerant cereal cropslinked to: annual precipitation
and literacy rate
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from thelivestocksectoridentified as a mitigation
measure, linked to all the vulnerability indicators
Improvement of water harvesting and water managementlinked to: annual precipitation;
percentage of households with access to safe water sources; literacyrate; and connectivity
through transport infrastructure
Identification and establishment of agroforestry practiceslinked to: soil organic matter and
female participation in economic activities
Implementation of livestock insuranceslinked to: annual precipitation; percentage of households
with access to safe water sources; literacy rate; and connectivity through transport infrastructure
On the scale at which targetCSA is intended to operate as a DSS these generic practices can provide
useful guidance for which specific practices might be most appropriate in different areas.
For example, in Kenya, where target CSA was piloted, areas were identified for their suitability for
different generic practices:
Improvement of soil fertility and soil management
Improvement of water harvesting and water management
These show clearly that while improved soil management was important across almost the entire
country, it was particularly appropriate in some western, many southern central, and some eastern
areas. Improved water management is also appropriate across the country, but particularly vital in
the northern and eastern parts. When working at a local level, this DSS may help focus attention on
those specific interventions and practices most allied to the broad requirements identified by the
DSS for any particular area.
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 13
The CIAT CSA-RA methodology involves a rather different set of criteria, which are more locally
relevant, with the information for most of them coming from the farming communities. The process
was therefore more inherently participatory than that of targetCSA which was very expert-driven.
The focus is more on the existing situation in terms of farmingpractices, livelihoods and the
challenges faced by the communities. Although the criteria are neither clearly defined, nor
conveniently categorised, the main ones are:
Current farming practices (farm size, inputs, yields crops, livestock)
Community resources
Community organisation and organisations
Income sources, including off-farm income
Household food security
Challenges to current and changing practices
Much of this information is derived through the use of a range of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
techniques, such as resource maps, cropping and climate calendars, and institutional mapping.
Some practices identified as CSA practices for prioritisation by farmers are:
Seed selection
Timely planting
Improved varieties
Broadcasting
Controlled burning
Crop rotation
Intercropping
Correct spacing
Wetland conservation
Agroforestry
Improved breeds
It can be seen that while some are specific others are more generic, and perhaps some would not
necessarily be considered CSA practices, but rather basic farming practices. However it appears
that these practices were identified with the farmers in Northern Uganda, one of the sites where
the methodology was piloted. This provides a useful lesson in that we cannot, as outsiders, be too
prescriptive in terms of what should be considered CSA, and that farmers themselves may interpret
other practices as being appropriate.
The prioritisation itself was disaggregated in terms of gender and agro-ecological zone, and showed
extraordinary differences in the responses:
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 14
Figure 1:Disaggregated prioritisation of practices (CIAT CSA_RA, 2016)
This suggests that achieving a consensus on prioritisation may be extremely challenging, even
impossible, and that an individual approach, where each farmer decides on their own priorities is
may be more achievable.
Other DSS or DSS-related models developed in relation to CSA use a range of criteria which while
related can differ quite widely from each other. This difference often arises, as in the two
examples above, from the different scales at which they are targeted, with the broader scale using
more generic criteria or indicators, and the more local scale approaches able to be more specific in
focus.
A form of DSS has been developed by the ‘Amanzi for Food’ project (Amanzi for Food, 2015) to
assist farmers in selecting rainwater harvesting and conservation (RWH&C) practices in which they
were interested, and wished to learn more about from the WRC materials which the project was
intended to make more accessible. This DSS is known as the ‘Navigation Tool’, as it is intended to
aid navigation of the materials to find the specific information which was being sought. However,
the basis of the Tool is an initial selection of RWH&C practices, for which some basic information is
provided, for example:
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 16
The Scales (column 2) are categorised (typologised) as follows:
1. Umzi (garden/homestead) fundamentally subsistence level production. This is the smallest
scale band, and includes homestead gardens and shared community gardens, with the focus
very much on production for own use, although with potential for sharing, barter, and limited
sales. Entirely fresh produce for local consumption. Can include small numbers of small livestock.
The production sites are either attached to or relatively close to the farmers’ (or gardeners’)
homes. Unlikely to involve employment of farm workers from outside the family. Low input
costs, with little or no gross profit margin in the form of financial income. Areas involved rarely
more than 1ha.
2. Small arable (Field) small-scale commercial production. This mid-scale band encompasses
larger shared community/co-operative gardens, and dedicated arable plots, with the emphasis
on production for income generation, with some for own use, sharing and bartering. Generally
producing fresh produce, although with potential for processing and value-adding. Supplying
local and nearby, and potentially some national markets. Can include small livestock production.
Production areas may be some distance from the farmers’ homes. May involve employment of
workers from outside the family. Increased input costs with generation of some gross profit.
Generally areas of 1 2ha
3. Large arable and livestock (Farm) Full commercial arable production, differing levels of (small
and large) livestock production. Essentially focussed on production for income generation, with
little if any for own consumption. Some fresh produce, but also produce grown for mass
processing. This can include production of crops not consumed locally, for national or
international markets. Production areas may be some distance from the farmers’ homes. Almost
invariably involving employment of workers from outside the family. Relatively high input costs,
with reasonable gross profit margins. Generally areas of more than 2ha.
And the Other Factors (column 4) are described:
Low:
Technologies basic gardening equipment;
Skills and understandings as required for basic gardening;
Cost R0 R1000;
Maintenance none or one or two days a year, simple repairs
Medium:
Technologies simple testing or measuring kits, tanks, pipes;
Skills and understandings as required for small-scale business;
Cost R1000 R10,000;
Maintenance regular but infrequent checking/repair, 7 10 days/year, technical repairs.
High:
Technologies specialised equipment (tractors, mechanical pumps, laboratories etc.);
Skills and understandings as required for professional specialists;
Cost >R10, 000;
Maintenance essential regular and frequent checking and repair, up to 50 days/year, complex
technical repairs
The Tool is divided into four (4) broad categories of practice:
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 17
General Skills, applicable to and underpinning many of the practices
Collecting, reducing loss, and holding rainwater (as in example, above)
Storing rainwater
Using rainwater (irrigation)
Essentially here the criteria used for decision making are:
Category of practice
Type of practice
Scale of farming operation
Required technologies
Required skills and understandings
Cost
Maintenance requirements
These do not include any bio-geographic or climate criteria, as most RWH&C practices are
considered appropriate in most except the very wettest (maybe not necessary) or very driest
(probably not realistic) areas. The aim is for farmers themselves to be able decide on the practices in
which they are most interested, according to their own context and needs, without requiring any
external support, and then to access more information on these from the materials.
While this last example does not include some criteria which may be crucial for a CSA DSS, and the
farming typologies may differ from those adopted by the WRC-CSA project, the fact that this is
designed for use by very much the same types of farmers who are the focus of the CSA project
suggests that the simplicity and immediate accessibility of this model may provide a valuable guide
to a CSA DSS.
Process
DSS in general comprise both technical and social elements, each of which has both qualitative and
quantitative dimensions. DSS are essentially processes, involving recognition of the need to make a
decision; identification and collection of appropriate information (based on the criteria selected for
the particular DSS); analysis of this information; identification of available options; selection of best
option and decision-making. A generic decision-making process followed by a DSS, initially presented
in Deliverable 2, can take the following shape:
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 18
Figure 2: decision making process (Adapted from Heinemann, 1988)
This suggests that while qualitative information, both technical (i.e. soil types, climate) and social
(i.e. availability of skills and resources) is essential for the process to be effective, this is not
necessarily the case for quantitative information (i.e. precise rainfall predictions, or specific market
requirements); indeed the latter may be extremely difficult to access.
One aspect of a decision-making process is the prioritisation of criteria, as those with the highest
priority may well provide the starting point for decision-making. For the targetCSA DSS, described
above, the clear priorities are climate predictions and soil types, the combination of which, in
concert with social criteria such as literacy level, according to the developers of this DSS determine
which practices might be most appropriate. The CIAS CSA-RA methodology is less clear about
prioritisation, and appears to leave this more to the farmers themselves, which is entirely
appropriate at the local level. The Amanzi for Food Navigation Tool, while not being prescriptive in
this respect does suggest that the scale of farming is quite a strong priority in terms of criteria, as
some practices , such as Saaidamme, are really only appropriate on a larger scale, while others, such
as mulching are most appropriate at the smaller scales. However, as with the CSA-RA approach, it is
the farmers themselves who mostly identify their own priorities in relation to the criteria.
Facilitation
An important tool in relation to understanding the social context within which farmers are operating
is a vulnerability assessment, for which a valuable toolkit is the CGIAR/CCAFS Working Paper 108:
Climate Change & Food Security Vulnerability Assessment Toolkit for assessing community-level
Yes
No
Implement decision
Select best alternative
Assess/analyse information
Identify options
Begin DSS process
Collect qualitative information
Decision needs to be made
Quantitative approach/information
needed?
Collect quantitative information
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 19
potential for adaptation to climate change(Ulrichs, Cannon, Newsham, Naess, & Marshall, 2015).
This toolkit, as discussed in Deliverable 2 is premised on 5 dimensions of vulnerability (DoV):
Figure 3: Dimensions of Vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015)
Such an assessment provides a strong foundation for determining the capacity of farmers for
adaptation. This approach has been adopted by different programmes globally, and is often
combined with a specialist, or external expert-driven process.
However, the broader aim of any facilitation in regard to the use of a DSS is to empower the farmers
to be confident in their decision-making with the support of the DSS. Any DSS at the local level must
be fully and easily accessible and useable by the farmers themselves with minimal facilitation long
after the project has finished. So while a facilitation process may begin with an analysis of
vulnerability, it must also, and very importantly, move to a recognition of opportunity and
developing farmers’ recognition of their own capacities to rise to challenges and grasp opportunities.
The Appreciative Inquiry approach of the Taos Institute, USA and the Voluntary Organisation for
Rural Development (VORD) in Bangladesh, takes very much this positive approach and their “…guide
on ‘Appreciative Inquiry to Promote Local Innovations among Farmers Adapting to Climate Change’
is prepared for the development workers who would like to facilitate a community learning and
adaptation process, especially for farmers in agriculture; facing challenges of climate change. This
guide is not about agricultural technologies which would help farmers to adapt but it is about
facilitating a process of sharing knowledge and technologies farmers are continuously innovating to
overcome challenges.” (Saya, 2012)
They define Appreciative Inquiry as:
“Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. valuing; the act of recognizing the best in people or the world around us;
affirming past and present strengths, successes, and potentials; to perceive those things that give
life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems. 2. to increase in value, e.g. the economy has
appreciated in value. Synonyms: VALUING, PRIZING, ESTEEMING, and HONORING.
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 20
In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. the act of exploration and discovery. 2. To ask questions; to be open to seeing
new potentials and possibilities. Synonyms: DISCOVERY, SEARCH, and SYSTEMATIC EXPLORATION,
STUDY.”
The process is promoted as a positive alternative to the problem-solving approach to development,
and is described as a 4D (Discovery, Dream, Design, Destiny) Cycle, centred on an Affirmative Topic.
The Dialogues in Climate Change and Adaptation (DICLAD) process developed by the Association for
Water and Rural Development Resilm programme on the Oliphants River (AWARD, 2017), takes a
similar approach, which informs the following explorative process concerning climate change and
adaptation:
Figure 4: Schematic for DICLAD; Facilitating Understanding of Climate Change and Adaptation(AWARD, 2017)
The facilitation process appropriate for introducing the WRC-CSA DSS is described in Section 2 and 3
, below, and draws on the more participatory and positive approaches exemplified by the
Appreciative Inquiry and the DICLAD processes.
DSS for this project
The main aim of the DSS is for individual farmers or farming collectives to be capacitated to
strengthen their farming practices in the light of potential climate change impacts. A subsidiary aim
is to encourage farmers to support each other in this enterprise, and to encourage others, including
agricultural extension officers and personnel from local agricultural training institutions to also
support the process. Such support can be provided through the establishment of learning networks
as described later in Section 6.
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 21
The WRC-CSA project DSS process follows a fundamentally participatory approach with emphasis on
farmers’ own experiences and understandings of climate change. Through a closely facilitated
process they identify trends, which they ascribe to climate change, which have impacted their
farming activities in recent years, and are encouraged to extrapolate from these to make predictions
about possible future impacts. In this they are supported by climate change and agricultural impact
predictions developed by the specialists. Following this there is an exploration of the farming
typologies in terms of scales of operation, the crops and livestock produced, and the specific
resources, natural and other, to which the farmers have access for their operations. Issues affecting
the natural resources are also explored.
These preliminaries lay the ground for discussion of what options are available to farmers to
improve their situation, particularly in the light of the predicted climate change impacts, and for the
introduction of a wide range of farming practices considered appropriate for increasing resilience in
the face of climate change. Based on their own understandings of their contexts, their skills,
knowledge and aspirations they can then select from the available practice options those they feel
are most appropriate and relevant to their situation. They can then besupported in the
implementation of these practices both by the facilitating organisation, initially the WRC-CSA team,
and indeed by other farmers and other members of their learning network.
At this stage in the project the idea is that the project team itself facilitates the DSS with the farmers
in the different areas, but the aim is, following extensive piloting of the process and the inevitable
refining that will follow, for the DSS to be developed as a complete package which can be facilitated
anywhere in the country by suitably skilled NGO or agricultural extension service personnel.
Decision Support System for CSA in smallholder farming systems
By Erna Kruger
The process of implementing the decision support system at farmer level is to follow the six steps
outlined below. Within each, there is a further process/ methodology for how this can be achieved.
Basically, the decision process moves from; Farmer typology AspirationsFarming systems
PracticesPrioritized practices for experimentation.
This is a cyclical review, planning and action process.
1. Climate change:
a. Hotter, drier
b. Rain variability, more intense
Summarise external information and baseline assessments: agro-ecological zones, climate
regimes (predictions, rainfall distribution, temperatures etc), socio-economic data social
issues, land use options (farming systems)
2. Issues, constraints, risks, vulnerabilities, aspirations/priorities
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 22
Community level climate change adaptation analysis
Farmer typologies (A,B,C)
Aspirations: Gardens, fields, livestock, trees
3. Potential adaptive measures and criteria for assessment
5 Categories of farming system (water, soil, crops, livestock, natural resources)
4. Practices
List of practices filtered for farmer typology, aspiration, farming system
5. Prioritization of practices for farmer innovation
Ranking for implementation of farmer experimentation within existing practices using;
-Farmer criteria
-Biophysical and climate criteria(rainfall, temperature, topography, soil)
-
6. Monitoring, review, re-planning
Choice of visual (qualitative) and quantitative indicators for assessment by farmers and researchers
Assessment of adaptation and also impact
The diagram below summarises the above information
Size
Resources:physical,
environmental
Resources: socio-
economic
Social/institutional
Management
capacity/technolog
y
Farmer
Typology: A,B,C
Gardening
Field cropping
Livestock
Trees, incl fruit
Aspiration
Water
management
Soil health
management
Crop
management
Livestock
management
Natural resoruce
management
Farming system
Water flow management
Infiltration
greywater management
RWH
Irrigaiton
Soil erosion control
Irrigation
increased organic matter
microclimate management
crop diversification
(including varieties,
calendars
improved tillage
agroforestry
fodder/feed management
..........
Practices
Labour
Cost
Ease- techincal
Productivity
Soil health
Water use
efficiency
Knowledge
Prioritzation -
criteria
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 23
Figure 5: The DSS for smallholder farming systems
Issues, constraints, risks and vulnerabilities
Community level climate change adaptation analysis
In these community level workshops -dialogues; facilitation tools are to be designed that can assist
in the analysis. These are to be carefully chosen to ensure an ability to differentiate between
weather and climate change, unpack changes in the environment and livelihoods and those affected
by climate change and impacts of these and current practices and adaptations already being
implemented to respond to these changes.
Facilitation steps proposed are as follows:
1. Contextualization: Natural resources, need to look at climate change databases for
KZN/EC/Limpopo, and discuss with people how these will affect them. Also look at the
difference between variability in weather and climate change. NB! There is variability in
weather and there is also a major change in that variability in weather, predictions and
certainty (Tools; impact picture, role plays,
2. Exploration of temperature and rainfall and participants’’ understanding of how these are
changing (Tool: Seasonal diagrams on temperature and rainfall normal and how these are
changing)
3. Timeline in terms of agriculture (Tool: livelihoods and farming timelines -assessment of past,
present and future)
4. Reality Map: changes (in natural resources), impacts (of changes), practices (past, present,
future), challenges/responses (Tool: Mind mapping of impacts)
5. Current practices and responses (effectiveness of responses) (Tool: outlining adaptive
measures on mind map)
Using these facilitation steps a workshop process has been designed (and tested). Below is a
summary of the workshop outline:
1. What we are seeing around us, what has been happening (nature, economy, society, village,
livelihoods, farming) (list main issues (biophysical, social, economic) with ranking of
vulnerability, organisational mapping, financial flows and services mapping,
2. Past, present, future of farming activities and livelihoods (timelines and trends)
3. Climate vs weather(role play)
4. Scientific understanding of climate change (Power point input)
5. Seasonality diagrams of temperature and rainfall generally what it is, what is changing
(seasonality diagrams)
6. Reality maps (choose temp, or rainfall): draw up mind maps of impacts (mind mapping)
7. Turn impacts in to priority goals (positive statements) and think through adaptive measures
that we know of or think could work
8. Introduce a range of practices (facilitation team) related to these goals to broaden potential
adaptive measures(A4 picture summaries and power point presentations)
9. Walkabouts and individual interviews (transect walks, key informant interviews, mapping of
local innovations/adaptations)
10. Prioritization of practices matrix using farmer level criteria for assessment (matrix ranking
and scoring)
11. Planning of farmer experimentation, learning sessions and implementation of practices
(Individual experimentation outlines, lists)
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 24
This process framework is explained in more detail in Section 3 below.
The facilitation process (Steps 1-10), have been piloted in four villages:
2 in Limpopo (Tzaneen, Hoedpsruit): Sekororo (Lima RDF - Mahlathini), Turkey- Sedawa Ext
(AWARD-Mahlathini)
2 in KZN midlands (Estcourt, Bergville): Thabamhlope (Lima RDF-Mahlathini), Thamela
(GrainSA-Mahlathini)
These villages were chosen so that 1 village in each province is already implementing food security
and some CSA practices and the other is new to the idea of considering climate change adaptation in
their farming.
Farmer typology
Individual interviews (10-20minimum), transect walks, household visits
Summarise and present in focus group discussions for review
Here farmers choose a category (A,B,C)within which they feel the most comfortable based on the
following criteria;
Head of household (male/female)
No of adults
No of children
Dependency ratio
Income sources
Level of income
Scale of operation; 0,1-1ha, 1-2(5) ha, > 2 (5) ha
Farming activities; Aspirations gardens, fields, livestock,trees
Market access
Other activities
Resources
Water access
Infrastructure
Knowledge and skills
Literacy rate/ level of schooling
Social organisation
This process was initiated and a sample of household interviews conducted in the four villages
where the process has been piloted. From here the work will continue in fleshing out farmer
typologies that make sense to local participants.
Potential adaptive measures and criteria for assessment
The matrix ranking exercise was conducted in two of the four pilot villages; the two villages where
food security implementation is already under way. The practices chosen by the groups were
assessed against the criteria using a simple scale of 1-3 where 1 is little/bad, 2 is medium or OK and
3 is good or a lot.
Below is a small table that compares the different criteria used by the participants in Limpopo and
KZN. As can be seen there are a number of criteria used by all three groups and across both
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 25
provinces; including increased water availability, increased water access, costs, increased crop
quality and labour requirements.
Table 2 :Community level criteria for assessment of CSA practices; Nov-Dec 2017
CRITERIA
Sekororo
Thabamhlophe(2 groups)
Increased water availability/ water use efficiency
Increased water access
Increased soil fertility
Costs
Increased crop quality
Labour
Time taken for implementing practice
Tools
Availability of materials
Fewer pests
From these exercises it will be possible to outline a number of criteria which are common across
different groups in different areas and work with these to fine tune categories of practices for the
DSS. Criteria will also differ slightly depending which sets of practices are being compared.
Practices chosen by participants(as shownin the photos below)included: tower gardens, keyhole
gardens, eco-circles, trench beds, mulching, intercropping, No -till (with planters and using hand
hoes), underground storage tanks, jo-jo- tanks, diversion furrows, furrows and ridges, tunnels,
lizard hotels (promotion of pest predators)
Clockwise fromtopleft: Sekororo matrix of
practices assessed against criteria and
matrices for 2 groups in Thabamhlophe.
