Devlierable 7 - Facilitation Manual

Download PDF
COMMUNITYCLIMATECHANGE
ADAPTATIONFACILITATION
AMANUALFORFACILTATIONGOFCLIMATESMARTAGRICULTURE
FOR
SMALLSCALEFARMERS
By Erna Kruger, April 2019
CONTENTS
Section 1: bringing together the methodological elements...................................................................................3
Learning and Change..............................................................................................................................................3
Social learning, knowledge mediation................................................................................................................4
agency.................................................................................................................................................................5
social engagement..............................................................................................................................................6
communities of practice.........................................................................................................................................8
Innovationsystems...............................................................................................................................................10
Participatroy innovation development (PID)....................................................................................................10
adding the elements together: coactive governance in a chancing climate ........................................................12
Climate Change.....................................................................................................................................................13
Climate change adaptation...................................................................................................................................14
Climate Smart Agriculture ....................................................................................................................................14
Concepts of vulnerability and resilience...........................................................................................................17
smallholder farming in SOuth africa and csa....................................................................................................19
Smallholder farming systems........................................................................................................................20
local and traditional knowledge in CSA ............................................................................................................22
Decision support processes..................................................................................................................................23
What goes into the Csa Small scale farmer decision support system ..................................................................24
How does the facilitator-farmer DSS work...........................................................................................................26
how to facilitate the facilitator-farmer dss...........................................................................................................27
Community level climate change adaptation analysis- outline of the 3 workshops ........................................30
CCA workshop 1: Climate change analysis impact and adaptive measures ..............................................30
CCA workshop 2: prioritzation of practices......................................................................................................42
CCA workshop 3: innovation cycle 1.................................................................................................................49
References............................................................................................................................................................64
COMMUNITYCCAFACILITATION
SECTION1:BRINGINGTOGETHERTHEMETHODOLOGICALELEMENTS
When engaging with smallholder farmers the socio-cultural, economic and environmental complexities of
these systems need to be taken into account; explored, understood and managed. Any new ideas and
processes need to be facilitated inclusive of all these aspects and in an environment of open dialogue and
learning.
LEARNINGANDCHANGE
To engage inexploring the change in farming systems happening due to climate change andthinking into the
kinds of changes required to consciously adapt to these changes, requires both the process of learning (including
new ideas and information into the mix) andthe process of doing (how to implement and farm differently).
As adults, we learn best by doing. We retain the least information when we just listen totalksandpresentations
or read. The diagram below provides a visual representation of how we best remember. It also showsthat
combining learning and implementation and working in groups are generally the most effective ways to learn.
Learning Pyramid (Adapted from National Training Laboratories Bethel, Maine, USA) (Dale, E 1969)
Figure 1: The learning pyramid demonstrating retention of information in different learning scenarios
It is widely appreciated that informationon itsown does not lead to capability development andeducation,
training, knowledge dissemination and communication involving a range of knowledgedissemination and
mediation processes are required for information to translate into action (Lotz-Sisitka, H and Pesanayi,T. 2019).
.
There are a number of different ways in which to understandlearning and behaviour change in adult learning
processes. These processes have been defined within the ambit of educational psychology, but are a useful tool
in designing earning programmes for behaviour change.
Over the years,academics have proposed anumber of theories to describe and explain the learning process -
these can be grouped into five broad categories:
1. Behaviourist
2. Cognitivist
3. Constructivist
4. Experiential
5. Social and contextual
Behaviourism: Key behaviourist thinkers hypothesized that learning is a change in observable behaviour caused
by external stimuli in the environment(stimulus-response). The key principle of behaviourism is the reward or
punishment of a new behaviour, commonly described as the 'carrot and stick'approach to learning.
Cognitivism: Cognitivism replaced behaviourism as the dominant learning paradigm in the 1960s and proposes
that learning comes from mental activity suchas memory, motivation,thinking and reflection. Cognitivism
focuses onthe transmission of information from someone who knows (such as an 'expert' asopposed to
facilitators) to learners who do not know.
Constructivism: From the constructivist perspective, learning is not a stimulus-response phenomenon as
described by behaviourism, rather it requires self-regulation and the buildingof conceptual structures through
reflection and abstraction. The learner takes an active role in constructing her own understanding rather than
receiving it from someone who knows, learning through observation, processing and interpretation.
Experientialism: One of the key theorists of experiential learning is David Kolb who developed his experiential
model, as opposed to a purer cognitive model which formally recognised that people learn from experience and
described learning as following a cycle of experiential stages (observation, action and reflection).