For the two new villages, it did not make
sense to compare practices against each
other without participants knowing much
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 26
about them. Here a slightly different process to elucidate criteria for assessment from participants
would need to be designed. We tried out an exercise where participants did an assessment of
practices they are already aware of in the village and asked them whether it works and if not why
not to begin to tease out some of the criteria participants would use.
In Turkey for example the participants came up with the following analysis:
In this picture participants looked
at rainwater harvesting, sand
dams, cutting grass and storage
for fodder for livestock, tunnels
and planting indigenous trees in
their gardens for shade.
Criteria they used here to assess
how well these practices work in
the village were; costs versus
benefit, labour and safety.
Right: Picture of an analysis of
local climate adaptation measures
in Turkey (Hoedspruit, Limpopo,
Nov 2017)
This is an ongoing process and will be explored further in the next round of workshops.
Practices
The database of practices that has been developed throughout deliverables 1 and 2 has been
slightly expanded and tidied up.The inventory of practices has been updated and practices related
to livestock management have been given some attention, as it is clear already from our
interaction with communitiesthat this is going to be a more central theme than initially
anticipated. See Attachment: DSS Flowchart_20171218
Practices that have been suggested by participants which are not yet in the database (but will be
included) are:
-Windbreaks
-Spring protection
-Strip cropping
-Fodder production (dryland and irrigated) and
-Biogas digesters
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 27
An A4 summary of each practice with pictures and criteria. These can be presented initially as an
overview of options(related to what participants are prioritizing) and later used as the basis for
information provision in learning events. A few examples are shown below
The process of working with the facilitation team to choose a small selection 5-8 practices to
present to the participants in the workshop situation has worked well. Some form of prioritization
is required (this will eventually happen through the DSS), as all practices cannot presented all at
once to the group. These practices are based on the discussions on impacts and adaptive measures
done on the first day of the workshop.
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 28
Prioritization of practices for farmer innovation
A process will be designed to assist individual farmers to prioritize practices for themselves that
they would like to try and implement. This is likely to occur within the five categories (water
management, soil management, crop management, livestock management and natural resources).
Implementation of some practices of course require join activities, social organisation and agency
and will be introduced and discussed in the learning group situation and supported through the CoPs
in each site. These aspects will be focussed on in the deliverables following on from here. Aspects
that will be considered include:
- Farmer experimentation
- Learning groups
- Individual choices of practices
- Discussion around researcher managed trials
- Local level monitoring
-Learning needs and sessions planning
- Associated issues; stakeholder relations
- Financial issues; VSLA (Village savings and loan associations)
Monitoring, review and re-planning
We need to clearly outline how the practices relate to the three principles of CSAand then how
these three principles are used in monitoring
A. Increase in productivity
B. Increase resilience to climate change and variability
C. Reducing agriculture’s contribution to climate change
To monitor indicators, use benchmarking/ validation/ threshold values. Develop ranges and scales
for determination of applicability and impact.The initial steps in setting out experiments for both
qualitative and quantitative measurements (for gardens and fields) have been put in place. This is
discussed in more detail in Section 4 (Site selection) below.
Indicators
Physical and quantitative indicators (potential- to belinked to researcher managed trials)
Productivity
Yield
Soil fertility/ nutrient availability
Water availability
Infiltration rates
Moisture holding capacity
Soil carbon/ soil organic matter
Diversification
Resilience
-Trends over time
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 29
-Diversity of practices
-Social agency
-Adaptability- awareness and response, system and farmer flexibility
-Robustness- soil health
-Reduced risk- reduced water demands
Carbon
-Soil management practices
-Crop and animal husbandry management
-Reduced carbon emissions-reduce mechanization, Extensive livestock production
-Increase carbon capture- reduction of veld burning, increase in SOM
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 30
3PROCESS FRAMEWORK
By Temakholo Mathebula
Climate Smart Agriculture: Process Facilitation
Introduction
The introduction of climate smart agriculture (CSA) requires a clear understanding of its suitability,
costs and benefits, and environmental implications in a local context. Hence, the approaches that
aim to identify and prioritize locally appropriate CSA practices will need to address the context
specific and multi-dimensional complexity in agricultural systems. When addressing complex
challenges that cannot be solved by formal research alone and for which various stakeholders are
required to identify solutions, more participatory and learning orientated approaches need to be
applied. Stimulating stakeholder participation (government, NGO’s, community members,
researchers, extension practitioners) in the different stages of research will result in more relevant
and effective solutions to challenges that will be addressed. Participation includes people’s
involvement in the decision making processes, program implementation, and information sharing as
well program evaluation. Participatory tools can be used to incorporate people’s ideas into
development plans and empower them to acquire skills and knowledge to make more informed
decisions. Incorporating participatory approaches will be of importance in the WRC CSA project as
it will allow for deeper understanding of the realities in the communities across the three
provinces, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), Limpopo and Eastern Cape (EC) and thus the identification of
relevant and context specific practices.
Process Facilitation
The initial phase of implementation of the WRC CSA project will include a study of climate change
databases for KZN, EC and Limpopo to gain an understanding of the change in rainfall patterns and
temperatures in the three provinces, which will be discussed with participants. Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) tools will be used in the contextualization of the
realities and issues relating to climate change, local resources, farming practices and socio-
economic status. The PRA/RRA tools to be used include a focus group discussion, community
resource map, seasonal calendar, historical timeline, village walk and the ranking matrix. The
expected outcome will be a greater understanding of farmer perceptions towards climate change,
current practices and responses, prioritization of issues and the identification of the most relevant
practices.
The process facilitation will be conducted over a period of two days. The first day will commence
with a focus group discussion on climate change, its impacts and farmer responses to changes. The
focus group will be followed by a group exercise of community resource mapping with the objective
of graphically presenting the access to, control and distribution of resources. The third tool is a
seasonal calendar of farming activities, depicting seasonal variations and periods of vulnerability.
Lastly, a historical timeline will be used to depict changes in crop production over time and the
factors driving these changes.
Day 1
Focus Group Discussion
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 31
A focus group discussion consists of people with similar concerns, share a common problem and
purpose. It is used to obtain information that would not be expressed in a larger setting and the
advantages of this tool are that a lot of information can be collected in a short space of time, the
information gathered is grounded in the local setting, different views and perspectives are shared
on one platform and sensitization and awareness raising to decision making on specific topics. The
focus group discussion will seek toanswer the following:
-What are the farmers’ current understanding of climate change?
-Do farmers know the difference between climate change and weather variability?
-What does research say about climate change in their local context?
-What practices are they currently using?
-How effective are their current practices in mitigating the effects of climate change?
-What do the farmers foresee happening in the future based on what they are currently doing?
-What are their biggest challenges and who do they think can assist in addressing those
challenges?
The focus group discussion will serve to give background information on existing paradigms
regarding climate change and will allow for exploration and cross checking of different views.
Community Resource Map
A Community Resource Map is used to depict the occurrence, spatial distribution access to and
utilization of resources. The group will draw a map showing rivers, forests, livelihoods, households
and infrastructure and will include information they find relevant starting from a main reference
point. The facilitator will not intervene once the drawing has begun as the purpose of this exercise
will be for participants to depict their current situation as they see and perceive it. The map will
be used for further analysis during the transect walk to help gain an understanding of how the
participants picture their situation compared to what is actually taking place. The outcome of
resource mapping will be to identify local resources and strengths within the community.
Table 3: Community resource map description and uses
Name of Tool
Community Resource Map
Description
Depicts information regarding the occurrence, distribution, access to and
distribution of resources from the perspective of the participants
Uses
To identify links between resources, landmarks, households and activities
Allows people to picture their resources and show their significance through
drawing
Identify resources, challenges and opportunities
Information
gathered
Graphical presentation of how people view their environment, participants’
analysis of their natural environment
Complementary
tools
Transect walk, seasonal calendar
Time
1.5 to 2 hours
Seasonal Calendar
A seasonal calendar reflects the participants’ concept of time and seasonal categories. The tool is
useful in identifying main crops, planting sequences and the associated activities. It also allows for
a plenary discussion regarding access to and control of resources between men and women and how
gender roles impact uptake of practices. A period of a year is covered using a seasonal calendar,
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 32
but ideally a longer period of up to 18 months or more will give the full seasonal variations.
Symbols can be used to show the different seasons. The facilitator will ask which phenomena
(production, climate, social, economic, resource distribution etc.) fluctuate on a seasonal basis and
these will be listed. Priority will be given to aspects which are clearly linked to the mainfocus of
the research.
Table 4: Seasonal calendar description and uses
Name of Tool
Seasonal Calendar
Description
Visual method of showing the distribution of seasonally varying
phenomena related to and influencing production
Uses
Gives insights into seasonal differences
Highlights cause-and-effect relationships between seasonally varying
phenomena
Identify periods of the season where social groups are more or less
vulnerable
Identify coping and mitigation strategies used by participants to
minimize risk
Information gathered
Seasonal variations in vulnerability, control of and access to resources,
activities
Complementary tool
Ranking Matrix
Time
1.5 to 2 hours
Table 5:Seasonal calendar
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Temperature
and Rainfall
Crops
Livestock
Income and
expenditure
Social
activities
Illness and
diseases
Employment
Historical Timeline
The historical timeline gives insight into specific changes over an extended period of time. The
advantage of using this tool is that it links different issues in time, and helps participants identify
significant changes in agricultural production over time. The timeline should return to the most
distant point in time or as far as participants can remember as a starting point. Events are placed
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 33
in a vertical line that represent the timeline with the oldest event placed at the top. When the
timeline is concluded, trends and important events will be discussed, i.e. changes in crop varieties,
weather conditions, significant changes in yields and other important factors.
Day 2
Village Walk
The village walk is a walkabout with the aim to raise participants’ awareness on the spatial
distribution of agricultural resources and their management. A transect diagram depicting soil,
topography, water access and natural resources is drawn up with their different uses and
variations, associated challenges and opportunities. The walkabout is conducted along the largest
diversity of areas and land uses. Questions to be answered during this activity are:
-Which resources are present (land uses, vegetation, crops)?
-Why are these resources present?
-How is labour distributed and who benefits from these resources?
-What changes have the participants observed in the past?
Design of the CCA community level workshop outline
By Erna Kruger
A number of smaller preparation session were undertaken prior to the joint process planning
workshop designed to set out the community level methodology and process for introducing the
Climate Change concepts and the decision support process.
At the workshop a joint methodology was agreed upon and a process outline was developed.
The table belowindicates the outline for 2 workshops to be conducted in KZNand thus names the
team involved there. As a generic outline the team members will change, but the rest is meant to
remain similar throughout.
Community level climate change adaptation exploration workshop outline
DAY 1
Time
Activity
Process
Notes
Materials
Who
9:00am
INTRODUCTION
9:00-
9:45am
Community and
team
introductions
In pairs, take 5 minutes
to talk to each other.
Then introduce each
other to the group.
Choose a person you
don’t know well (both
team and community).
[include Name and
surname, farming
activities (garden, field,
livestock natural
Depending on the
size of the group,
this can take a long
time. If time is short,
then just do a quick
round of intro's.
Attendance register
- with columns for
farming enterprises
(so that each
participant can tick
what they do) - in
English and
Zulu/Pedi. Name
tags; stickers, kokis
Nozipho
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 34
resources), income from
farming]
Purpose of the
day
Introduction of the
organisation/s and
purpose of this
workshop- link to
already ongoing
activities if possible and
introduce visitors and
other stakeholders
involved
Talk to CC
necessitating
adaptation from us -
we may need to
change how we do
things and what we
do to - This w/s is to
help us explore
options for such
changes
Flipstand, newsprint,
kokis, data projector,
screen, extension
chords, plugs -
double adaptors.
Black refuse bags
and masking tape
(for blacking out
windows), camera-
and one person to
undertake to take
photos throughout
the day. Extra
batteries for camera
and sim card
Materials:
Nozipho,
Nonka
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
9:50am
PRESENT SITUATION
9:50-
10:30am
Present
livelihoods and
farming situation
- discuss impacts
related to CC
Use a series of impact
pictures- from the local
situation . Include the 5
categories (and describe
them to the group) -
water management
(increased efficiency
and access), soil
management (erosion
control ,fertility, health),
crops, livestock and
natural resources
Impact pictures-
either ppt or printed
on A4 to facilitate
dialogue (or both)
Record community
comments)
Power point
presentation
pictures
Mazwi - ppt
Facilitation:
Mazwi
Nozipho,
Nonka
10:30am
PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
10:30-
11:30am
Discuss farming
activities as they
have changed ,
what they are
now and what
may happen in
the future if the
present trends
continue
SMALL GROUPS (5-
10people): facilitated
discussion on farming
activities (include the 5
categories) - prompt for
all five and keep
conversation focussed
OR
Facilitate a shorter
plenary discussion on
how things are changing
( if time is pressing)
Important to note
and record any
discussions around
changes and
adaptations- so
things people are
already doing to
accommodate for
changes - also where
they are not sure
what to do
Small groups; each
needs a facilitator
and recorder
(Mazwi, Phumzile,
Lindelwa, Madondo)
(Nonka, Nozipho,
Tema),
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
11:30am-
12:00pm
TEA
Fruit (apples, oranges, biscuits, juice and water, paper cups (lots) and
plates… Generous helpings - and lots of juice if it is hot. Find someone to
be in charge of food and refreshments, while the rest of the workshop
continues
Nozipo,
Nonka, Tema
12:00am
CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 35
12:00 -
12:50pm
Summary of
predictions for
the locality (from
scientific
basis)[15min]
Present to group - using
flipchart or power point
- Keep it simple with
brief bold statements
that can be
remembered. Include
concepts of certainty -
and CC scenarios -
unmitigated, neutral
and mitigated
Facilitation:
Mazwi/Tema
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
Weather vs
Climate [10min]
Role play; phone
conversation - weekend
visit for weather,
relocating to an area for
seasonality/climate.
check in with
participants how
they understand the
difference from the
role play
Facilitation:
Mazwi, Nonka
Seasonality
diagrams
[25min]
SMALL GROUPS (5-
10people): facilitated
discussion on
temperatures for each
month of the year- in a
normal year and then
discuss how this is
chaning and going to
change. Start with the
hottest month and then
the coldest month as
reference points
Do temperature frist
or if the group is
small and works
quickly inlcude
rainfall then on the
same chart.
Easy to use kebab
sticks bought from
supermarket for this.
Small groups; each
needs a facilitator
and recorder
(Mazwi, Phumzile,
Lindelwa, Madondo)
(Nonka, Nozipho,
Tema),
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
1:00pm
REALITY/IMPACT MAPS
1:00-
2:00pm
Impact of CC
mind map
SMALL GROUPS (5-
10people): facilitated
discussion - MIND MAP
of livelihood and
farming impacts (using
the 5 categories) using
Hotter (drier) as the
starting point -
LINKAGES between
cards on the mind map -
make arrows (and
include more cards if
need be and discuss
(e.g. hotter soils, lead to
poor germination lead
to poor yields lead to
hunger)
Prompt for social,
economic,
environmental
impacts as well if
these don't come up
in the group…
Small groups; each
needs a facilitator
and recorder
(Mazwi, Phumzile,
Lindelwa, Madondo)
(Nonka, Nozipho,
Tema) CARDS-
Coloured paper of
differnet colours cut
into squares
Nozipho -
prepare cards
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
2:00-
2:30pm
Possible adaptive
measures
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
things that people
know, have changed,
have tried and or are
trying to deal with the
changes. Use different
coloured cards to attach
these solutions to the
mind map. If
participants are
struggling then rephrase
Also make a
separate list on
newsprint of names
of people trying
things plus the
innovation they are
trying (this is to
facilitate h/h visits
on day 2)
The cards need to be
written in local
language with
smaller translations
in English written in
on the cards as well
(to avoid the need
for alter translations)
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 36
the -ve impact
statements into a +ve
outcome and ask what
actions are possible.
2:30-
2:45pm
CLOSURE
REPORT BACKS - of
possible solutions
PLANNING FOR DAY 2 -
choose 3-4 participants
for household visits and
ask for a small group of
other interested
individuals to join.
Decide on venue and
time (12 noon) for
continuing with
practices
Households to be
within walking
distance hopefully.
Otherwise drive
these 3-4
participants around
and meet for focus
group thereafter
Rapporteurs need to
be chosen from the
group to summarise
the solutions in the
report backs
[5min/group]
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals -~R45 per head (Riceand stew with one veg…
or something similar- )
Tema, Nonka,
Nozipho
DAY 2
9:00am
HOUSEHOLD VISITS
9:00 am-
12:00pm
To look at local
adaptations and
innovations To
assess the household
situationsTo start to
elucidate criteria people
use to make choices and
decisions
Use questionnaire
and fill in through
semi structured
interview and
observations
Questionnaires to
contain the following
info: • Head of
household
(male/female)
No of adults
• No of children
(dependency ratio)
• Income sources
• Level of income
• Scale of operation;
0,1-1ha, 1-2(5)ha, >
2 (5)ha
• Farming activities;
Aspirations
gardens, fields,
livestock ,trees
• Market access
• Other activities
• Resources
• Water access
• Infrastructure
• Knowledge and
skills
• Literacy rate
• Social organisation
Nozipho
finalise and
print out
questionnaires
Facilitation:
Mazwi,
Lindelwa,
Phumzile
Recording:
Tema,
Nozipho,
Nonka
Team meets in evening (BEFORE DAY 2) to discuss mindmaps and lists of solutions and
choose a range of practices from the database to present. (5-10) Also, summarisecriteria
that came from the household visit discussions
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 37
TEA
Packed tea for on the go to share with household members
12:00
PRACTICES
12:00-
1:00pm
New ideas/
practices/
innovations
Recap and summary of
day 1
Introduce a selection of
new practices _power
point and A4s (chosen
the night before by
facilitation team to
match the general sense
of what participants
need ideas for or what
they are trying (to
improve upon those).
Provide descriptions and
get questions and
comments
Select the 5-10
practices beforehand
and make sure there
are 3-4 copies of the
A4s for the small
groups and or a
power point
presentation -
record comments
from participants
Sets of practices (A
4s), attendance
registers
Materials:
Nozipho
Facilitation:
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
1:00-
1:20pm
Criteria for
selection of
practices
In plenary present
criteria, discuss with
group and add more
(prompt for criteria to
relate to five categories
(e.g., saving and using
water well, increasing
access to water,
improving organic
matter, increasing soil
health, increasing
natural resources.... etc)
along with criteria like
cost, labour, time....
Choose 5-7/8 criteria
max. Some criteria
can be made from
two into one…
Flipchart, newsprint,
kokis
Facilitation:
Mazwi/
Lindelwa
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
1:20 -
2:00pm
Prioritization of
practices
SMALL GROUPS: Choose
a selection of practices
from their own
suggestions and new
ideas presented (5-10)
and assess them using
the criteria chosen in a
matrix.
Let the group
decided for each
square using a scale
of 0-2 where 0 = bad
or little, 1=ok to
medium and 2 = a lot
to good.
Newsprint, kokis.
Small group
facilitator and
recorder (Mazwi,
Phumzile, Lindelwa,
Madondo) (Nonka,
Nozipho, Tema)
Facilitation:
Mazwi/ Tema
Recording:
Nozipho,
Nonka
2:00pm
WAY FORWARD
2:00-
2:30pm
Each individual choses
their practices
Set up sessions in
January to refine
choices and start on
demonstrations and
training in
implementationof
practices and farmer
experimentation
Choose 'volunteers' for
the 4 proposed tunnels
for joint /group
Learning sessions 16-
24 January, tunnels
training sometime in
February (Order by
December)
Put together a list for
each small group for
each individual to
record their name,
surname, tel /cell
phone and practices
Tunnels:
Sylvester -
order collect
Practices list:
Nozipho
Facilitation:
Mazwi/ Tema
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 38
experimentation per
site
LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals - ~R45 per head (Rice and stew with one
veg… or something similar- )
Tema, Nonka,
Nozipho
CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS:
Hotter
1-4 degrees Celcius
For every month of
the year
HIGH probability/
Certainty
Less rain
Similar amount of rain
but over a shorter
period of time (fewer
rainy days per season)
This will lead to an
overall drying effect
in the environment
MEDIUM certainty
Ggreater intensity of
rainfall
More rain in spring and
or more rain in summer
Storms
LOW certainty
Longer term
Greater frequency of droughts under scenarios
1 and 2
Scenario 1 - Business
as usual;Scenario 2
- Stabilise emissions;
Scenario- 3-Reduce
emissions
Greater frequency of extreme rainfall events
under scenarios 1 and 2
This was followed by a Facilitation Learning event(training of trainers), to train facilitatorsfrom all
three NGOs presently involved in use of the methodology and process
This included specific practical learning of the participatory techniques such a seasonality diagrams,
mind mapping, ranking and matrices.
One session was held with facilitators in KZN(13 November 2017)-(Lindelwa Ndaba (Lima), and the
Mahlathini team (Mazwi Dlamini, Phumzile Ngcobo, Temakholo Mathebula, Nozipho Zwane, Khethiwe
Mthethwa and Nonkanyiso Zondi) and one in Limpopo (27 November 2017)-( Karabo Makgoba (Lima)
and the Mahlathini team for Limpopo (Sylvester Selala, Nozipho Zwane and Temakholo Mathebula).
Testing the process
As mentioned this was done in four villages; 2 in Limpopo and KZN respectively, where 1 village in
each area has been implementing CCA or food security projects and one is ‘new”
See Appendix 3 (Section 9) for an example of a workshop run in Limpopo (Sekororo).
In summary the process has helped to elucidate and analyse a wealth of information from smallholder
farmers and it has worked well as the beginnings of a decision support process around practices;
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 39
especially in areas where participants have some familiarity with at least some of the practices. Next
steps are to strengthen the process and continue with the informed decision making and farmer
experimentation process.
In KZN, in one of the “new” villages we worked in Thamela in Bergville –participants had noconcept
of climate change to work from. Their conception of weather variability is locked into local belief
systems of weather magic. In this case it was not possible to employ the process designed to it’s best
benefit and alternate processes need to be put in place for such situations in future.
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 40
4SITE SELECTION
Introduction
Site selection for the first iteration (2018) or cycle of testing the DSS has been done.
Province
Site 1
Site 2
KZN
Bergville: Eibomvini,Thamela
(Mahlathini, GrainSA)
Estcourt: Thabamhlophe (Lima,
Mahlathini)
Limpopo
Hoedspruit: Sedawa,Turkey
(Mahlathini, AWARD)
Tzaneen: Sekororo (Lima, Mahlathini)
EC
Fort Cox: ImvuthoBuboni Learning
Network (Amanzi for Food, Mahlathini)
Quantitative measurements for garden and field cropping are to be conducted in KZN and Bergville in
this coming season
Work Plan for measurements for KZN and Limpopo for 2017/2018 season
By Sylvester Selala
Three mother sites for both dry land farming and vegetable gardening will be selected in each province
(KZN, Limpopo and EC). A mothersite is described as semi controlled experimental site where
experimental units are selected following specified methods (e.g. randomized block design) which are
also supported by the farmer. Several indicator sites will be selected in each of the villages where
there is a mother site. Indicator sites are those sites where farmers are experimenting with similar
concepts but under uncontrolledenvironments.Indicator sites will allow us to developproxies or
indicators which can be used to measure some of the parameters locally.
Plot layout
The mother sites for dry land farming will be selected in three different villagesand the plot layout
shown below is an example of the experimental design, designed following a randomized block design.
This example is based on the design for CA plots in the mother site in Sedawa village and plots
highlighted in greyindicate where runoff plots will be installed. One of the runoff plots will be installed
in the control plot (conventional tillage plot). At a minimum, most of the soil water measurements
(e.g. gravimetric water content) are going to be taken in the highlighted plots. Measurements for soil
properties (e.g. bulk density, texture, structure, fertility and health) will be taken for all ten plots.
The layout for the mother site in KZN, in Ezibomvini village is as follows
Maize +
Cowpea
Maize + Beans
Maize
+cowpea
Maize sole
crop
Sunflower
Maize sole
crop
Maize +Beans
Maize + Cover
crops
Maize sole
crop
Maize +
groundnuts
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 41
5
Lab-lab beans
4
3
2.
1
6
7
8
Beans sole crop
9
SCC (summer
cover crops)
10
Maize sole crop
Participants for dryland cropping and gardening in KZN and Limpopo
The table below outlines the sites selected for both dry land farming and vegetable gardening in KZN
and Limpopo. Conservation Agriculture (CA) plots in KZN were plantedin the last week of November
while the ones in Limpopo were planted in early to mid- December 2017.
Table 6: Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo
Province
Category
Name of participants
Name of village
Date of planting
Limpopo
Field
cropping
Koko Maphori
Sedawa
05/12/2017
Moruti Sekgobela
Mametja
06/12/2017
Mariam Malepe
Botshabelo
07/12/2017
Gardening
Christinah Tobetjane
Sedawa
11 15 Dec 2017
Norah Malepe
Mametja
11 15 Dec 2017
Mariam Malepe
Botshabelo
11 15 Dec 2017
KwaZulu-
Natal
Field
cropping
Ntombake Zikode
Eqeleni
20-24 Nov 2017
Phumelele Hlongwane
Ezimbomzini
20-24 Nov 2017
Phumzile Zimba
Mhlwazini
20-24 Nov 2017
Gardening
Smephi Hlatswayo
Eqeleni
27-30 Nov 2017
Phumelele Hlongwane
Ezibomvini
27-30 Nov 2017
Thamela
27-30 Nov 2017
Table 7: Measurements to be taken for the gardening trials
Parameter
Instruments
Dates
Soil moisture
Chameleon water sensors
On going
Amount of water applied
Measuring cylinder
On going
Rainfall
Rain gauge
On going
Weighing of the harvest
Weighing scale
On going
Rand value of the harvest
Local market price
At harvest
Lab-Lab beans
Maize sole
crop
Maize sole
crop
Maize +Beans
Maize sole
crop w WCC
Maize
+Cowpeas
Maize
+Cowpeas
Beans sole
crop
SCC summer
cover crops
Maize sole
crop
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 42
Soil and Water Measurements
The diagram bellow shows different stages of crop development at which gravimetric water content
will be taken. The table following the diagram shows the dates when measurements are going to be
taken.
The workplan with specific dates for gravimetric soil samples is shown below
Soil property measurements to be taken are shown in the small table below
Dates
Planting
End of
establishment
(20-30days)
Vegetative
growth
phase(40-
50 days)
Tasseling
(60-70
days)
Physiological
maturity
(120-150
days)
Limpopo
4 8 Dec 2017
8 Jan 2018
2022 Jan 2018
8 9 Feb 2018
9 13 April 2018
KwaZulu-
Natal
20 27 Nov 201
4 8 Jan 2018
2022 Jan 2018
8 9 Feb 2018
9 13 April 2018
Sampling
(at
Sampling
Sampling
Sampling
Samplin
g
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 43
Property
Lab/ Field
measurements
Frequency
Instruments /
equipment
Soil structure
Lab
Once off
Mean weigh diameter
Soil texture
lab
Once off
Hydrometer
Bulk density
lab
At the beginning
and at harvest
Cylindrical cores
Soil fertility
Lab
At the beginning
and at harvest
Cedara
Soil health
lab
At the beginning
and at harvest
WARD labs
Infiltration
field
Once off
Double ring infiltrometer
Saturated hydraulic
conductivity
Once off
Guelph permeameter
Retentivity curve
Lab
Once off
Biomass
lab
At harvest
Weighing and drying
Progress to date
-Gardening experiments for KZN have not be designed yet (this would be design after a
workshop on tunnel and drip kit design)
-Installation of runoff plots automatic weather station and runoff plots in KZN sites is yet to
happen
-Installation of weather station in KZN site, to confirm with Jon
-Installation of rain gauges in KZN is completed, farmers are taking rainfall measurements
-Measurements for soil properties and soil moisture content (gravimetric water content) in
KZN is delayed (this will only take place in the week of the 4th to 8th December 2017.
-Planting of trialand Installation rain gauges and runoff plots, as well as collection of
gravimetric water content samples in the Limpopo sites to take place in the week of 4th to 8th
December 2017.
-Installation of automatic weather station in the Limpopo site (week of 11th to 15th December
2017)
-Installation of water sensors in tunnels in theLimpopo site (week of 11th to15th December
2017)
Budget for quantitative measurements
This budget has been adjusted to suite the overall budget available better. Instrumentation has been
bought and installed in the Limpopo site and will be finalised in KZN by end -January 2018
WRC Quantitative measurements budget November 2017
Equipment
Item
unit price
Quantity
Total
Hydrometer
R0,00
1
R0,00
Cylindrical cores
R0,00
1
R0,00
Double ring infiltrometer
R620,00
2
R1 240,00
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 44
Geulph permeameter
R0,00
1
R0,00
Watermark
R855,00
0
R0,00
Temperature Sensors
R996,00
0
R0,00
Loggers
R135,00
0
R0,00
Hobo Pro Software and USB cable
R2 200,00
0
R0,00
Davis Weather Station
R20 557,50
2
R41 115,00
Repair anemometeron Davis Weather
station
R580,00
1
R580,00
Rain gauges
R125,50
15
R1 882,50
Runoff plots
R1 062,50
45
R47 812,50
Soil fertility test
R90,00
100
R9 000,00
Auger
R1 200,00
2
R2 400,00
Soil health indicators (GrainSA)
R1 000,00
0
R0,00
R104 030,00
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 45
5COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
By Lawrence Sisitka, Temakholo Mathebula and Khethiwe Mthethwa
Introduction and Background
One way to describe communication is that it is a process of acquiring, interpreting, and
disseminating information to all relevant stakeholders. Communication is the lifeblood of any
project as it allows the project team to collaborate, share, integrate and organise information in
order to realise project objectives (Ylitovia, 2015). In the WRC-CSA project, which involves many
different stakeholders, i.e. government departments, NGO’s, community participants, extension
practitioners and researchers, effective communication is of vital importance as collaboration will
be pivotal in the successful implementation of the project. At the most basic level, communication
consists of three different components, namely the transmitter, communication medium and the
receiver. The effectiveness of communication is determined by how well the transmitter/sender
communicates a message and on how well the receiver decodes/interprets that message.
Communication includes message transmission as well as feedback on the messagethat was
transmitted. Feedback is important in communication as it lets the sender know that the message
was transmitted successfully. If feedback is delayed, or not transmitted, communication
interventions will be required to enhance communication in order to prevent ineffective
communication (Zulch, 2014).
In order to come up with effective communication processes for the WRC-CSA project, there first
needs to be an understanding of what the project requires from its communication system and
which channels or communication methods will be most effective in meeting these requirements. A
communication plan can be used as a systematic and practical way of keeping all stakeholders
informed and making the project visible throughout its duration (Kerzna and Belack, 2010). There
are five primary questions asked in the communication plan to give clarity about the flow of
information.
1. Who is the transmitter/sender/primary source of information?
2. What information needs to be communicated?
3. When does this information need to shared/disseminated?
4. What feedback has been received on the information that was transmitted? This step is
important as it provides insight as to whether the information was communicated
successfully and presents an opportunity to enhance/improve communication
5. What are the mediums of communication?
Levels of Communication
Internal Communication
According to Zulch, 2015, internal and external communication are the two primary levels of
communication. Internal project communication is made of the project team which is responsible
for carrying out the goals and objectives of the project. The project team requires more regular
communication at every phase of the project and is usually made up of a diverse group of
stakeholders that can be geographically dispersed, have different educational backgrounds, speak
different languages and have different working methods and habits. A diverse project team means
that there may be more challenges in implementing the project successfully, especially if some
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 46
project team members have not met each other. Project communication becomes more challenging
with bigger and geographically dispersed project teams(Karzner & Belack, 2010). The WRC-CSA
project is being implemented in three different provinces, namely KZN, Eastern Cape and Limpopo
and has diverse team of engineers, researchers, field workers and community participants from
different organisations. The challenge for the project will be integrating the project goals with
existing programs and schedules of each organisation. Effective communication methods will thus
be pivotal in the successful implementation of the project. Effective internal communication
requires that every member of the project team is aware of the project goals, their specific roles
and responsibilities as well as the relevant internal communication channels. Being aware of and
adhering to time frames is important in internal communication. Internal communication involves
various communication tools such as oral, written, electronic and visual communication (Ramsig,
2009).
External Communication
Communication does not function in isolation but is a process. External communication which is the
second level of communication refers to how the organisation responsible for project
implementation interacts with the outside world which includes external stakeholders, media and
the general public (Ylitovia, 2015). External stakeholders are individuals/organisations outside the
organisation that affect or are affected by the project. Disappointments in many development
projects occur as a result of poor stakeholder collaboration during project implementation. Working
with external stakeholders is never an easy process as it comes with added challenges of different
goals and interests, different timelines, budget allocations and even political affiliations. This adds
to the complexity of effective project implementation (Zulch, 2014). Effective communication with
external stakeholders can be achieved by clearly outlining the interests of the different
stakeholders at the beginning of the project as well as the roles and responsibilities of each
stakeholder. External stakeholders for the WRC-CSA project include extension workers, NGO’s,
local councillors, local authorities (chiefs) as well as local/district municipalities. Communication
through media and the general public is the component of external communication that conveys
the image of an organisation to the outside world which is also known ascorporate communication.
Corporate communication is crucial in disseminating important information with outside audiences.
Often this type of communication requires institutional communication, good networking skills and
exceptional writing skills.
Communication for Community Development
FAO, 2014 defines communication for social development (ComDev) as a communication approach
that involves the systematic use of participatory rural appraisal tools and methods, combined with
community media and ICT’s with the aim to maximizeimpact, cost effectiveness and the social
sustainability of community development programs.ComDev is important in multi-stakeholder
projects involving rural communities as the success of these projects is highly dependent on the
local’s people’s perceptions and willingness to change. ComDev communication ensures that the
local people’s cultures, knowledge and capabilities are taken into consideration when formulating
project plans. If the project aims to empower rural stakeholders at the field level, then ComDev is
an appropriate approach to communication. The skills of rural practitioners with solid experience in
addressing rural issues are essential in the ComDev strategy (FAO, 2014)
WRC K4/2719
Mahlathini Development Foundation 47
In order to successfully address the present challenges in agriculture solutions must be shared
based collective decision making. Historically, top down approaches to development have been
ineffective in bringing about meaningful change. There is a need for deliberate and systematic
involvement of various stakeholders, especially rural participants in every phase of project
implementation (Zulch, 2014). In terms of climate change, coping with shocks and stresses from
unfavourable weather conditions requires a significant amount of information and relevant
knowledge as well as collective efforts to make rural farming systems more resilient to the negative
effects of climate change. Access to technology is not an end to itself but aims to bring out the
beliefs and perceptions of rural people which inform their current practices and livelihood
strategies (FAO, 2014). Community Development can be integrated into the whole project cycle
and if applied effectively it will be instrumental in project accountability and effectiveness.It will
serve as a means for rural participants to make their voices heard and thus contribute to bringing
about meaningful change. Moreover, Community Development is flexible enough to be incorporated
into a project at a later stage or even at the end but is most effective when integrated into the
project from the initiation phase.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201749
Channels of Communication
There are three main channels of communication which are important in understanding the flow of
information in a project, mainly upward, downward and lateral communication. At the initiation
phase of every project it is important to identify how informationwill flow and how it will be
managed as well as which type of communication medium will be used in disseminating information
(Zulch, 2014). According to Ylitovia 2015, downward communication flows from top to bottom is
the most important in terms of internal communication as it involves communication with all
project team members involved in the project. Downward communication involves a lot of direct
communication through face-to-face discussion and project meetings between the project manager
and the project team. Upward communication flows from the bottom to the top and its primary
function is to keep the decision making parties informed. Lateral communication refers to
communication between the project leaders and the external stakeholders involved (Ramsing,
2009).
Upward
Communication
Communication
from project
team to project
management,
highlight of
issues, risks,
changes,
updates
Tools:
Reports
E-mails
Downward Communication
Communication
from management
to project team,
Communication of
meetings, tasks,
important dates
etc.
Tools: Project brief,
project plan,
minutes, emails,
verbal
Lateral Communication
Communication between project team
members
Communication between project team and
community participants
Communication between project team and
external stakeholders
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201750
The Need for a Communication Strategy
The full title of this WRC-CSA project is: Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation strategies
for the dissemination of Water and soil conservation practices and Climate Smart Agriculture in
smallholder farming systems. This indicates clearly that collaboration and mediation are key
components of the project as is the dissemination of the outcomes of these processes. The
implication is clearly that the project will interact with and need to communicate with a range of
different groups.
One of the critical factors determining the effectiveness of any participatory research activity, such
as the WRCCSA project, is the strength of communication both internally, between project
partners, and externally in terms of sharing the lessons from the project.Without effective
communication much of the value of any research programme can be lost, and in particular, where
the programme includes a practical implementation component, the effectiveness of this is very
likely to be compromised. The very notion of ‘participation’ itself implies the need for good
communication, as real effective collaboration is impossible unless communication between the
partners is clear and consistent.
The means of communication between different parties in different contexts can also vary
considerably, and while there are ever-increasing opportunities for communication, especially
through various ICT media, these are not always either accessible or favoured by all groups or
individuals. It is therefore important to understand which communication media are most used and
most trusted by different parties. For example, at a local level, between farmers, a face-to-face
discussion is generally the preferred means of communicating; indeed this is perhaps true for most
people. However this is rarely possible, and more distant communication media need to be
employed as appropriate in the many different contexts in which the project is functioning.
While much discussion of communication here will focus on the technical means through which
communication can be maintained, the critical factor is not the technology, although that is
important, but rather the willingness and openness to communicate. Communication cannot simply
be left to chance and needs to be approached proactively, based ona good understanding, as
discussed above, of the different preferences of the various partners and stakeholders.
Communication should be viewed as a vital element in any collaborative venture and approached
with the rigour applied to all other aspects. This will also require identification and allocation of
specific responsibilities among the project team in relation to establishing and maintaining
effective communication with different interest groups. For the WRCCSA project, therefore, it is
necessary to establish clear guidelines for communicating with the various partners and
stakeholders. Hence the need for a Communication Strategy.
While such a strategy will focus primarily on communication between the project and partners and
stakeholders, an important additional element will be the opportunity to establish communication
between the partners themselves and between them and other stakeholders. It is through such a
communication matrix that a dynamic Learning Network can be developed.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201751
Figure 6: Simplified model of the Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network, Middledrift Area, Eastern Cape
At this stage in the project the finer details of the communication strategy cannot be completed,
until all partners and their preferred methods of communicating have been identified, but the
foundation can be laid with a discussion of the key options, including direct contact, various cell
phone/smart phone options, computer and internet-based options, and local/community
radio/television and print media.
Partners and Stakeholders
The WRC-CSA project will interact with a wide range of people, both as collaborative partners,
and, more widely, as interested parties and stakeholders in the agricultural and academic sectors.
While it is not possible at this stage in the project to identify each of these groups specifically, it
should be possible to highlight the key groups likely to fall within the project’s ambit.
Collaborative Partners
It is intended during the implementation of the project to work directly with a number of different
groups:
Smallholder Farmers these are the primary partners in the project, and it will be crucial to
maintain continuous and consistent communication with them. As they will be based in 3 distinct
and separate areas a number of different communication media will need to be utilised.
Farmer Associations and other Community Based Organisations (CBOs)Many of the smallholder
farmers will be members of farmer associations or other groups such as women’s groups, youth
groups, church groups etc. While not all members of such groups willbe collaborating directly with
High Schools
Agric NGOs
Agric CBOs
Agric
College
University
Agric Extension
Services
Private training
providers
Farmers
Farmer
organisations
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201752
the project, they can be considered secondary partners, and it will be necessary to develop means
of communicating with them, as part of the dissemination component of the project
Agricultural Extension (or Advice
1
) Services these have the mandate to support smallholder
farmers, and their direct involvement is crucial for the long-term sustainability of the activities and
practices developed through the project. They may have a key role to play in monitoring progress
with the practices. They have internet access which provides more options for communication.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Many of the smallholder farmers are likely to be
supported by other projects facilitated by agricultural and rural development focussed NGOs. Their
involvement, too, is vital for the effectiveness of the project activities, as they are likely to be key
partners in developing relationships with the smallholder farmers and facilitating the processes
leading to the implementation of the practices. They may also have a role to play in monitoring
activities. NGOs may be connected through quite sophisticated communication media.
Agricultural Training Institutes (ATIs
2
), University Agricultural Faculties, Agricultural High Schools
In some areas it may be that the smallholder farmers are interacting with and being supported by
different agricultural training institutions, and where this is the case it is essential that these are
also brought into partnership with the project. Where this takes place, there will need to be good
communication with the institutions, which should have effective internet connections to facilitate
such communication.