Social and Contextual:In thisapproach, learning does not occur solely within the learner, but in the group(or
context) and community in which they work. Learning is a shared process which takes place through observing,
working together and being part of a larger group, which includes colleagues of varying levels of experience,
able to stimulate each other's development. (Thompson, K 2012)
Social learning is the most appropriate learning approach for working in complex community- based situations.
SOCIALLEARNING,KNOWLEDGEMEDIATION
Social Learning Theoryis a theory of the learning process which combineselementsof behavioural, cognitive
and constructivist approaches. Learning is not purely behavioural, butis a cognitive process that takes place in
a social context.
Key tenets of Social Learning Theory (SLT) are as follows
-Learning can occur by observing a behaviourand by observing the consequences of the behaviour
-Learning involves observation, extraction of information from those observations, and making
decisions about the performance of the behaviour (observational learning or modelling). Thus,
learning can occur without an observable change in behaviour.
-Reinforcement plays a role in learning but is not entirely responsible for learningand
-The learner is not a passive recipient of information. Cognition, environment, and behaviour all
mutually influence each other.
According tothe sociocultural theory of education(anextension of SLT), learning is social;we learn through
interacting with others, through a meaningful exchange of ideas, concepts, and actions. Knowledge is mediated
through dialoguing with the other(other members of the community, stakeholders, facilitators etc).Thisprocess
allows for the negotiation of meaning through dialogues with others who have a different understanding of the
topic.It allows for the interplay between different sociocultural perspectives and the development of new
understanding that can lead to different actions and behaviours, or stated in a slightly different way”
Contemporary theories of learning and change indicate that for knowledge or information to become
meaningful, there is 1) a need for the information to be related to the situation and experience of theuser; and
that this needs to 2) be mediated in context; in addition to 3) providing new knowledge orinformation that can
expand existing knowledge and/or practice(Lotz-Sisitka, H and Pesanayi,T. 2019).
The model proposed by Shaxson et al. (2012),which proposes a ‘continuum’ of knowledgedissemination
approaches, contextsand relations within a systems approach tolearning provides a useful framework for
project or programme designthat incorporates social learning andchange and hasrecently been used in the
Amanzi for Food social learning network approach(Lotz-Sisitka, H and Pesanayi,T.2019).
Figure 2: Knowledge dissemination continuum fromShaxson et al. 2012
Here, this framework will be used as a basis for buildingthe methodological approach for innovation system
development and decision support for implementation of CSA in smallholder farming systems
AGENCY
The concept of agency, developed in the Social Sciences can be considered as an aspect of learning within this
sociocultural context. This concept helps us to more clearly understand the interplay between learning and
doing.
Agency is the capacityofindividuals to act independently and to make their own free choicesand decisions.
Social structure is a combination of factors (such associal class, religion, gender, ethnicity, ability, customs, etc.)
that determine, or limit anagent and their decisions.
The ways in which people understand their own relationship to the past, future, and presentalsomake a
difference to their actions; there are cultural habitsand ways of understanding one’s place in the world, that
sustain identities, meaning and interactions over time.These differ between cultures and change over time. It
is also possible for individuals within cultures to change their own understanding of their role and their
understanding of the world asmore or less responsive to human imagination,purpose, and effort. While
repertoires are limited by individual and collective histories and may be more or less extensive and flexible, they
do require a certain degree of manoeuvrabilityin order to assure the appropriateness of the response to the
situation at hand.
Habitual actions are largely unreflective (not thought about)and taken for granted, but are nevertheless a form
of agency, as they involve attention and effort. People encounter problematic situations that need imagination
and judgement solve, which provides for reflection and the analysis of patterns that mayin some contexts allow
for greater imagination, choice, and conscious purpose. (Emirbayer, M and Mische, A 1998)
But people do not merely repeatpast routines, they are also the inventors of new possibilities for thought and
action. A certain increase in freedom and flexibilityof action is possible, as one becomes more conscious of one’s
situation. “Experience in its vital form is experimental, aneffort tochange the given; it is characterized by
projection, by reaching forward into the unknown.” (Dewey, J 1981)
We draw upon past experiences(our own and that of others)in order to clarify motives, goals, and intentions,
to locate possible future constraints, and to identify morally and practically appropriate courses of action.