The Water Research Commission (WRC) The WRC is clearly a key partner, and the formal channels
of communication are enshrined in the contractual relationship between the commission and the
project. However there may be other opportunities for less formal but valuable communications
between the two.
Interested Parties and Stakeholders
The dissemination of the experiences and understandings gained through the project’s activities is
a central component of the project’s work. This will involve making these available to a wide
audience of parties with interests in and responsibilities for agricultural development, particularly
in South Africa, but also possibly within the SADC region and beyond.
Academic and Research Institutions, including the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) such
institutions with a particular focus on agricultural development and/or food security should benefit
greatly from access to the experiences and outcomes of the project. These need to be
communicated appropriately in both formal and informal ways.
Government Departments Agriculture is a provincial and national mandate, although local
municipalities will also have officials with an agricultural brief. The national departments of Water
and Sanitation (DWS) and Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and their provincial counterparts
should also have interests in the outcomes ofthe project. Departments concerned with social
development and local economic development at all government levels would also benefit from the
project’s experiences. It is important that as many relevant officials in these and other
departments have access to information generated by the project.
1
There is a current trend for Agricultural Extension Officers to be known as Agricultural Advisors
2
Formerly Agricultural Colleges. Some are also called Agricultural and Rural Development Institutes(ARDIs)
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201753
The NGO communitywhile the project is likely to interact directly with some local and even
national NGOs active in the areas where the project is working, other NGOs, including international
NGOs, operating in related fields would benefit from the lessons learned by the project. The
communication strategy should ensure that they, too, have access to the key findings.
International research and development organisations the project is responding to a growing
interest in CSA being explored and promoted by a range of international players, from the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, to the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS) research programme under CIAT (InternationalCentre for Tropical Agriculture)
and other global research programmes. Links to these and other such organisations need be
included within a comprehensive communication strategy.
Promotion and Sharing of the Decision Support System
One of the key outputs of the WRC-CSA project is a Decision Support System (DSS). This is the main
focus of this Deliverable and the key elements of the DSS are described in detail in different
sections of this report. The aim of the project is to develop the DSS, pilot it with the farmers’
groups with which it is working and then make it available to others who wish to use it. As
described elsewhere in this document, the DSS comprises essentially two distinct components: a
technical component providing technical guidance onthe selection of appropriate CSA options for
farmers; and a facilitation component guiding the process for facilitating farmers’ use of the DSS.
While ideally farmers should be able to access and use the DSS independently, the reality is that
many, if not most of them, will require some facilitated support in order to do this effectively. It
therefore becomes necessary to identify means of promoting and sharing both components of the
DSS as widely as possible.
Potential Users of the DSS
The ultimate end-users of the DSSare the smallholder farmers themselves, and they will need to
access it in forms which are appropriate to their various contexts and situations. They may do this
as individuals or as collectives such as farmers’ associations, or in concert with local community-
based organisations (CBOs). Other key users are likely to be the facilitating agencies which may
support the farmers in their use of the DSS. These will include primarily agriculture and rural
development focussed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government agricultural
extension and advisory services. It is hoped that Agricultural Training Institutes (ATIs), agricultural
high schools, and university agricultural faculties will also see value in the use of the DSS in their
teaching programmes. Further afield, given the growing interest in CSA globally, it can be expected
that the DSS will be of interest to regional and international NGOs, various government agricultural
agencies and perhaps even the relevant United Nations agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO).
Means of communicating with these varied and wide-ranging audiences have been discussed in
detail in sub-section 5.1 and it will just be necessary here to identify the key ways in which the DSS
itself can be shared. Although it will be possible to share information about the DSS, and promote
its use through almost every medium available and discussed above, the sharing of the actual
product will inevitably be more constrained.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201754
Sharing with Smallholder Farmers
The piloting of the DSS with smallholder farmers will relyvery much on direct interaction with
them, with the project team facilitating and supporting the use ofthe DSS. In this situation the DSS
will be presented in the form of hard-copy materials, translated into the appropriate languages.
The facilitation by team members will be guided by a facilitation manual again in hard copy, but
also stored on the facilitators’ computers, as, of course, will be the technical component of the
DSS.
Making the DSS accessible directly for smallholder farmers and their associations and CBOs
following the project may prove something of a challenge, as the only realistic means will be to
ensure that the two components are downloadable, probably in pdf format, from at least one
website, preferably from a number of websites, including perhaps the WRC website. It may also be
possible to persuade the WRC to print large numbers of hard-copies, which can be sent out on
request. If access is through a website the farmers will almost certainly need support from either
their local NGOs or agricultural extension and advisory services to access, download and print the
materials.
Sharing with NGOs, Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services and other Training
Institutions/Organisations
It can reasonably be expected that all NGOs and agricultural training institutions/organisationsnow
have access to the internet, the use of computers, and access to printing facilities. This would
suggest that having the DSS as widely available on the internet in a downloadable format would
make it accessible to all such organisations. The development of a WRC-CSA project website would
be the first step, and all materials and information can be made available there. This can be linked
to any social media site such as a Facebook page, to draw in more people. The project website can
then be linked to other sites used by the extension services, NGOs and others. The challenge here
will be to identify which websites are most appropriate, either to upload the DSS components
directly, or to link to sites on which they have been uploaded.
Three obvious sites would be the WRC website (http://www.wrc.org.za), the Manstrat
Extensionsuite online website (http://www.manstratais.co.za/Extensionsuite.aspx used by the
agricultural extension and advisory services), and theManstrat Agrisuite online website
(http://www.manstratais.co.za/AgriSuite.aspx directly accessible to everyone). In order to be
able to use any of these sites, of course, a partnership contract will need to be developed with the
siteholders; the WRC for their site, or Manstrat Agricultural Information Systems for the latter two.
However, many NGOs are linked to different sites and some research will be needed to identify
websites most commonly accessed by agriculture and rural development NGOs.
Sharing Internationally
The idea of sharing the DSS internationally is perhaps further down the road, and will probably only
be appropriate when the DSS itself has been tested and evaluated thoroughly and shown to be truly
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201755
effective. However, it is worthwhile identifying some of the key regional and global linkages, via
the internet.
Much of the information drawn on in the development of the DSS has come from the Climate Smart
Agriculture page of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) website
(http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/en/) and there may be potential for establishing
links with this. More specifically the FAO run a massive database of resources called AGRIS
(International System for Agricultural Science and Technology) accessible through
http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/index.do on which the DSS could be placed. Very recently, in
November 2017, the FAP launched a new website which they describe as a Climate Smart
Agriculture web platform. Essentially it is an updated on-line version of their CSA Sourcebook
(http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/en/) and CSA Strategy
http://www.fao.org/climate-change/en/ from which many other resources can be accessed. It may
be possible to agree links to the DSS through the Publications related to CSA.
The CIAT/CGIAR Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) programme has also been a
valuable source of information and inspiration, and there may be the possibility to negotiate the
sharing of the DSS through their website: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/ .
Communication with and between the facilitators and farmers
Introduction
Effective communication is an absolute prerequisite for any participatory process, and particularly
where these involve a range of stakeholders, and especially where stakeholders are spread across a
number of provinces. In the WRC-CSA project the central relationship is between the project team
and the farmers, and those working closely with the farmers. The approaches to communicating
and sharing ideas described in this section, while focussing very much on the facilitator/farmer
links are entirely appropriate for the wider range of partners operating together in the field.
Inevitably the strongest form of communication, and indeed most people’s preferred means is face-
to-face, but clearly this is not always possible. Sharing ideas across wide geographical areas
requires the adoption of a creative approach employing a range of media appropriate to the various
individuals and groups involved.
Participatory videos
Participatory videos are examined in the context of documentary filmmaking, visual studies and
community development (Yang, 2016). This isan easy and fun way of making videos within the
community (Benset, 2010). It is a participatory culture that has developed since the age of
interactive digital media and technology began(Yang, 2016). The approach helps in getting people
to unite and plan together to make a change in the community. At the beginning, the community
learns to use the video through playing games or exercises. Anyone can gain the skills to make the
videos, and they teach each other how to do the filming. The community has a full control of the
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201756
process and the video. It is the community who decides what to keep on the video and who they
will share it with (Benset, 2010).
The following are the steps showing how participatory video take place:
Firstly, set up a circle - farmers are orientated about basics on camera switch it off, on and
pause.
The microphone is introduced people are shown how to hold it and how far it needs to be
from the person speaking. Allow the community-learning to flow.
Introduce the tripod – show how this helps stabilise the camera and reduce ‘shake’
Help them decide what and how to film- use existing videos as examples of how to choose
informative visuals.
Encourage the farmers to work in pairs one in charge of the camera, and the other asking
questions and taking notes, as a journalist. Let them practice andmake the film.
Participatory Editing this is one of the most difficult parts of the process, where the film
and the sound have to be edited down to produce the most effective video. Considerable
support is usually needed for this and often a specialist is asked to do the editing with
guidance from th3e facilitators and farmers.
After their film is the ready help them organize a community screening use this to evaluate the
process from the filmmakers’ and the audiences’ perspectives. Ask for permission, especially from
the people featured in the video, to show the video to others (Benset, 2010).
Participatory videos are valuable for recording communities’ discussions of their issues and
solutions. The videos can then be shared with the whole community. The videos are not only shared
within the local community but can also be shared with neighbouring communities or other
communities around the world. The videos can be easily shared at international conferences. They
can also be published on the internet in order to reach the influential audiences like donors and
enablers or policy makers (Benset, 2010). It is sometimes difficult to speak to powerful people face
to face therefore using the videos is the best way in which community members can share their
opinions and ideas (Benset, 2010). This method recognizes that we all have a valuable knowledge
and we are all agents (Benset, 2010). The process potentially reduces the power imbalance
between the researcher and the participants. It also contributes to empowering participants (Yang,
2016).
WhatsApp
WhatsApp is an instant messaging system for smartphones, it uses the internet to send a text
message, documents, images, videos, location and audio messages to other users. To install, one
needs an android phone and a mobile number, it can be installed using an app store or a link shared
by another user. WhatsApp has a user-friendly chat wall which displays both received and sent
messages. In the same wall, audio clips, photos, and videos are displayed and are downloadable. It
also has an advantage that itshows a notification that message has been received and seen. Voice
recording is done by tapping on a red button on a chat wall, recordings can be sent instantly and
are stored in phone storage. WhatsApp is particularly useful for sharing information among groups
of people, and is primarily used for this purpose. The Imvotho Bubomi Learning Network (IBLN) in
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201757
the Eastern Cape, part of the WRC ‘Amanzi for Food’ project, uses its WhatsApp group almost
constantly to exchange ideas and photographs of the workthey are doing, and to ask advice from
each other.
In a study which was conducted in Nkhotakota district in Malawi of a group of women who was
involved in Agriculture, WhatsApp messengers were installed on their mobile phones and group
chats were created. Firstly, the training of women was facilitated, involving training the farmers on
the basic technical issues and management of Android phones to provide technical backstopping. An
orientation of women’s roles in moderating group chats to achieve their objectives was provided
and also it was ensured that farmers were conducting the right interviews. A schedule was
developed indicating dates, topics, and groups which would contribute their voices each week- The
schedule was developed to make sure that all communities participated and contributed their
voices. In each group, two women were identified by fellow members to be the representative of
their group on android smartphone, recording audios, capturing photos and videos as well as
conducting interviews(Banda, 2016)
WhatsApp was chosen because it was seen thatit has lower internet costs than other networks such
as interactive voice response. It was also chosen because one of the studies found that by February
2016 WhatsApp had a usersbase of one billion, showingthat the app is one of the most popular
means of communication. There are many WhatsApp users and even people in rural areas use
WhatsApp these days, therefore, it was going to be easy for women in this project to seekhelp on
technical issues from other individuals in their areas who use the application without having to
depend on broadcasters or extension agents(Banda, 2016).
The study showed that most women were interested in gaining newskills on using mobile phones
and internet platforms. It was realized that there were unexpected innovations that evolved on the
WhatsApp group. In Nkhotakota the WhatsApp group has evolved into a "virtual learning
community". External agents were also added to the group. More farmers with mobile phones
wanted to be included in the group chats, therefore there were more discussions topics that were
being conducted, farmers were seeking agricultural advice fromtheir fellow farmers and expertsin
the group chat. Agricultural experts indicated that social media is a good way of providing
agricultural advice services since farmers areable to take and share pictures and ask questions.
Extension workers were able to know what was happening in other extension planning areas, and
the chat group also helps expects to know each other and know the activities they are doing within
their locations. Extension workers were able to orientate how farmers communicate agricultural
messages with their fellow farmers. Pictures that werebeing shared in group chats were able to be
used on fields days and farmer’s days to display what has been happening. Mr. Chizimbi who is a
local extension worker highlighted that farmers were able to post pictures on WhatsApp of their
Conservation Agricultural fields which allowed other farmers to seeand emulate how to implement
conservation agriculture practices (Banda, 2016).
A study conducted in India further explainsother WhatsApp advantages as:
Increases the scope and coverage of Agricultural Extension - In most communities, where few
people receive agricultural extension services, the use of mass media such as WhatsApp helps in
increasing the number of households receiving information and advice. Extension workers are able
to disseminate information to a large number of people without having limitations of time and
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201758
geographic boundaries and at the same time, they are able to receive a feedback through using this
tool (Devesh, 2017).
It is an easy and convenient way of communicating with the farmers - WhatsApp is easy because
it does not require high level ICT skills or expensive equipment. It can be operated through the
mobile internet rather than computer-based like other web-based portals. Communication is
flexible in a way that it can take place at any time and in any place with reasonable internet
connection (Devesh, 2017).
It usually requires less internet data- Compared to other applications, WhatsApp requires fewer
internet data bundles. This serves as an advantage since farmers may have limited internet data
available (Devesh, 2017).
It is an information enriched medium of information delivery - In other methods of
communication such as television and radio, information can be initially be well understood, but
later on, it can be forgotten, with WhatsApp information can be stored. In addition, with WhatsApp
information can be delivered in multiple ways which include audios, texts, photos and audio-
visuals, therefore this way of communication provides many possibilities for sharinginformation
since it is delivered in many ways(Devesh, 2017).
It is more participative and encouraging peer learning - As farmers are able to give feedback
through using WhatsApp, it encourages two-way communication between the facilitator and the
farmer. Even shy farmers are able to participate in WhatsApp. This tool promotes farmers’
networks and interactions. Farmers are able to communicate among themselves and also with the
facilitator. Farmers are often the ones who end up answering queries from other farmers. In that
case, farmers are able to build networks and trust one another(Devesh, 2017).
WhatsApp Limitations
WhatsApp usage requires careful management, and the goals of and objectives of using WhatsApp
in chat-groups should be clarified so that people do not lose enthusiasm, or abuse the system. Most
of the time in developing countries there is limited data pack available for usage, and it should not
be wasted on unnecessary messages. For example, there should be a strict rule that when a person
repeatedly sends jokes or any other form of unnecessary information, they will be removed from
the group (Devesh, 2017).
Radios
In many rural areas, radio programmes are used successfully to create a platformfor social learning
among and between local and neighbouring communities. Farmers who are involved in a certain
intervention can talk on radios, where they can be interviewed about their experiences of a new
technology. The World Bank in 2011 emphasizes that it is more convincing to other farmers to learn
about new innovations from another farmer than from an ‘outsider’, even if they are an expert.
The study which was conducted by Sailas Nyareza and Archie L. Dick revealed that community radio
services were most preferred as a medium of communication for rural farmers since there are not
enough facilitators to reach all farmers. Facilitatorsalso do not always have adequate
communication skills to effectively interact with farmers, therefore, farmers endedup lacking the
motivation to carry on with their work. Community radios covering rural areas, often broadcast
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201759
farming programmes in the local language which are relevant to farmersown agricultural
activities. (Dick, 2011).
Radio programmes should be designed to be community centred, and farmers should feel involved
and responsible if (Khanal, 2011).
The advantages of using a radio as a communication tool are that radio does not require literacy
because radio requires farmers in listening ratherthan in reading(Dick, 2011). Rural populations
are generally familiar with radios because they are affordableand rural people can own them.
According to Zijp in his 2003 study, he found that in one of the projects in Malawi radio-training of
farmers in new agricultural techniques cost 3000 times less per hour than face to face extension
services (Dick, 2011). Radios are relatively cheap, portable and thelistener can get the message
while engaged in other activities(Kumar, 2000). When used in conjunction with cell phones radio
programmes can be highly interactive, enabling farmers to ask questions and share ideas.
However, radios also come with their limitations, which can include:
Not everyone in the community owns a radio (Dick, 2011),
Radios use batteries and batteries are expensive for rural farmers(Dick, 2011)
Other people can misuse radios since it is accessible andavailable for the free expression of
ideas which if abused can lead up to building communities of hate(Hartley, 2000)
There are few repair facilities for radios in rural areas(Oakley, 1997)
If a farmer does not switch on the radio during the time in which the programme is
transmitted, there will be no further opportunity for the farmer to listen to the programme
(Oakley, 1997).
The farmer cannot rewind the programme if he or she did not understand something
properly (Oakley, 1997). However this can be overcome to some extent through interactive
programmes, where farmers can call in with their questions either during or after the
programme.
Audio cassettes
Facilitators involved in many projects with farmers found audio cassettes very useful for the storing
and sharing of information, especially where information is very specific to one area for it to be
broadcast by radio. Alternatively, CDs can also be used for farmers who have CD playing
equipment; cassettes and CDs serve the same function.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201760
Figure 7: Audio cassettes
Advantages of audio cassettes
Audio cassettes (and CDs) are more flexible than radio. The tape can be stopped andreplayed, it
can be listened to at any time of the day, and the same tape can be used over and over again (new
information recorded and unwanted information being removed). For many copies, information can
be recorded in the studio, or a blank cassette can be used to record information in the field.
Cassettes can also be used for updating the facilitator’s technical information, sharing experiences
between farmer’s groups and between communities-interviews of individual farmers can be
recorded in one village and can be shared with other villages and also provide a commentary voice
that can be used in videos (filmstrips and slides set) to create a clear picture of what is being said
(Oakley, 1997).
Disadvantages of audio cassettes
Cassette recorders are less common in rural areas than radios, Rural people are less familiar with
cassettes recorders as a source of information, the cassette has to be distributed physically,
cassettes and cassette players need to be maintained, and should be kept free from dust as much
as possible (not always easy in rural areas). Recording heads should be kept clean by the use of
fluids such as white spirits, which are not always available in rural areas(Oakley, 1997).
Community Group meetings
This is a common extension method where a group offarmers in the local communityand a
facilitator come together to exchange information and ideas.There are different purposes for
which community meetings can be conducted. They can be for the purpose of information sharing
where a facilitatorcommunicates a specific new kind of information to farmers. It can be for the
purpose of planning where farmers review a particular problem and suggest potential solutions to
solve it. Meetings can also take place for discussing a specific topicof interest, e.g horticulture, or
beekeeping and these topics can be discussed in detailat a level of relevance to those
participating. Sometimes meetings can take place to discuss topicsof general interest to the
community.
The disadvantage of community meetings is that sometimes farmers may feel that their time has
been wasted in coming to meetings in a way that they end up not attending meetings. It is
therefore vital that all meetings have a clear purpose which is likely to be of real benefit to the
farmers
It is also very important that the facilitator makes thorough preparations and arrangements for the
meetings.
Demonstrations
To ‘demonstrate’ means to show. There is a clear difference between demonstration and
experimentation, although it is possible to combine the two. Ademonstration is showinga proven
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201761
technique; how it is implemented and its value. Anexperiment is trying out a new idea, sometimes
under artificial conditions, although experiments can also be conducted in real field conditions.
Demonstrations are often used to show different methods of doing things, or different practices,
and the results of these(Kumar, 2000).
The main goal of extension services is to demonstrate useful and practical information. On-farm
demonstrations are regarded as one of the most effective extensioneducation tools.
Demonstrations often require a lot of time and effort, but their fruit comes when the farmer is
ready to adopt the practice, when they consider it to be appropriate intheir real environment, this
is known as "seeingis believing" and also farmer who observes demonstrations and then applies
them to their own particular situation is regarded as a present and future extension leader
(Hancock, 1997).
For farmers who cannot read, demonstrations are the most appropriate method that can be used to
communicate. Farmers like to see how a new idea works through demonstrations(Oakley, 1997).
Demonstration makes every step to be easy to understand, It makes use of visual aid like charts,
posters, farmers become convinced and are encouraged to try a new practice(Kumar, 2000).
In the WRC Amanzi for Food project ‘Productive Demonstration Sites’ play a central role in sharing
knowledge of different practices. The name is derived from the need for the demonstration sites to
be productive to show the effectiveness of the practice. This also requires the sites to be well-
maintained to ensure continued productivity.
As mentioned above, there are times when demonstrations are linked to experiments. In such
cases there can be five steps in which the demonstrations are conducted:
Diagnosis of the conditions, practices, and problems of farmers. Once the problem is
identified, there should be:
Participatory design of a research demonstration program which will have the purpose of
solving the problem.
The experimental demonstration is then conducted on farmer's fields
The experiments are evaluated using the farmers’ criteria
Recommendations are made based on the results of the evaluation(Hancock, 1997).
Farm visits/ homestead visit
This is a very commonway of communication, and farm or homestead visitsshould always have a
clear purpose and should be planned carefully. Farm visits can make a facilitator be familiar with
"What a man hears, he may doubt;
What he sees, he may also doubt; but
What he does, he cannot doubt."
Seaman A. Knapp
Agriculture Extension Pioneer
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201762
the farmer and his family (Hancock, 1997). The method helps in building trust between the
facilitator, organization, and farmers(Kumar, 2000). The facilitator gives information and advice
which is specific and relevant to farmer’s problem, the facilitator is familiar with the area of the
farmer and the problems she or he is facing. This method makes monitoring of the farmers’
practices easier and allows new recommendations to be made. This method promotes a good
partnership between the facilitator and the farmer, andstimulates farmersinvolvement in
extension activities(Hancock, 1997). However, farm visits also have some limitations:
They take a lot of time, much of it spent travelling, and choosing a time which is most
convenient to farmers is difficult.
It is always possible that a date and time agreed with farmers is not honoured, as other
activities intervene, leading to considerable loss of time and costs
They can be very costly, with much of the visit concentrated on a few, more responsive
farmers (Kumar, 2000)
They require considerable organisation in terms of logistics, materials, catering etc.
Farmer-to-farmer Extension model
This is a model where farmers are fully involved in the in the generation and dissemination of
information and technology. The model allows farmers to be able to take full ownership of the
intervention. Farmers are involved in all the relevant processes of development and assimilation of
new technology rather than technology simply being transferred to them (Semakula, 2011). The
farmer to farmer extension approach is described as aprocess which gives respect to farmers’
traditional knowledge, it also emphasizes farmers’experimentation, sharing of knowledge and
innovation (Kruger, 1995). The level of adoption of technology introduced by farmers themselves
tends to be higher than if the technology is introduced by outsiders or external organizations.
Farmers become very concerned about the results if they participate fully in the innovation of
technologies (Duveskog, 2002).
Office Calls
This is a method whereby Extension office is placed in a convenient location(Kumar, 2000). This
method is not common in South Africa. Office calls is a method whereby the farmer visits the
facilitator in the office (Oakley, 1997). This can mostly be done when the framers have gained
more confidence with the facilitator. For the facilitator, office visits are less time-consuming.
Office visits need to be prepared(Oakley, 1997). There should be proper arrangements that should
be made, which includes noticeboard communication where there is a clear display accessibility of
the facilitator, useful and up-to-date information (Oakley, 1997). Regular office hours should be
announced and maintained(Kumar, 2000). The office should be neat, orderly and attractive
(Kumar, 2000), there should be visitors’ chairs waiting for appointments(Oakley, 1997). The
disadvantages of this communication method are that the facilitator will not be always willing to be
overwhelmed by farmers visit, instead can also rather prefer going for a field visit and not every
farmer will be able to visit the facilitator. In case a farmer is not able to pay a visit to the
facilitator, letters can be used.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201763
Telephone calls
The facilitator deals with farmers through the telephone, either landline or cell or smartphone.
Telephones are generally used to pass a specific advice or information, with the interaction being
quite short as the phone-call costs are very high. It is very important that the facilitatorspeak
clearly and she makes sure that main points that arebeing discussed are fully understood and are
noted down and kept in the farmer's records(Oakley, 1997).
Informal contacts
This kind of communication can occur when facilitators stay in a particular areafor a period of
time. It becomes more effective as the relationships develop between the facilitators and the
farmers. Otherwise informal interactions can take place at public events, such as a farmers’
market, holiday celebration or a religious events where the facilitatorswill be able to make
contact with the farmers who is involved in the project and talk about their problems. Information
and ideas are passedinformally (Oakley, 1997).
Internet-based platforms
While internet-based platforms such as websites, Facebook and other social media have previously
been considered out of the reach of many smallholder farmers, and are still, perhaps more
appropriate for better-resourced stakeholders, such as academics, researchers and government
officials, this is changing. With the advent of the smartphone and its increasing take-up by farmers
and others in rural areas, these platforms are coming within reach of many more people. This
enables them to engage with social media, and blogs linked to websites. Such media are still not
necessarily the preferred means of communication and information sharing for most farmers, but
they can certainly add to the mix.
‘Hard Copy’ Materials
Traditionally one of the main ways of sharing information, especially within a training context, is
through the use of what are known as ‘hard-copy’ or paper documents. While these can have quite
serious limitations, as described below, they are often favoured by both trainers, and trainees, as
they provide a permanent record of the information being shared, and can be used by trainees in
their work contexts, well beyond the lifespan of the course itself. For the trainers, these materials
can and should help guide them in their training processes. Perhaps the greatest value of such
materials, however, is simply that people like to have real paper documents to work with, and to
take with them from their training into their home and work contexts; they also help trainees to
share the information with friends and colleagues who did not attend the training.
The liking for paper documents is such that although the information in them can be made readily
accessible in various formats on different internet-based platforms, there is a very strong tendency
for people to want to download and print them rather than working with them in a virtual space.
Information to be shared should therefore be in formats which make this easily possible.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201764
Despite the popularity of printed documents, we should not overlook their limitations, the main
one perhaps being that the information in them is fixed in a particular time, and is not easy to
adapt or change according to changing situations or circumstances. Printed documents require
considerable sophistication in their use, with users needing to have the capacity to take the raw
information and adapt it into their own context, which in itself is a high level skill.
The WRC CSA project will be developing two distinct training components for the promotion and
sharing of the DSS; the DSS itself, and a facilitation process for building farmers’ and others’
capacities for accessing, understanding and using the DSS. Both of these components will be
produced initially in printed form to support the piloting of the DSS with partners, with the longer
term intention being for others; NGOs, extension services and agricultural training organisations
and institutions to be able to facilitate the use of the DSS with their constituencies. The two
components will need to be developed in such a way that they foster and support the building of
adaptive competences not only in relation to the farming practices themselves, but also in the use
of the DSS.
Training manuals
A manual is a book of information or instructions(Tonge, 2010). When designing a training manual
it is very important to use a good content and a good design that makes the manual to be
appealing, credible and easy to read and understand information. Most manuals usually include
background and description of information, directions on how to use the manual, course planning
forms and checklists, guidance on tailoring each particular workshop so that it can match the needs
and wants of the participants. Specific, measurable and realistic learning objectives, clear and
complete programme content, integrated evaluation plan and tools(Hamza, 2012). One of the
limitations with manuals is that they are sometimes difficult to read, or to understand, and can
require quite high levels of literacy and content understanding. Manualare often more theoretical
in approach and fail to provide a practical approach(Tonge, 2010), although this need not be the
case. The level of information provided can be above the reader’s requirement, with writers adding
information they think is needed(Tonge, 2010).
The DSS and accompanying facilitation manual need to be developed in cognisance of the
shortcomings of many conventional training manuals, and
Handouts
Handouts are basically sheets of paper sumarisinginformation based on the topic of interest within
a group of people.It is used to convey key points and ideas from lectures or larger units such as
modules or chapter goals to participants(Bligh, 1998). Handouts come in many different forms,
depending on the people who create them. Handouts canincorporate images, photos and pictures
to help in emphasizing the information being explained. The purpose of handouts is to help people
to catch up and understand information that was not clear during workshops or presentations
(Mayank, 2013). The advantage of using a handouts is that they cancreate audience participation,
in that the information contained in them can be discussed,and it is easy to update and maintain
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201765
handouts. Participants do not easily forget the information that has been shared and also presented
on handouts because handouts are being used as a reference (Guffey, 2011). Creating handouts is
cost effective and it can cover lot of information(Ahead, 2005). A disadvantageof using a handout
is that participants can loseattention to the speaker or else handouts may cause distraction rather
than help in giving a reference(Ahead, 2005). However if the handouts are distributed
immediately following discussion of the topic at hand, in order fortrainees to have a good summary
to share with others in their home and work contexts, they can be very valuable.
Considerations in determining appropriate educational and communication methods
There are many factors that should be considered when choosing communication methods to use in
a given programme. These factors will be based on the preferences or special needs ofselected
participants. Different people have different learning styles and different waysin which they prefer
to share information. These factors can include:
Literacy and reading level - the level of farmers’ education will influence the choice of
learning tools that the facilitator chooses to use in a learning process. For instance, farmers
cannot be given a case study to read if their level of reading is low(Richardson, 1999)
Socio-economic - some of these methods requirethe learner to have access to equipment
that they may not be able to afford. For instant, receiving emails requires a farmer to have
a computer or smartphone and access to adequate data. Many smallholder farmers do not
have such access which can be very expensive(Richardson, 1999).
Lifestyles - it is very important to choose a method that allows flexibility such as home
study kits, for people with very busy lifestyles, who need to be able to work at their own
pace and in their own time(Richardson, 1999).
Cultural relevance - it is important to learn which are most appropriate education or
communication approaches in different cultural contexts(Richardson, 1999).
Financing - it is very important to conduct a proper budgeting exercise before choosing a
communication method because some methods are very expensive to deliver(Richardson,
1999)
Time - it is important to conduct thorough planning since some methods may require more
time to plan and implement. The timeline of a project should be specific(Richardson,
1999).
Human Resources- some methods can require additional staff or volunteers to assist in
carrying out the learning experience, and they may require specific skills(Richardson,
1999)
Facilities or Equipment - some methods require a special facility or equipment e.g. making
a participatory video requires computer access for the editing process, therefore a
computer should be made available so that the implementation of the programme becomes
a success (Richardson, 1999).
In most participatory processes a range of communication methods are used at different times,
with different groups, and in different contexts. The idea is to select, with input from all partners
and stakeholders a mix of methods which are practical and appropriate for different groups.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201766
6CAPACITY BUILDING
Team Capacity building
A capacity building process is in place for the implementation team: Field staff for Mahlathini
Development Foundation, the Institute of Natural Resources, The Association for Water and Rural
Development and Lima RDF.
-Field staff, interns (and students) for these organisations are being involved in the design,
planning and implementation of the decision support framework and system through a
number of process:
-Staff members and interns participate in writing and review teams for deliverable reports
including summarising independent research briefs (e. g. desk top review, specific CSA
practices, methodologies, quantitative measurement techniques etc )
-The whole team participates in joint planning sessions
-In these session information provision through small presentations is included for increasing
knowledge around climate change, analysis of case studies and the like
-Small groups undertake specific tasks and
-Write-ups and reports are undertaken by team members
-Sub-teams undertake specific actions such as the design of a community based process,
running workshops at community level and analysis of monitoring data.
-Senior team members provide a mentoring and review role
-Comments from staff members regarding this process have included that it has helped them
a lot to learn to write more formal reports, that they initially were a bit lost and found it
hard to apply the information they found to this particular application, but now are starting
to appreciate the scope of the project and what it entails.
Postgraduate students
Sanelisiwe Tafa-Fort Hare University (EC).
He has completed his Masters in Agricultural Economics, using information provided by the GrainSA
Smallholder Farmer Innovation Programme supporting Conservation Agriculture implementation for
smallholder farmers. His work on cost-benefit analysis will be useful as a model for the present
work
He has written a paper entitled: Farm Level Cost-Benefit Analysis: The evaluation of economics
of conservation agriculture in Bergville Town in Kwa-Zulu Natal Province of South Africa
His abstract for this paper reads as follows “On-farm economic benefits between conservation and
conventional agriculture are not thought to be that pronounced. General inferences can be made,
however; a comprehensive assessment of the net private benefits from greater use of conservation
tillage is necessary. With the use of Gross Margin as well as appraisal indicators such as Net
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201767
Present Value, Benefit Cost Ratio and Internal Rate of Returns, the study revealed that there are
more incentives for adoption of conservation agriculture(productivity changes and reversal of soil
degradation) over conventional agriculture. The study therefore recommends that the promotion
of conservation agriculture should be encouraged and this is promising more incentives in the long-
run.
Khethiwe Mthethwa (University of KwaZulu Natal)
Khethiwe has submitted her Honours thesis in Rural Resource Management within the Faculty of
Agriculture. She has also worked within the Conservation Agriculture ambit during this year, but has
also been a team member for this research process. Her Honours paper is entitled: Investigating
the sustainability of adoption of conservation agriculture by small-scale farmers in Bergville.
In summary her study argues that “Farmers have gained necessary skills and knowledge to be able
to sustain the adoption of the CA(Conservation Agriculture), suggesting that farmers can stand on
their own and continue to practice the CA even in the absence of the CApromoters. It was also
found that farmers who adopted the CA are willing to share their experiences and knowledge with
other farmers in the area. This increases the likelihood to expand the adoption of CA. More
research needs to be done to find out communication strategies that can be used to communicate
new innovations, which is technology and knowledge-intensive like CA. It is recommended that
more research be undertaken to find out whether farmers are willing to extend mixed cropping in
their plots. Further research also needs to be conducted to find out more about factors which have
influenced small-scale farmers to abandon CA practices.
She has provided information in her study that suggests that the learning and implementation
process of the CA SFIP supported through GrainSA, namely farmer innovation development and
working with farmer innovation platforms, provides for sustainable adoption of CA among
smallholders.
Mazwi Dlamini (UWC-PLAAS)
Mazwi has now completed 1 year of a 3 year part-time Masters programme through the Programme
for Land and Agrarian Studies at UWC. He has submitted his desktop review and research
methodology sections.Mazwi’s study is to involve a detailed analysis ofr adoption of CA under the
GrainSA SFIP. His study is entitled: Factors influencing the adoption and non-adoption of
Conservation Agriculture in smallholder farming systems, and the implications of these for
livelihoods and food security in Bergville, Kwazulu-Natal.
He intends to work within an Action research framework using focus group discussions (including
tools such as well being ranking, social mapping, transect walks, seasonal diagrams, participatory
mapping and spider diagrams for analysis of relationships).Other tools that will be used include
questionnaires(household and individual) and life histories.Household questionnaires will be
administered for the purposes of establishing a baseline of livelihoods and general food security
status in the area, and this will be undertaken both pre- and post- season in order to assess changes
as a result of adoption of CA. Individual questionnaires are to focus on the intricacies of their CA
production processes.Data to be collected will include information of how the households are
composed, sources of income, and how much these contribute to household livelihood and food
insecurity. Information on productive assets within the households will also be explored, along with
their control and use. Rural livelihoods are diverse and change all the time in attempts to manage
risk and improve security in the household and life histories across a certain timeline may help
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201768
capture changes that might have taken place. Data to be collected will look at assets and their use
over time.
Palesa Motaung (University of Pretoria)
Palesa is registered for Masters in the Department of Plant Production and Soil Science and will also
Focus on Conservation Agriculture, albeit a different aspect. Her study is entitled: Quantifying the
restorative effect of Conservation Agriculture on the degraded soils of the upper Drakensberg
area of Bergville, Kwazulu-Natal using qualitative versus quantitative soil quality indicators.
Her study aims to evaluate the various methods that can be used to assess soil quality while
investigating the changes (if any) in soil quality of degraded soil under CA management.She will
also attempt to identify appropriate indicators that can be used to monitor changes in soil quality.
She will be conducting soil heath tests and analysis for a number of farmers in three villages in the
Bergville area, who have been involved in CA for 3-4 years. She will look at a number of different
trials including conventional tillage controls, mono-cropped and inter-cropped plots and plots
where cover crops have also been used in rotation to ascertain the differences in quantitative soil
health indicators. She is intending also to use the VSA (Visual Soil Assessment methodology) to
come up with a soil quality index that can be benchmarked against the quantitative assessments.
Sylvester Selala (UKZN)
Sylvester is intending to register for a PhD that will extend across the disciplines of Crops Science
and Hydrology. He has not written his proposal as yet, but has already started focussing on some of
the quantitative aspects of his proposed research through this programme. He is intending to use
quantitative and qualitative assessment techniques related to water productivity of various CSA
practises as one of the central themes in his research.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201769
7APPENDIX 1: WRC PLANNING MEETING: 09-11 OCTOBER
2017
PRESENT: Erna Kruger, Chris Stimie, Lawrence Sisitka, Jon McCosh, Temakholo Mathebula, Mazwi
Dlamini, Sylvester Selala, Phumzile Ngcobo, and interns Khethiwe Mthethwa and Nozipho Zwane
DAY 1: AGENDA
Trajectory for the year 2018 and milestones that need to be reached
1. Objective of Meeting
Overview of what we going to do in 2018, purpose of meeting is to plan activities and allocate time
for each area, make decisions about overall methodology, criteria we want to use for the decision
support system, look at indicators and explore quantitative deliverables.
2. Output for today
Table of contents for deliverable three, includes practical activities. Deliverable 3 needs to be
submitted by the 15th of January.
Final decision on sites for the WRC project
3. Budget
Deliverable 1 and 2 paid for, WRC was satisfied with submissions. There is also some money from the
First Rand Foundation that will help offset the pressure on the WRC budget.
ACTION: Chris: Chameleons: possibility of obtaining chameleons for free, at least 2 or 3 chameleons in
each site.
Decision Support System
(Part 1)
1. Practices (broad basket>likely)
2. Criteria
We need to have a suite of practices that are suitable in each context, we need to come up with criteria
to use when selecting thepractices (e.g. costs, skills incl. Amanz for food). The criteria will be the basis
for the decision support system. The methodology selected can be applied everywhere but criteria
will be specific to research area, i.e. they will be a set of generic and selective criteria (technical,
weather, facilitation, farmer)
The present list of practices needs to be reviewed, tidied up and finalised in a way that it can support
the overall DSS.
Decision Support System (Part 2)
Methodology: How will the decision support system be implemented/facilitated in a community
setting e.g. PID, people choose something that they compare with what they doing already and select
the best practice based on outcome.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201770
Media Access….how will the information be distributed? Come up with an overall communication
strategy
Decision Support System (Part 3)
Lawrence:Implementation Monitoring (indicators): monitoring review process must be integral to the
whole process, i.e. it must be part of implementationand not left until the end. We need indicators
on the process side and on the practical side.
Deliverable 3 Outcomes
1. Practices
CSA: Climate Smart Agriculture-we need to clearly outline what practices we refer to when talking
about CSA practices. Principles of CSA:
A. Increase in productivity
B. Increase resilience to climate change and variability
C. Reducing agriculture’s contribution to climate change
These are made explicit within the choice of practices for the database-the whole basket and then
again in the monitoring as they are unlikely to be explicit criteria chosen by farmers
In terms of monitoring- especially related to mitigation one getsinto the debate of carbon credits,
offsets, tax etc and the very real difficulty of measuring carbon sequestration
Difficulty in measuring Organic Matter in soil: difficult to measure as there are many factors to
consider, e.g. temperatures, moisture levels in the soil, where soil OM tests are conducted. (Indices,
proxies, weighing of criteria)
John: How many CSA practices are we looking at: if we come up with 20 practices, and farmers select
all of them, it will be very difficult to measure the results. Chances of people selecting many practices
are slim.
It also means we need to have a process for farmers to prioritize, according to their criteria which
practices to start with and which are the most important
Erna: From AWARD case studies, people who selected a wide range of practices saw a more coherent
outcome andgot better results than people that selected onepractice. So, it will be important to
somehow group the practices that are synergistic.
2 Categories
a. Vegetable production, Field crop production, Livestock management, Water and soil
management, Indigenous practices (the five fingers according to the AWARD model of
implementation)
Selection of practices,will be based on information dissemination, people will choose based on
familiarity and ease of implementation.
What information base will we use for the decision support system (information sources,
databases, training material, Amanzi for food, WRC SAPWAT, extensionsuite online, local
technical information?)
b. Technical/specialist
Weather: ecotones/ecozones/agro ecological zones: information scaled down to local level.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201771
c. Facilitation: what specialist information is required and what underpinning knowledge do we
require to make informed decisions.
John: ISCW (Inst Soil Climate and Water), a soil scientist is required as part of the team, Piet Nel is
a soil scientist working under ARC that can assist and does not charge a lot, if hired on an individual
basis. Sue Walker: works for the ARC and can be good contact to work with on climate databases.
d. Scale: Farmer segmentation: important to understand context in which practice is applied, e.g.
mulching may not be practical for big fields. Also, practices introduced at garden level may not be
applicable at field level.
e. Budget: R10 000-R20 000 foreach learning group for inputs, to take away the risk from the
farmesr.
Project to be implemented in three provinces: EC, KZN, LIMPOPO
3Decision support system: implementation method
What would you do if you approach a new learning group to introduce CSA?
Look at present activities, agriculture, recent history, discussion of practices i.e. climate smart
agriculture:
-Livelihoods contexts
- Past-present-future
-Start with agric the discussions, resources, issues, present practices, issues, potential
alternatives,
Erna: differentfactors affect approach in introducing CSA. In Limpopo it was easy to introduce CSA
because the changes were more apparent, whereas in Bergville, the change is variability, i.e. irregular
weather outline. So the introduction of CC concepts needs to be more carefully handled toensure
that people can differentiate impacts caused by CC as opposed to those caused by past and present
human and farming activities, and those that are ‘just’ weather related.
There are three related processes that can support this process: GrainSA -CA, AWARD -ResilimO and
Wesbank Innovation Fund
AWARD CASE STUDY An example of CC dialogue facilitation at community level
OVERVIEW OF DIALOGUES PROCESS: Have you ever heard about climate change and what is
your understanding of it?
THE BASICS OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE SYSTEMS (introduction to core contexts)
Module 1: EXPLORING CC IMPACTS SYSTEMATICALLY (talk about what scientists have found
regarding CC and relate it to local, tools: mind map/seasonal diagrams)-look at different
climate change scenarios to base practices on. And explore impacts of CC on livelihoods and
farming. One day workshop
Module 2: EXPLORING ADAPTATION OPTIONS AND MAKING PLANS, basedon systemic
potential impacts explore systemic adaptation options for a sector
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201772
GrainSA Conservation Agriculture
PARTICIPANTS (existing, positive, aspiring), mainly work WRC project into CA. there are well settled
existing learning groups and sites where measurements are already taking place. These canlink to and
support the WRC process.
The thought here is to introduce the DSS both in existing learning groups under CA-so an expansion
of what they are now focusing on, with the likelihood of doingthe quantitative measurements and
trials with individual members from these groups and in new groups-just starting out. It is likely that
the facilitation process- or at least emphasis of different steps in the process will differ between new
groups and existing ones.
Potential new sites (CA): SKZN: Plainhill and St Elois. It is mportant to stay coherent with the sites.
Existing sites in Bergville: Ezibomvini, Eqeleni, Stulwane New Groups: Thamela, Thunzini
First Rand Foundation /WESBANK/FS Funding
Funding is mainly for Innovation (R 250 000, November to March 2018, joint funding for MDF and
Lima)
AREAS:
KZN :Lima- NtabaMhlophe, MDF-Bergville
Limpopo: Lima- Sekororo, MDF- Lower Olifants_Memetje
METHODOLOGY:
The intention is to work within the ambit of Food security implementation andwork with existing
learning groups for Lima and MDF tointroduce Climate Change Adaptation concepts, then elucidate
adaptive measures and practices with the farmers and come up with practices to experiment with. So
it is one round of the same process of setting up a DSS within the WRC project. It can assist with field
level facilitation support (money to run workshops0 and also limited funding for the experimentation
(in this instance primarily tunnels and drip kits) along with intensive gardening techniques and S&WC
The idea is to use this process to design and run the first round of facilitator level training to start to
solidify the DSS aspects on that level, develop some training material and start on farmer level learning
materials;
The methodology for this at community level is as follows:
-Context
-CC dialogue
- Practices/principles
-DSS - Matrix: practices vs. criteria
-Farmer Experimentation
It is Important for farmers to be an integral part of monitoring process. Existing groups can help guide
how to adjust the DSS for it to be more effective.
DAY 2 Agenda
Presentations of case studies from Deliverable 2
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201773
Criteria linked to categories (two groups)
Practices (doable 1 group)
Process (1 group)
After Lunch
CoP: Stakeholders
Quantitative measurements
Capacity building (post grad and social learning)
1. Presentations
Short presentations of what was written up in Deliverable 2 to remind the whole team of what these
are and how they will be incorporated into this work.
Infrastructure/ engineering Practices: Chris
Technology developed in recent years, accessible, doable and replicable. Challenges with accessing
materials from local hardware stores. Two technologies, drip kits and tunnels
Drip kits
This is an old idea that has not worked well in the past, hasalso been tried in Limpopo, but recently
working better as kits are being developed that farmers can set up for themselves. This removes the
restrictive nature of pre-designed kits and allows capacity building in the community.
Kits consist of a 20l bucket with sand and stone filter for greywaterand 2x5m long dripper lines-
made up of string drippers that farmers themselves make.
The idea is that a 15mm PVC pipe is used, it is expensive but accessible, plus 1.8 mm/15 gauge surgical
needle (not vet needles), cheaper to purchase in bulk. Needle is put straight through the pipe, through
both sides, and a fish line is threaded through the holes and a piece of bailing twine is hooked and a
knot is made on each side. Bailing twine must be tight, if it’s loose it drips too much. Spacing is 300mm,
and it is then put in a 25 lit bucket, which is placed at 1.5 m height. To make the filter; Mutton cloth is
placed at the bottom of the bucket to ensure sand or particles to not get into the dripper lines, gravel
is placed inside bucket and sand is placed on top (wrapped in mutton cloth with a knot at the bottom
and at the top). When grey water is poured on it, it is filtered. Sand has to be replaced after a period
of time as it becomes saturated with soap. Three different buckets are needed for three trench beds
(1mx5m). Irrigation is done every day and this provides 10 ml a week/ 10 ml in two weeks is not
enough.
John: How bad is soap? Soap is too alkaline, so when it reacheshigh concentrations it killsplants.
Farmers need to put clean water at least once a week to wash out the soap. Ash can also be used to
neutralize soap as it binds phosphates and nitrates found in soap. Grey water works best with mulch,
as mulch helps reduce build up.
Drip kits cost ~R300 each
Tunnels- shade cloth structures
Again, these are kits that are provided that farmers themselves construct. The kits are designed to use
mostly locally available materials and to be highly resistant to wind damage and breakage
The tunnel is 4.2. metres by 5.9 metres,with four arches. Westarted with steel that was bent
commercially, then went to PVC plastic 50ml (not easily accessible). What is usednowis galvanized
(does not need to be painted) conduits which are bent on site (2 halves for each arch). These are then
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201774
joined with conduit links. The arches are pressed directly into the ground in pre-made narrow
cylindrical holes. A hollow steel pipe is used to make holes. Net used is 40% grey/agricultural net.
Maintenance is very important and it is very important to have a very robust system from the get go;
it can last for + 20 years.
Tunnel kit coast ~ R 3000
The above is a commercialprice but if you do it yourself you can get away with half of this amount.
Individual smallholders have got toa point where one tunnel generates at least R10 000/annum which
enables them to be able to buy these materialsfor themselves. There is also a business opportunity
in this because people can supply the kits and assist with construction. This came as a result of the
Mining CSI programme. These kits are available to specification and only thing required is for you to
set it up. The suppliers (Sociotechnical INterfacing) deliver if 10-15 orders come in and also provide
the training.
AMANZI FOR FOOD: Lawrence
WRC realisedthat over the yearsthey have done a lot of research on water conservation andrain
water harvesting but the results of the research was not reaching the people the research was aimed
for. WRC commissioned the Environmental Research Centres (ELRC) at Rhodes UNiversity to assist in
making information accessible for small scale farmers and the public in general.
The concept is based on social learning: communities of practice (CoPs) around rain water harvesting
are set up including stakeholders such as extension officers, government and researchers, awa
farmers. What was developed was the training of trainer’s course, for all stakeholders involved. These
CoPs are learning networks where participants share information and implement practices together.
Media is a critical componenet: local radio, whatsapp, local newspapers, word of mouth, internet (for
those that have access) as communication is vital in communities. Important to have someone
focused on maintaining communication/updates on media platform chosen.
Training material was WRC research.
Categories looked at:
1. Scale (scale bands): bigger scale = higher risk, mainly crop
-Scale 1 (umzi)-homestead garden, school garden, attached or close to homestead less than 1
ha
-Scale 2 (small arable field), more than 1-2 ha, also involves higher levels of technology
-Scale 3 (large arable, livestock): higher level of technology, has employed people
Aspiration: people want to grow in terms of production, but it is not always the case. Up scaling takes
a lot more resources.
2. Criteria
-Subsistence, semi-commercial, commercial
- Labour
-Input requirements
-Technology requirements risk
- Aspiration
3. Indices
- Low-med-high
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201775
NB!! Remove barriers to learning
Different practices are suitable to different levels of production. E.g. saaidamme are a great way of
harvesting and saving water but small scale farmers may not implement it as it is done on a large scale.
Navigation tool very useful in obtaining useful information for rainwater harvesting and soil water
conservation.
Agroforestry: John
WRC research project, implemented in Nokweja and Bergville with Mr Madondo. Field trials have been
going on for two years. Researcher managed trials are focused on two types of systems. Improved
fallow (two legume species, pigeon pea) and legumes intercropped with agroforestry species. Plant
material is worked back into the soil. Measurements of water use, nitrogen fixation (relationship
between nitrogen fixation by legumes and requirements by plants) and a number of other indicators.
The project in Nokweja (intercropping, relay cropping etc), uses Sesbania Sesbanand pigeon peas and
bulgardia albia (used in East Africa, grows leaves in winter and in summer, leaves drop). The Bergville
site was abandoned due to people letting cattle into the fields. Objective of project: measure water
use efficiency of fodder crops and develop a guideline for extension officers. Uses of crops: fodder,
firewood, nitrogen fixation. Idea is for farmers to see the net benefit of increased yield over time, even
though they may sacrifice some of their maize crop yields when planting agroforestry species.
Conservation Agriculture: Sylvester
Three principles, focus is on minimum disturbance, planters don’t disturb soil so impact was not
measured. Soil cover wasmeasured, developed a square which was thrown randomly and the
percentage was measure based. Infiltrometers and spades were used to measure water infiltration in
the soil. Results are highly variable, more measurements need to be conducted. Other measurements,
soil colour, texture, effective rooting depth, tillage pan and rainfall data. Five rain gauges were placed
in community and farmers were asked to record rainfall which worked quite well.Runoff plots were
also done in two households in Bergville, also had mixed results. Percentage germination was also
measured, linked to yields.
Measurements:
-Soil cover
-Infiltration rates
-Visual soil assessment
-Rain gauges
-Runoff plots
-% germination
-Soil fertility and soil health tests.
Coming up with a Decision Support System
We started by working on potential categories to be used in specific situations/localities to decide on
an appropriate basket of options of practices
Categories
Scale (1 ha, 1-2 ha, >2ha)
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201776
-Inputs (costs/supply)
-Skills/ understanding/knowledge/technical support
-Sources of water
- Cost/benefit
Productivity
-Efficiency/ use of resources
- Cost/benefit
-Increased yield
-Diversification including continuity
Resilience
-Trends over time
-Diversity of practices
-Social agency
-Adaptability- awareness and response, system and farmer flexibility
-Robustness- soil health
-Reduced risk- reduced water demands
Carbon
-Soil management practices
-Crop and animal husbandry management
-Reduced carbon emissions-reduce mechanization, Extensive livestock production
-Increase carbon capture- reduction of veld burning, increase in SOM
Climate
-Heat
-Variability
-Extreme (drought/floods)
Things to be think about
-Preferences
-Farming system
-Dry land vs. irrigated
-Diversity
-Locality
DSS
Use benchmarking/validation/threshold values
Monitoring indicators (feedback info to make more informed decisions)
Climate variables
Processes
Set up what processes are required:
-Introduction to climate change, what it means and how to do it.
-Community involvement
-Management of information
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201777
We divided our team into two sub-groups; one to focus on the technical aspects of the practices and
one to work on the process of introduction at community level.
Group work: Technical aspects: Report back
1. Practices (report back)
Categories
Soil management-soil fertility, soil health, soil erosion control
Water management-manage available water, increase available water
Crop management- types, productivity, manage pests and weeds
Natural resources: landscape management, land use planning,
Livestock-rotationalgrazing systems, relay cropping and cover crops under CA systems… It
might be more viable to look at integration systems, look at livestock within the CSA context,
information on livestock is availablebut the facilitation component is missing, might be
complicated to look into livestock as there is no one on the team who has expertise on
livestock management.
We reviewed the existing database on practices we put together for Deliverable 1 and made some
comments regarding practices to include/exclude, scope, description etc inorder to finalise the
database. Issues to be considered:
-Modifications to table e.g. improve soil fertility, recommendations were chemical based
solutions, natural based solutions, and then have sub categories specifying practices.
-Introduce a few more ideas e.g Push-pull: pest control planting Desmodium in field and
Napier grass on the sides.
-Criteria: Cost, technical difficulty, labour, maintenance scale.
-Practices: System, appropriate scale, do-ability (can the farmer implement it in their system?
short term vs. long term benefits)
-Ranking according to scale (plot, field, farm)
oLow cost and easy to do= 1
oLow cost difficult to do= 2
oHigh cost and easy to do =2
oHigh cost and difficult= 3
-Suggestion to put criteria into different columns. Most practices were a 2 except for
minimum tillage and then add a column with the scale.
Way forward: reformat table on practices and circulate edited version Chris, Sylvester, Jon
2. Processes (report back)
Below is a chronology of steps or processes to be undertaken at community level, assuming there is
already some levelof relationshipand interest. These steps work towards building a CoP /learning
group:
-Understanding climate change and impact (our understanding, community understanding)
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201778
-Climate change and agriculture (farmer roles and responsibilities, current practices/challenges)
-Changes, reasons and responses; Responses (what are we doing already, what do we think can
do that will help, willingness to change [* Comfort Zone game- comfort zone- stretch panic-
growth], discussions around change, most important problems, what do we foresee in the future
based on what we are doing, effectiveness of responses)
-Who do we want to work with- outside organisation, local institutions, learning groups new
relationships, new ways of working together
-Is anyone doing new and interesting things local innovations to consider what has been tried
and how well has it worked.
-Introduction of practices
a. Reality map; present agricultural practices and impact
b. Walk about in village
c. Desktop review
d. Focus group discussions
e. Prioritising- defining criteria
f. Practices that mostly match criteria (short visual introductions for likely doable practices
in the area, introduce about 5 practices – facilitator’s judgement call) Link to local
practices
g. Ranking exercise linking criteria to practices
h. Learning group members choose practices they would like to implement or experiment
with. This could mean
i. subgroups dealing with different topics (e.g. gardens, fields livestock)
ii. whole learning group doing practices in succession (e,g start with gardens first)
iii. Defining a chronology of activities e.g. start with trench beds and mulching,
then implement diversion ditches and stone bunds etc
iv.Individuals choose an initial set of 5 practices for example and then upon review
decide how to build on that in a following season…
i. Implementation, training and mentoring, demos, cross visits, specialists (sources of
expertise), lead farmers
j. Monitoring and review.
3. Quantitative measurements
(Look at deliverable 2 report, last chapter)
Soil Physical properties
1. Water retentivity/ bulk density: Monitoring bulk density requires info on soil organic carbon, bulk
density is very important, take steel ring, put it in soil, take it out, weigh it wet and weigh it dry,
mainly weighs density when soil is dry, useful in showingsoil health in fields, gardens, forestry,
also important in reviewing porosity over time). Bulk density used to check relevant changes and
track changes over time. Soil bulk density decreases with increasing organic matter. Increased bulk
density is an indication of mismanagement, e.g continued ploughingCould use this a proxy for
organic matter. Need lots of samples 20-30.
Frequency: Pre planting, at planting and at harvesting.
2. Soil Structure measures-mean weight diameter a laboratory test indicating aggregate stability.
Loss of OM means loss of structure, aggregate stability is alsoagoodmeasure of soil structure
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201779
and current soil health tests include this. Shatter tests infield can also be used and this will be a
good way tosee differences-drop from certain height and see how the sizes break up,even
distribution of sizes is good. No. of samples for aggregate stability-20-30 sub samples. An M shape
or W shape(of field sampling) is normally used and random samples taken. For trench beds under
a smaller area this could be difficult
Soil Chemical properties
Cedara - (KZN) (Limpopo)
4. Fertility: NPK Ca, Mg, acidity (acid saturation, cation exchange capacity), near infra-red carbon-
soil OM acts a buffer to soil acidity. Samples should be taken to the same labfor a consistent
process-to pick up trends. EC does have a soils lab, Fort Cox however its good practice to take
samples in the same lab. Comparison will be within sites and not across. Different practices and
track changes over different climatic conditions. Samples will all be taken to Cedara for
consistency.
5. Electrical conductivity: -will be done separately(optional) indicatespresence of salts in the soil
which is more important from an irrigation perspective. A Chameleon (red, yellow, green) can
also be used to measure plant available water. This a usually under irrigation conditions and dry
land conditions are not so conducive. They are more suitable in gardening situations .
The more Ca and Mg in soil the better the cation exchange capacity. Difficult to show that the
improvement in OM will also improve the cation exchange capacity. Ca and Mg content in soil can
be changed by irrigation.
Soil biological properties
6. Soil health indicators:Laboratory work, field tests, microbial biomass. Might be more effective to
compare practises with trendsover time. TESTS: SOLVITA TESTS/NEMATODE TESTS: check
medium term availability of nutrients in the soil, can give recommendedon how much to apply
on top of what is already available.
Water productivity
7. We needto have weatherstations if we willbe checking water availability in the soil, weather
station must be at the same altitude as field, about 500 m away or at most 5 to 6km away.
(Measures evapotranspiration, models crop growth according to reference evapotranspiration.
Also rainfall, windspeed, solar radiation, temperature). Weather stations can be used to model
how crops should be growing. Data is needed for water productivity. Water productivity,
multifaceted: looks at all different components of a production system and how they interact
together, more complicated when intercropping is included. For WRC project it can be looked at,
in terms of field crops,data can be used to determine yield values. Water productivity tests will
also help determinewhether planting in tunnels leads to reducedET compared to planting in an
open field.
Soil moisture
Rainfall +irrigation- runoff -percolation
8. Gravimetric water samples (in field) at different levels(0-10cm, 10-30c, 60cm) will help determine
soil moisture levels at different soil depths within a given period of time. Evaporation, high at the
beginning and decreases as crop grows. Water productivity does not tell us whether various
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201780
practices are applicable to different climatic areas. The results are area specific. You can compare
same practices across areas if trials are conducted under the same conditions.
Retention curve: start off in a sand basin, take a soil sample and then subject it to different
pressures. Water easily available when soil is saturated, it will get more difficult to extract when
the water content decreases. Equipment: water mark sensors and physical gravimetric water
sampling (comparing difference between dry and wet, different from bulk density which only uses
the dry sample).
9. Water holding capacity: How does water holding capacity differ? This is also measured using
water mark sensors and can be used to compare practices within a site. Sylvester -suggested
that we measure amount of water applied vs. yield in each site, i.e. look at how much water was
added to obtain a specific yield. Chameleons can be used in the gardens, water mark sensors can
be used in the fields.
-Scenario 1: try idea out in a simple system.
-Scenario 2: try idea out in single and mixed system.
10. Run-off plots:Mostly in field situations to compare effect of different practices.
11. Crop yields: Will need to be determined in gardens and fields
12. Livestock: Full feed analysis (Cedara). Potentially find na Honours student to focus on cover
crops for livestock fodder.
Experimental layout suggestion:
Control: vegetable garden watered with a watering can
Treatment 1: micro irrigation in an open field
Treatment 2: micro irrigation in a tunnel
Site selection
A decision was taken to focus on the process aspects of introduction of the ideas with new learning
groups, where not much implementation has happened as yet and then to focus on the introduction
of practices with existing group- so two slightly different facilitation processes.
KZN (Overlap with First rand Foundation sites)
One day training of trainers: 13 November 2017
Process: Thabamhlophe (Lima), Thamela (MDF) - DATE: 4-7 December 2017
Practices: Ezibomvini (MDC- CA)
Team: Phumzile/Tema/Khethiwe/Interns/Mazwi
Measurements (quantitative research ): Ezibomvini
Check pension dates:Tema/Phumzile
LIMPOPO
Process intro: Sekororo (Lima), Sedawa Ext, New group (MDF-AWARD) _DATE: 26-30 November
Practices: Sedawa (MDAF-AWARD- CSA)
Team: Nozipho, Tema, Mazwi (Khethiwe), Sylvester
Measurements (quantitative research ): Sedawa
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201781
Process facilitation for end Nov-Beg December
-1 day, training of trainers (1st week of December)
-Intro to climate change 1 day
-Ranking and walkabout 1 day
EASTERN CAPE (2-3 days)
(Intro CC, Ranking): Imvutho Bobomi_ DATE: 22-26 January 2018
Team: Lawrence Erna, Sylvester, Tema, Mazwi, Makhethi
Speak to stakeholders in the meantime around formalisation of CoPs, talk about it in the next round.
ToC for Deliverable 3
Table of Contents Deliverable 3: DSSWriting Teams Editorial team
1. Introduction: purpose, objectives etc. ErnaJohn
2. DSS for farmers
3. facilitation
2. Process Framework: tidy up link to Tema, Mazwi, PhumzileLawrence
broader thinking,
Design methods, tools and processes
3. Facilitation; training of trainersErna Lawrence
4. Practices: system appropriate, scale, doableJohn, Sylvester, ChrisLawrence
(AF)/Erna
4. Categories, layers
5. Description, photos (separate section, appendix)
6. Livestock integration, explain issues?
5. Site Selection:
7. Review of quantitative measurementsSylevester, John
6. Communication StrategyLawrence, Tema, Khethiwe
8. Media information diversity of com strategies
7. Capacity buildingErna, Mazwi, SylvesterErna
9. team processMakhethi, Palesa
10. Facilitator and community learning
11. Post graduate
Round 1: 31 October 2017, except communication strategy, process, site selection
Round 2: 8 December 2017
Final due date: 15 January 2017
8APPENDIX 2: DICLAD MODULES 2 & 3 WITHAGRISI
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE LOWER OLIFANTS :24TH TO 26TH OCT 2017
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201782
Overall purpose
To build climate change literacy among stakeholders with regards to climate change adaptation
options related to small scale agriculture.
Expected outcomes
Re-enforced understanding of climate change impactspertaining to smallscale farming in
the Lower Olifants.
Identification of tenable adaptation options to some of these impacts, particularly those
that can be further supported through the AgriSI project and other RESILIM-O projects.
Agenda
Participants
Botshabelo (13)
Oaks, Finalie, Lepelle (23)
Sedawa, Mametje, Willows (36)
Recap of concepts covered in DICLAD Module 1
Participants were walked through the concepts covered in the 1st Module
Climate change concepts were expressed using temperature and rainfall seasonality charts.
Concepts can be summarised as:
Increased temperatures throughout the year- high certainty
Overall similar amount of rainfall but over a shorter period of time and more variability (intense
rainfall events storms, floods, droughts) less certainty.
Participants also went through the five fingers concepts of themes for good agricultural practices
and examples of practices for each theme were elucidated. Examples given were:
Water management: diversion furrows, contour ditches, greywater management, small dams, drip
irrigation, stone lines, garden beds
Control soil movement: reducing run-off, furrows and ridges and planting on ridges (aloes, sweet
potatoes)
Soil health/fertility management: trench beds, eco-circles
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201783
Crop management: mixed cropping, mulching, shade for crops, natural pest control, increased
organic matter, close spacing, tunnels
Indigenous plants: less burning, planting and propagation of indigenous trees, multipurpose plants
(windbreaks, fruit, medicine), careful cutting/ pruning for firewood, rather than chopping down
whole trees,
At Botshabelo, the workshop was held at the Local facilitator’s home (Meriam Malepe) and thus we
could do a walk through the garden to review some the practices. This added to the examples
participants were giving.
Above left to right: Tunnel with mixed cropping in beds for water soil health and crop management;
tower garden for greywater management, soil fertility and mixed cropping; Diversionfurrow with
sweet potatoes, planted on ridges and bananas and paw-paws planted in the furrow for water
management and soil erosion control;and an eco-circle with mulching planted to herbs for water
management, soil fertility and pest control. Herbs include lemons balm, parsley, mint, rosemary and
thyme.
Left: Inlet furrow, silt trap(where Ancois and Sylvester are standing)
and underground RWH tank circular structure with roof.
One of the main points that came form discussing these CSA
practices is that most of them cover a number of the fiver fingers
e.g.:
Underground RWh tanks; deal with water management and soil
erosion control
Tunnels: deal with water management by reducing evaporation and
temperatures as well as increasing soil water holding capacity, with
erosion control by having paths laid out on contour and deep organic
beds, with soil fertility through the trench beds and with crop management through providing
windbreaks, pest control.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201784
Tower gardens:deal with water management, soil fertility and crop management (mixed cropping,
intensive planting, pest control)
Furrows and ridges with cross ties: Should also have mulching. Deals with water management by
increasing infiltration and reducing run-off, soil erosion control and soil fertility- through
incorporating organic matter in the ridges, and adding manure, leaves and mulch to both ridges and
furrows.
Participants were then divided into small groups to continue with strengthening their understanding
of impact of climate change and to begin to outline potential adaptations that could be
implemented.
Activities in small groups:
Outline impacts
Choose goals (around 5) of priority changes or adaptation strategies
Then look at actions/practices to achieve these goals and for those ones we have already tried
think about how well they have worked
Outlining impacts
Here cards were used from the mind maps created in the first
workshop and the small groups briefly reconstructed a mind
map, discussing in detail the potential linkages and
importance of the issues
Right: A mind map of CC issues reconstructed by one of the
small groups from Okas, Finale and Lepelle.
Water is the over -riding constraint in all cases. Although all
participants save some rainwater, mostly in 210l drums or
large basins, they feel this is not nearly enough and it doesn’t last long. In all three sessions the
participants felt that storage of large quantities of rainwater was about their only option for having
a reliable supply of water, especially if rainfall decreases further. Municipal systems are unreliable
and intermittent at best and individual boreholes are too expensive for most and there are already
cases of boreholes drying out or salinizing. Greywater is used extensively, but not all participants
were aware of options for ‘cleaning’ greywater prior to use.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201785
Some mention was made also of community members working together and working more
cooperatively with Municipalities to increase the efficiency of water supply in their villages.
Examples include:
SUGGESTIONS:
Discussions were held also about improving spring protection in the mountains, that people rely on,
as a matter of priority making small dams with pipes for gravity fed systems, exclusion of
livestock and making proper livestock watering facilities.
A major priority is rainwater harvesting. Present options give too little water and are expensive
(basins, drums, Jojo’s..)
Using the underground RWH storage tanks, or Jo-Jo tanks, to store water provided by
municipalities, to allow for intermittent provision. Also storage of water collected by hand form the
river
Participants felt that they had no way to access water from the river. They did not seem aware
that they could in fact not be allowed to, but were talking more about pumps and pipes.
In Sedawa however , participants suggested committees need to be formed to work with allocation
of water from the river ( a smaller riverbed- dry for most of the year but with water access in the
sand y riverbed) and also the municipality.
Some groups discussed natural resource management in conjunction with the water management
judicious cutting of trees, saving of riverine vegetation, preventing veld fires and communal
management of water infrastructure. They felt that the K2C facilitators could also assist in this
process along with traditional structures linked to the learning groups
Tunnels featured centrally as helping a lot, as did trench beds and mulching.
Botshabelo CSA practices
ACTION
CONSTRAINTS
HAS IT WORKED
FUTURE; NEXT STEPS
GOAL: Improve water use efficiency and increase access to water
Grey water
White soap build up
on soil level, crusting
Yes; works well with
trees, but not tomatoes
and ibece, where the
plants become more
prone to diseases
-More grey water management
practices like loosening soil, tower
gardens
Experiment with different kinds of
soaps and their effect on plants
-try out moringa seed to clean
water
Mulching
If it’s too dry
mulching doesn’t
work
Hard to find enough
material
Yes; retains soil moisture
and crops look better
-Infiltration pits,
-Making compost
RWH :
Underground
tanks
Not done: lots of
labour
Expensive
Yes (for few
demonstrations). Now it
is possible to use multiple
sources of water for the
tank rain, river and
municipal)
-We should save towards these
tanks and maybe implement in a
step by step way over time to make
them more affordable
-On slopes can have gravity fed
systems that can also irrigate by
gravity
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201786
-Allows for planning for off season
when there is no rain
RWH: 201l drums,
basins
Yes; but the water is
little and does not last
long
Spring protection
Yes, but only few
individuals and limited
attempts
-Need to store a bit of water at the
springs to feed the pipes
-Need water and social
management structures to deal
with pipes and taps and rules
Boreholes
Too expensive
Yes- some ‘richer’
individuals- butsome are
drying up and water yield
is sometimes too low to
justify costs
Not an individual homestead
solution
Farm smaller
areas
Yes; participants adapt
the size of land they use
to the amount of water
they are likely to have
available.
GOAL: decrease dry, hot soil
Trench beds
Hard to find enough
organic matter
Yes, many have tried
this. Provides for
excellent growth of crops
and very good moisture
retention,
-Planning to do more trenches
-Collect thematerials when they
are available to pack the trenches
later
Tower gardens
Need shade cloth and
many participants
still unaware of this
process
Yes; good growth, good
use of greywater and
easy to do
Buy a big roll of shade cloth
together to make it cheaper-
making the net available will allow
for participants to try this out.
Tunnels/shade
cloth structures
Some participants
have dug the trenches
as requested
(3x5x1m) buthave
not received the
tunnel kits
Yes; work very wellfor
crop growth, cooling of
soil, water retention,
windbreaks, and pest
control
-supply more kits as promised
-participants can save together to
buy the kits which are quite cheap
-Train each other in how to
construct as there are small teams
in each village who know how
-Perhaps set up a system where
participants contribute 50% of
finances and MDF or support
organisation contributes the other
50%
Soil fertility
Yes; increase organic
matter, trenches, tower
gardens, furrows and
ridges, using more
manure
Continue with soil fertility
improvement
GOAL: Improve crop productivity
Growing trees for
shade
Yes; a few participants
Plan for afternoon shade as
temperatures increase
Liquid manure
Most participants are
somehow unaware of
the liquid manure.
Thought you could not
do it without bananas
Drought tolerant
crops
Indigenous fruit trees
take too long to fruit
and are no longer
eaten on a daily basis
Mangos are more heat
tolerant but need to
be well fenced-
Yes; tried the bird
resistant sorghum and
millet in the CA plots-
worked well and
participants harvested
seed. Indigenous crops
and trees such as Marula
work well
Plant mangos in furrows to ensure
enough water supply as it gets
hotter
Want more seed of bird resistant
sorghum and millet
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201787
Pest control;
traditional
practices (apply
powder of dried
insects), natural
pest control
brews, pest
repellent plants
and mixed
cropping
Yes-traditional practices
work adequately
Marigolds are pretty and
work against nematodes
and wilting problems in
vegetables
With mixed cropping see
fewer pests and fewer
holes in spinach plants
for example
Continue with traditional practices
Increased mixed cropping
Using natural pest control brews in
the tunnels this is enough do not
need chemicals.
Lepelle, Oaks and Finale CSA practices
ACTION
CONSTRAINTS
HAS IT WORKED
FUTURE; NEXT STEPS
GOAL: Improve water use efficiency and increase access to water
RWH : Jo-jo’s,
210ldrums, basins
Building bigger
concrete tanks- Not
done: lots of labour
Expensive
Yes; short time, too
little water
Find types of tanks that use local
labour for construction to make it
cheaper
Store more water
Find partners to assist
Mulching
Yes; doesn’t work when
it’s too hot – still need
water to break down the
mulch
Methods of incorporation of
organic matter into soil may work
better than mulch
Greywater; drip
kits, ash
Yes; but not on food
crops. Helps with pests
in the soil
Bucket filter clogs up
over time
-Methods for cleaning greywater
Spring protection
Not for access for
everyone- used for
religious purposes
N/A
Boreholes;
communal and
home
Too expensive
Irrigation water in Finale
is salty. In Lepelle water
quality is good
This is an expensive option, but is
easy and reliable
Information about how to deal
with borehole water of bad quality
for irrigation
Minimum tillage
Plough smaller and
manageable areas
It works well, it saves
water, but might not
work without some
shading plants still wilt
at some point
Timing, tunnels, decisions to be
made by observation
GOAL: soil management
Increase organic
matter;
incorporate
leaves, crops,
ash, manure
Trench beds
Yes, but will want to see
also how these perform
under optimal conditions
Set up these with drip irrigation
Erosion control;
contour bunds,
diversion furrows
Yes; requires regular
maintenance- sometimes
they get blocked
Combine this with some of the
water and crop management
techniques
GOAL: Livestock/ grazing management
Reduce livestock
numbers and
plant fodder
We are going to need
water
Planting fodder works
well under irrigation -
good idea as it feeds
both animals and people
Find ways to harvest the seed of
the fodder species so as to plant
again
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201788
The fodder radish is good for
people (morogo) and animals-
grows quickly can be a good idea.
GOAL: Improve crop productivity
Mixed cropping-
vegetables and
herbs
Yes, fewer pests where
mixed cropping was tried
Heat tolerant crops:
parsley, millet,
watermelon, butternut,
different types of
greens- e.g. the kale
introduced
Bird resistant sorghum
quite good.
Find better ways (and more) to do
mixed cropping
Do experiments with different
heat tolerant crops to check
Cross visits to other learning
groups to see what they have
planted and what is possible
Three plantings per year of
different greens to have continuity
in production
Pest control;
traditional
practices (apply
powder of dried
insects), natural
pest control
brews, pest
repellent plants
Do not have access to
the plants; chilli and
garlic
Yes- only a few people
tried, but for those it
worked well
Learn more pest control remedies
Continue with traditional practices
Increased mixed cropping
Using natural pest control brews in
the tunnels this is enough do not
need chemicals.
This exercise was followed by doing an “Impact matrix “ where we asked the question “How do
you decide whether a practices is working, what criteria do you use? And then discussed the overall
question of how well did these practices work using those criteria.
Summary of criteria from twoworkshops
Botshabelo
Oaks, Finale, Lepelle
Water efficient
Good water management
Increased soil fertility/ organic matter
Better soil fertility
Better growth/health of crops
Better growth
Increased yield
More food
Cheap
Easy/labour efficient
Easy to do
Knowledge
Oaks, Finale, Lepelle: Impact of CSA practices
SCALE: 1=low; 2 = medium, 3= high (agreement between participants)
CRITERIA
PRACTICES
Eas
y to
do
Mor
e
food
Better
growt
h
Good
water
man
Better
soil
fertilit
y
Scor
e
Rank
COMMENTS
trench beds
1
3
3
3
3
13
5
Very good for growth, soil
health and water
management. The best
practice- but difficult to
dig
mulching
3
3
3
3
3
15
2
Less irrigation providing
more food
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201789
furrows
2
2
3
3
3
13
4
more moisture, better
growth, carries some
fertility in the water
rock bunds
2
3
3
3
3
14
3
deep irrigation, catches
more fertile soil
adding
organic
matter to the
soil
3
3
3
3
3
15
1
easier than trench beds
Crop
varieties
1
1
1
1
1
5
7
we do not have the
knowledge-but will be
easy once we know
Planting
times
2
1
1
1
1
6
6
would be nice to have a
calendar to remember.
Participants commented on the scores and ranking and suggested that these could be used to
decide what practices to start with such as mulching, adding organic matter to the soil as the
quickest and easiest, then moving on to rock bund, furrows and trench beds, and so on.
Sedawa CSA practices
ACTION
CONSTRAINTS
HAS IT WORKED
FUTURE; NEXT STEPS
GOAL: Improve water use efficiency and increase access to water
RWH : Jo-jo’s,
210l drums,
basins, small
dams,
underground
tanks
Jojos are easy but
expensive in digging
for dams labour does
not cost so that could
help
Increases mosquitos
Yes; Small dams have
been dug by few- if not
lined they lose a lot of
water.
Water in Jojo only lasts
about 1 month- so it is
not enough for gardening
Plan to do roof structures and
gutters properly
If we do joint saving we can work
together to buy Jojos
There are some challenges with
savings groups, but we are used to
them from burial societies etc
We can harvest water form the
road for the underground tanks
Keep riverine
vegetation
People are still
chopping down trees
next to the river for
firewood
There is knowledge
about pruning trees
rather than chopping
whole trees
Need to work with traditional
authority to ensure we keep
riverine vegetation
Prevent veld fires
No
Can work with the traditional
authorities and spread the word
through our learning groups
Infiltration
pits/areas/
reconstructing
wetlands
NO
We can get some reeds
form other wetlands to
get the process going
These are joint activities through
community meetings- but there is
now more cohesion through the
learning groups, so it can be
possible
Water
infrastructure
management
No
Would like to set up an awareness
campaign in the area, so that all
community members take care of
infrastructure
Planting in beds
with Mulching
Trench beds
Yes; reduces watering
form every day to every
2-3 days. Contributes
also to soil fertility,
carrots grow nice and
straight
Provide shade for these beds
potentially using maize stover to
keep them cool.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201790
Greywater; drip
kits, ash
No- more a
supplementary
activity when there is
no other water
Yes; works at household
level in gardens if you
use ash to clear the
water. The ash residue
with soap then goes into
the toilet to reduce
smells
-Impact not that great, but worth
doing.
Irrigation
methods
Timing- am or pm to
save water
This is a standard practice
GOAL: soil management
Increase organic
matter;
incorporate
leaves, crops,
ash, manure
Trench beds, eco-
circles
Yes, The new bed types
hold water for a very
long time if you can start
by saturating them. Eco-
circles are easier than
trench beds and work
just as well
Plan for continuity in different
circumstances
Erosion control;
stone lines
contours,
diversion furrows
No- not aware of line
levels and how to
measure contours
Yes; plant just below the
stone lines or furrows as
there is more water and
fertility there. Diversion
furrows are good, but
difficult to dig.
-If you add infiltration pits below
the stone lines it works very well
can plant in that.
-It is easier to make furrows and
ridges in the garden than diversion
ditches
-Continue with improved furrows
and ridges- on contour, with
mulching and planting various
crops.
GOAL: Crop management
Trees in the
garden
Yes afternoon shade is
important
Close spacing
linked to
minimum tillage
(CA)
No- not many
participants are
aware yet of this
option
Yes; close spacing in
field crops gives quick
canopy cover cooler
and wetter, it also helps
with erosions control and
there is still enough air
movement
Include bird resistant sorghum and
millet as good harvests can be
realised from these drought
resistant crops. Cowpeas can be
harvested twice in a seons.
Learnings
These are summarised in point form below:
-Planting trees for shading crops
-Some trees help with pest control
-We are realizing how most of the things MDF has covered fits into CCA- for example the
tunnels
-Some of the practices such as mixed cropping are good; one can see the results you are
working towards
-There are good ideas in terms of practices for CC and extreme temperatures- but it is not
enough
-We learnt about heat tolerant crops from each other, and also when to plant.
-We learnt about promoting pest predators- lizard hotel
-We learnt about the erosion control furrows and what to plant now
-We learnt about planning according to quick wins (from the matrix that was done)
-Water saving techniques including tower gardens
-Harvesting water from the road using diversion ditches
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201791
-Garden refuse as mulch rather than burning it
Future CC actions
-More focus on access to water (all three workshops)
-More CSA techniques and deepening the implementation of the present ones (in all three
workshops)
-Tunnels and trench beds have worked particularly well (All three workshops)
-Can grow the dryland crops in summer, but need water in winter for vegetable production
-Can try layers; but cost of feed is an issue and access to clean water. Sunflowers and
sorghum can be grown for the chickens. Indigenous chickens are no longer kept - as they are
not very productive and destroy crops
-For broilers there are already a number of projects in the area, but can still do this
competitively can do chicken pieces as a value add.
-Need also to deal with livestock - the effects of CC on livestock production
-We shouldn’t end here. We tried these ideas under the worst situations (drought) they
may do a lot better now in a better year
-One of the highlights has been the cost-benefit analysis in our learning sessions; where more
inputs could mean a much better yield- rather than low inputs and low yields.
-Savings can be introduced
-Planting calendars: CC based crop choice calendars (all three workshops)
--Make a committee to continue to explore options for spring protection and efficient
management of water from them.
-Need now to implement the improved erosion control measures that have been introduced.
-Once water is sorted there needs to be more focus on commercial production
-Bulk buying for Jojo tanks- MDF to find potential discount options
-Bring DRD representatives on board with the NGOs already working in these areas (Sedawa)
to see if more things can be brought.
-Also work with the municipality improve the relationship with the councillors and then set
up a joint strategy with community and NGOs working together
-NGOs must make sure they keep their promises as community members cannot trust them
otherwise
-NGOs need to take more care to help support local produce when catering and also local
caterers.
Planning for DICLAD-AgriSI Module 3 (2018)
The following themes were suggested for Module 3.
oPlanting calendars, and how climate change could change these (e.g. should we stop
growing maize or look at ways to assist the growth of maize?)
oIntroducing new varieties of crops that are more resilient to the expected impacts of
climate change
oConsider the option of livestock grazing although this would require a long-term
intervention
oConsider the option of poultry production
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201792
We should include in the design of the process the farmers’ own knowledge, namely, changes that
they have observed that confirm the reports from the scientists. Information is needed from both
sides.
The following questionswere raised which will determine the framingof the project within climate
change.
oWe need to consider the following two focus points to guide our activities for 2018.
How is climate change changing what we can do, i.e. what options / alternatives we have?
versus
How is climate change impacting what we are currently doing, i.e. vegetable gardening?
oSpecifically for DICLAD, we need to consider its role.
Is DICLAD used for integration? Then, how can we use it to integrate the science into what
we are doing?
Or
Are we using DICLAD as a “planning tool”?
oOverall, we (DICLAD team, AgriSI project manager and Mahlathini) will have to engage in
further discussions to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each entity. For example, it
was proposed for Mahlathini to focus on implementation at the local level, for the DICLAD
team to open up conversations with climate change as the focus point, and for the AgriSI
Manager to take on an oversight role and link these two. This still requires further
discussion.
It was proposed to develop learning materials on climate change for farmerssomething tangible
we can give them. DICLAD has an allocated budget for this. We can consider developing a process
next year to design such materials with inputs from the farming communities. The process should
be fun and in their preferred local language.
There was some discussion questioning the usefulness of providing planting calendars to farmers,
as these often just re-affirm what they alreadyknow. Perhaps the real question is how climate
change could impact these planting seasons, and then the repercussion for planning. Also, we
need to ask what do farmers exactly mean when they ask for calendars. Would farmers still plant
high value crops even when conditions become too unsuitable? What approach should we follow
when farmers for example choose to grow irrigated GMO maize which has short-term benefits
but in the long-term has challenges with high heat and limited water resources?
We also discussed the usefulness of sharing technical information on maps related to climate
change, e.g. shifts in the geographical areas where maize can be planted. Seasonal forecasts can
also be considered, but these are more relevant for dry-land crops and not vegetable gardens
(which always require water).
We must encourage and improve information sharing within the clusters. (Reference here was
made to the use of bird-resistant millet seed which Mahlathini introduced.)
We can start by introducingdrought-resistant crops. (Mahlathini has used a round-robin process
in previous projects to introduce seeds for fruit, vegetables and medicinal plants.)
We also need to create awareness of resource management at the landscape level, e.g.
considering our rivers and trees. This would require the involvement of local Indunas.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201793
9APPENDIX 3:WRC-CCA COMMUNITY WORKSHOP: SEKORORO
(LIMA)_20171128-29
Participants: 30
Village: Lorraine,
Organisations: Lima (Karabo, Mishgirl, Silas), MDF (Sylvester, Erna, Nozipho, Tema)
Introductions
30 participants in Lima’s food security programme
supported by Wesbank attended this workshop. Most have
been active in gardening with Lima for just on one year and
have had introductions to a number of practices; such as
trench beds, eco circles, liquid manure, mulching, mixed
cropping and natural pest and disease control.
A couple of participants are members of communal gardens
who are marketing produce, but most have household
gardens and grow a range of vegetables primarily for
household use; cabbage, spinach, beetroot, butternut, and
also have fruit trees such as mangoes, avocados and litchis
and indigenous fruit and shade trees such as marula and
moringa.
Right above and below: Sylvester and Karabo facilitating
small group discussions
The issue begins with climate then leads to
social problems. We need to keep on trying
different solutions
With all that we are trying out,it is never
enough and never solves all the challenges
we have
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201794
Impacts of CC
What is CC
CC caused by green house gases, lots of livestock also cause that
There is a change in rainfall
It means a change in weather patterns over a long time
Unexpected floods and droughts
Big winds and increases in evaporation
Hail
Impacts
Increased evaporation means plants wilt easily- lower yields
Pest outbreaks (such as cutworm) have become worse
Water scarcity; makes it almost impossible to work household water is prioritized over
using water for irrigation. Also with municipal water using it for irrigation is frowned upon.
Past, present future of farming activities in the area
Past:
More rain, more farming
Enough rain for dryland cropping, we were using oxen to plough- now have no more oxen
Monkeys were not a problem
No use of chemicals- healthy food
Livestock used to roam freely as there was more grass
Less diseases (in plants, animals and people)
Everyone grew and had food- less crime
Had larger yields- even sent maize for storage, used to make ibece jam.
Grinding of maize was done manually- so meal was more wholesome as a food.
There was less money
Present
We have moved from producing most of our food locally to having to buy everything
The lack of water makes doing anything at all very difficult
With the municipal water, we can not use that for irrigation as household needs are more
important. In this village the municipal water is only available for 1 day /week
Now we have to feed livestock in the past they could just roam there is not enough grass.
There are too many cows to be maintained by the environment
Monkeys are moving into the households there is nothing to eat out there
With hotter temperatures there are more and different diseases
With the training from Lima we are feeling more confident and are able to produce with those
methods
With the bad production years we lose our seed stocks and now have ot buy seed
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201795
There is increased theft of produce even off the field
Even borehole pumps are getting stolen
There are “super pests’ resistant to chemicals
Birds used to go for millet and sorghum, now they’re even going for maize – we stopped planting
millet and sorghum a long time ago no longer have seed.
Droughts are more severe than before
Deforestation and soil erosion, linked also to bush encroachments
People are dying younger
Future
Death
More drought
People get more sick
More hunger
No jobs
Shortage of seeds
Increased crime
Teenage pregnancy increased
Soil degradation
There should be opportunities for those who can continue to farmas there will be fewer
farmers those who can could make reasonable incomes
People will get more educated and hopefully come with solutions
Opportunity for things to get much better and much worse at the same time
Land has been wasted in the land claim areas – those people don’t even know about farming
There is a lack of interest from youth, but if they were to be interested we as communities could
invest in their education so that they can help us plan
Having a vision of what you want to see is important
We need to protect and save whatever there still is left to be able to preserve our future.
CC predictions and understanding
Presentation of scientific predictions for the area. And then small group seasonality diagrams for
temperature and rainfall, including an analysis of how these are changing.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201796
Above left: The seasonality diagram produced in Sekororo looking at temperature the red lines
indicate increased temperature for every month of the year
Above right: the seasonality diagram looking at rainfall and changes. There the red lines indicate
decreased rainfall leaving Aug Sept and Oct almost entirely dry
Comments from the groups agree that temperature is increasing throughout the year. With rainfall
the distribution haschanged and because of heavy rains erosion has increased. Overall, distribution
has decreased-fewer months of rain. There is now a delay in harvesting wild leafy vegetables (morogo)
as this used to be in November. Now that it is drier and hotter, the supply has decreased considerably.
The rain is definitely more unpredictable. Crops like mustard spinach used to be grown in winter, but
with the hotter temperatures it is no longer doing well. It feels as if there is no winter anymore.
Planting dates have shifted and instead of being able to plant in September, we need to wait
sometimes until January for enough rain to plant.
There is a change in crop types that can be planted. Heat tolerant crops are now preferred. These
include: chillies, onions, cowpeas, peanuts, jugo beans, sugar beans, sweet potatoes
And also in planting methods planting now works better in controlled environments such as
greenhouses.
CC impact mind mapping
This exercise is designed for participants
to explore all the impacts on their
farming systems and livelihoods as a
starting point to beginning to identify
potential adaptive measures.
Right: The mind map produced by one of
the small groups in Sekororo
Participants mentioned impacts such as:
More drought and floods
Heavy winds and more storms
Increased veld fires
Scarcity of water; drop in boreholes
and rivers drying out.
Decrease in wetlands and natural vegetation specifically trees.
Having to produce crops in smaller areas
Condition of roads deteriorate rapidly.
More wild animals moving into the homesteads
And social issues such as increased hunger, increased crime, lack of jobs, increased domestic
violence, theft, divorce, no money to pay lobola, increase in death rate
The table below summarises the impact, linkages and potential adaptive measures mentioned by the
two small groups of participants.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201797
Impacts
Description and linkages
Outcomes
Potential adaptive measure
GROUP 1
Heat
Plants wilt and die
Lack of grazing,
livestock ide
Mulching, controlled grazing,
reduce stock, save/store fodder
leaves and grasses for dry season
Water
shortages
Rivers drying out,
boreholes drying out
Greywater, purification using
moringa seeds, water storage for
dry season
Soil
Soil erosion (more dongas),
soil fertility decreasing,
Deterioration of
roads-making
access difficult
Planting in tyres, keyhole beds,
tower gardens,
Crop
production,
resources
Lower yields, more pests,
veld fires, reduction of
indigenous trees
Common pests: cutworms,
millipedes, centipedes
Natural pest and disease control,
mulching (but this can increase
some pests), inter cropping, crop
rotation, use of multi-purpose
plants (e.g. marigolds)
Use the wild cucumber (yellow
inside) dry, grind and spray on
crops to control nematodes and
soil pests
Manage cutting of trees and plant
more
Plant in tunnels
Livestock
Lack of grazing, more
diseases, more damageof
crops
Livestock
decreasing, not
healthy
Control grazing,
Social
repercussions
Poverty, diseases, hunger
Crime, murder
and theft,
domestic
violence,
divorce,
increased death
rate, no money
to pay lobola
GROUP 2
Extreme heat
Veld fires
Use of tunnels, plant heat
resistant cultivars, irrigate in
early mornings and evenings
Lack of water
No grazing, drying of
natural vegetation and
bushes, wilting of plants,
trees do not fruit, extreme
Food shortages,
animals die due
to lack of
grazing,
Water harvesting, earth dams,
grey water and management of
existing water, diversion furrows
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201798
rains destroy
infrastructure,
Soils
Organic matter content is
low, dry soils, roots are
exposed, soil erosion, also
due to use of
mechanisation - ploughing
Liquid manure, make use of
animal manure, trenchbeds and
eco-circles
Plant sweet potatoes to hold soil,
plant across the slope, plant
indigenous crops such as
cowpeas,
Make use of hands and oxen to
plant using conservation
agriculture
Loosen the soil to avoid water
logging and yellowing of plants
Crops
Reduced production
increased pests, medicinal
herbs destroyed in drought
and heat
Plant colourful flowers and plants
to attract pest predators and
bees, companion planting,
making brews form marigolds
Plant medicinal species in
controlled environments with the
vegetables 9tunnels)
Social
repercussions
More diseases and health
problems, poverty food
shortages, low education
standards (because schools
are free)
No transfer of
knowledge,
crime
Plant herbs andvegetables,
entrepreneurship,job creation,
plant your own crops instead of
always buying
Assessment of potential practices
A few practices were selected from the mind map and were further explored in terms of participants’
understanding of how well they would/might work
Practices
Does it work
How well does it work
Tower garden
Yes, works well
Lack of access to materials for making the
towers; leads to growing in small areas-too
little production
Diversion furrows
Yes, facilitates good
infiltration
Only works when you have lots of water and
need to learn to use line levels to make them
Rainwater harvesting
Yes, we use 210l
drums and basins
Not very much water savedneed opt think of
ways to increase this
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 201799
Eco-circle
Yes, works well
Hard work, but it lasts and gives good quality
crops
Tunnel
Yes works well
No one has tunnels as it requires lots of money
A short discussion was also held around the question: What do we need to do that will make a bigger
impact in our lives to adapt to CC?
We need bigger storage tanks- we are not presently saving enough rainwater
Due to a lack of employment getting inputs is a challenge. We need to use our own labour
and local resources, maybe savings groups can help, but also need assistance
Biogas digesters could be an idea to get our own energy without paying.
Practical demonstration of practices will help us to remember, understand better and
implement more of the ideas mentioned.
Practices
Discussion on adaptive measure to CC impacts leads in to a discussion of possible practices (local and
new ideas) that can help with these issues. This is supported by having pictures and descriptions of a
range of potential practices available and discussing those that make sense
In this case it was also supported by a community walk to participants who volunteered their gardens,
doing interesting things trying innovative techniques etc.
Participants also commented that the methods/practices they have learnt about intrainingand
workshops are useful.
PRACTICES WE ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH: mulching trench beds, furrows and ridges,
intercropping, planting herbs, diversification (ore different kinds of crops planted together), small
dams, compost.
Further comments made by the group include:
Mulching is done, but is not so popular, because of lack of materials
Earth dams are dangerous for children
Jojos are expensive - we are using drip irrigation (2nd hand from commercial farms)
Hybrid seeds are expensive and unreasonable even though they have given very positive
results
PRACTICES GLEANED FROM COMMUNITY WALK: small earth dams, plantinggrass in eroded areas,
planting and keeping seed of old and traditional crops such as shallots, cowpeas, awa indigenous
greens such as cleome, using kitchen scraps in shallow trenches, compost pits, banana circles,
management of mango trees by some pruning, planting green beans under shade of trees rather than
sugar beans as the latter does not pod well in the shade., protecting litchis from birds using netting,
learnt about pollination processes for mangoes-did not know about male and female flowers.
Normally when we seebrown patches on the mango leaves we did not think that this can affect the
fruiting. With the age of the trees, quality and quantity of fruit deteriorates
Bees for pollination and talking about bee fodder plants, drip irrigation for saving water, diversion
furrows for protecting soil and crops
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017100
Above left to right: Local innovations: small dam, shallots grown and seed kept, banana circles with
compost and furrows and ridges for planting beans
PRACTICES CHOSEN FROM NEW IDEAS: tunnels, underground tanks, and bigger rainwater harvesting
structures more generally, drip kits, growing fodder for livestock, conservation agriculture furrows and
ridges, shallow trenches, natural pest and disease control, seed saving, savings groups, biogas
digesters.
We would like to see practical demonstrations of these practices as just talking about them briefly is
not enough for us to go and try them. Due to lack of employment getting inputs is a challenge.
FURTHER COMMENTS ON PRACTICES:
We want more information on planting dates; We have already adapted to some extent, especially
with the crops that are possible for summer. We are however battling with the winter crops- they are
not doing well, bolting early etc. We want to know about winter vegetables that can deal with drought
and variable temperatures.But with some of these new vegetables we are not used to eating them
and do not know good cooking practices-so we may grow them but then we don’t use them. Also
with the new crops, new pests comein that we don’t know how to deal with. We’ve been taught about
using black jack seeds and sunlight soap. We need more remedies for different situations
Some examples discussed were; turnips, leeks, open headed cabbages and leaf cabbages, rape, kale,
kohlrabies, mustard spinach, Chinese cabbage.
Criteria for assessing practices
Availability of material
Increased water infiltration and water holding capacity (water use efficiency)
Increased availability of water
Costs- cost efficiency, cost-benefit
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017101
Labour (labour vs benefit)
Crop quality (germination, growth)
Fewer pests
The beginnings of a matrix ranking exercise was put together to give people an idea of the process,
which would be followed up in subsequent sessions
Practice
Availability
Water
use
efficiency
Increased
water
cost
labour
Crop
quality
Fewer
pests
Score
Tower garden
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
17
Eco circle
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
18
Underground
tanks
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
15
Trench bed
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
17
Mulching
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
17
Lizard hotel
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
17
Diversion
furrow
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
16
COMMENTS ON THE MATRIX
Eco-circles are the practice that most participants have tried
Underground tanks are not really done as they are expensive and difficult to do. They do
however have a huge potential to make a significant difference
Savings groups could be a way to help with the issue of money
The matrix is a very useful method for decision making
It is good to do a number of different things
The more knowledgeable participants will help the others to try these practices.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017102
10 REFERENCES
Ahead, G. (2005). Advantages anddisadvantages of visual aids.
http://www.getahead.uk.com/gwpr07-advantages-of-visual-aids.htm.
Amanzi for Food. (2015). Navigation Tool.Environmental Learning Research Centre Rhodes University:
WRC Project K5-2277.
AWARD. (2017). Dialogues on Climate Change and Adaptation (DICLAD): Facilitators Agenda.
Banda, M. (2016). Creating channels, connections, and communities: Experimenting with virtual rural
agricultural learning communities in Nkhotakota district, Malawi.Malawi,Nkhotakota:
RUFORUM Working Document Series(ISSN 1607-9345) No. 14 (1): 363-
369.http://repository.ruforum.org.
Benset, G. (2010). Animation: What is Participatory Video .Retrieved from INsightshare.org:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seOstch03j8):insightshare.org
Bligh, D. (1998).The teaching professor.
Brandt, P., Kvakić, M., Butterbach-Bahl,K., & Rufino, M. C. (2017). How to target climate-smart
agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework .
Agricultural Systems 151, 234-245.
Corner-Dolloff, C. (2015). CCAFS Climate Smart Adaptation Prioritisation (CSAP) Toolkit. CIAT.
Devesh, T. M. (2017). WHATSAPP FOR FARMERS: ENHANCING THE SCOPE AND COVERAGE OF
TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION. International Journal ofScience, Environment and
Technology, Vol. 6, No 4, 2017, 2190 2201, 2191-2201.
Dick, S. N. (2011). Use of community radios to communicate agricultural information to Zimbabwe's
peasant farmers. Pretoria: Depaertment of Inforamtion Science.
Duveskog, D. M. (2002). Harnessing Indigenous Knowledge and Innovation in Farmer Field Schools.
Indonesia: International Workshop on Farmer Field Schools.
FAO. (2014). Communication for Rural Development: Guidelines for Planning and Project Formulation.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
Guffey, M. R. (2011). Business Communication.Birchmount Road, Toronto, Ontario,: Nelson
Education.
Hamza, M. (2012). Training material development. Swedish: Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency.
Hancock, J. (1997). Extension Education ConductingEffective Agricultural Demonstrations.USA,
Lexington: Cooprative Extension services.
Hartley, J. (2000). Radiocracy:Sound and Ciitizenship. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 156-
157.
Karzner, H., & Belack, C. (2010). Managing Complex Projects. John Wiley & Sons.
Khanal, S. R. (2011). Role of radio on Agricultural development: A review. An interdisciplinary journal,
201-206.
Kruger, E. (1995). Farmer-to-Farmer: A story of Innovation and Solidarity.Natal, South Africa: The Natal
Printing and Publishing Company.
Kumar, A. (2000). Extension Education for human resource development . INDIA.
Mayank, J. (2013). How to Make a Handout for School. http://www.ehow.com/how_8302821_make-
handout-school.html.
WRC K4/2719 Deliverable 2: Report on stakeholder engagement, case study development and site identification
Mahlathini Development Foundation August 2017103
Mwongera, C., Shikuku, K. M., J, T., P, L., E, A., A, V. A., . . . A, W. L. (2016). Climate smart agriculture
rapid appraisal (CSARA).A tool for prioritizing context-specific climate smart agriculture.
Agricultural Systems 150.
Oakley, P. G. (1997). Guide to extensiontraining.UK: Agriculture Extension and Rural Development
Centre, School of Education, University of Reaing.
Ramsing, L. (2009). Project communication in strategic internal perspective. .Retrievedfrom
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/13563280910980113 Consulted 5.12.2014
Richardson, J. G. (1999). Extension education: Process and Practice. NC State: NC.
Saya, S. K. (2012). Appreciative Inquiry to Promote Local Innovations among Farmers Adapting to
Climate Change: Facilitators Guide. Chagrin Falls, USA: Taos Institute,.
Semakula, E. M. (2011). Effectiveness of the farmer-to-farmer extension model in increasing
technology uptake in Masaka and Tororo Districts of Uganda. South African Journal of
Agricultural Extension.
Tonge, R. (2010). How to wite training manuals. Australia.
Ulrichs, M., Cannon, T., Newsham, A., Naess, L., & Marshall, M. (2015). Working Paper 108 -Climate
change and food security vulnerability assessment toolkit for assessing community level
potential for adaptationto climate change.Bioversity International& Institute of
Development Studies, CGIAR/CCAFS.
Yang, K. (2016). Chapter2: Participatory Video in Practice.Retrieved from Springer:
HTTP://WWW.SPRINGER.COM/978-981-10-1048-4
Ylitovia, F. (2015). Internal Communications in Project Management-Case Company X.Turktu
University of Applied Sciences.
Zulch, B. G. (2014). Communication: The Foundation of Project Management 2014. .Publishedby
Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committeesof
CENTERIS/ProjMAN/HCIST 2014.