After surveying possible scenarios of action, actors face the task of proposing solutionsthat will adequately
respond to their moral, practical and emotional concerns.Such resolutions will often attempt to resolve several
conflicts simultaneously and to incorporate different fields of intended action.They may be putto the test in
tentative or exploratory social interactions; interactions that may be transformative in nature. (Hays 1994)
Even relatively unreflective routine dispositions must be adjusted in changing situations; and newly imagined
projects must be brought down to earthwithin real-world circumstances. Moreover, judgments and choices
must often be made in the face of considerable ambiguity, uncertainty, and conflict; means and endssometimes
contradict each other, and unintended consequences require changes in strategy and direction
By increasing their capacity for practical evaluation, actorsstrengthen their ability to exercise agency in a
mediating fashion, enabling them (at least potentially) to pursue their projects in ways that may challenge and
transform their societies. (New, C. 2007)
This orientation toward action provides a powerful tooltorespond to arapidly changing world; composed of
increasingly complex and overlapping matrices of social, political, and economic relations. If wecannot control
the consequences of our interventions, we canat least commit ourselves to a responsive, experimental, and
deliberative attitude as we confront emergent problems and possibilities across the variety of contexts within
which we act.
SOCIALENGAGEMENT
From the previous sections, we have ascertained that involvement in any communities, including rural, farming
communities, is a process of social engagement first and foremost as well as a process of research;
exploration, understanding and trying out new ideas.
Key principles of engagement resonate with the previously discussed concepts of learning processes and
agency and can be summarised as follows:
COLLABORATION: Researchers and community members co-create the intervention; Assessment of need,
design of intervention, and evaluation are done together, with community inputs carrying weight. Collective
self-determination should be the basis for needs assessment. This requires flexibility as the intervention may
take new directions not initially envisioned by researchers.
INCLUSION: Everyone who has a stake in the intervention has a right to participate in processes and
decisions; Efforts are made to ensure no one who has stake is excluded from participation or decision making
on the basis of any demographic or socio-political factor. Work for diversity. The research team will not
default to working with visible or influential players. The vulnerable, marginalised, least vocal will be actively
included. Be aware of how power is recognised, structured and shared in a community.
SAFETY: The process and intervention areconducted in a way that is safe for all participants; This includes
the spaces chosen for meetings, the design of processes and interactions (e.g. how small groups are set up),
the design of learning tasks (begin with simple, clear tasks). Allow small groups to find their voices. Establishing
competence and experience contributes to safety. Make space for informal interactions where views or needs
can be expressed in safety.
RESPECT AND BUILD ON LOCAL AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE: People are experts in their own context and
what they know is the foundational for new engagement. The research team must become thoroughly
acquainted with the community: culture, social networks, economic conditions, demographics, history with
other interventionsand respond to the realities and dynamics that exist.
MUTUALITY AND EQUALITY IN LEARNING: Everyone already has knowledge and experience, everyone will
learn; Prior knowledge of everyone is taken into account; life experience is used as the basis for relating to
new knowledge, attitudes or skills. Researchers and participants are equals; all are learners. Peers challenge
and mentor each other. Aim for both individual and collective learning and growth.
PRAXIS: Learning is structured through active doing and reflecting; Learners consider new content (skills,
knowledge, attitudes) and re-create them to fit their context, then try it and reflect on how it works. Learning
happens with the mind, emotions and muscles. Passive learning teaches passivity. The process, not only the
outcomes, are important.
BUILD A CULTURE OF OPEN DIALOGUE: Encourage expression of different opinions and value minority views
and individual insights. Talk transparently about power dynamics.
FLEXIBILITY: The research, programmes, projects and interventions must serve the wellbeing of the
community and the environment; not the other way around. They should be structured with reflective
processes that allow them to be reshaped as needed as a clearer perspective unfolds.
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY; Work for a culture where researchers and community members
operate with transparency and are accountable for their roles and actions. Work for a culture of accountability
to oneself for realising one’s aims in the process.
BUILD FOR THE LONG TERM; Build into the intervention mechanisms to sustain collaborations over the long
term and work to mobilise community assets to this end; as collaborations mature and grow, their ability to
address complex and long-range issues also grows.
COMMUNITIESOFPRACTICE
Communities of Practice (CoPs) are a progressive theory of knowledge management, knowledge creation and
learning; knowledge mediation.It is a type of contextualised learning, proposing that the learning processof an
individual is much more than the cognitive process of acquisition of skills and knowledge but situated in a social
context, and it is through participation in the social context that the learning process occurs.(Lave & Wenger,
1991)
It thus depends on a group of people, contextually defined, who share a common interest and a desire to learn
from and contribute to the community withtheir variety of experiences. Stated more simply, the primary
purpose of a CoP is to provide a way for practitioners toshare tipsand best practices, ask questions of their
colleagues, and provide support for each other.
Work on large, complex projects goes beyond the knowledge of one person to require the knowledge and skills
of people from different disciplines. They need to coordinate their activities and synthesize their knowledge.
Cross-disciplinaryteam participation requires an abilityto negotiate team process and participate in decision-
making (Helmer Poggenpohl,S2015).It moves from primary experience through refinedreflectionto
explanation; moving from the tacit to the explicit.
For example, both research and practice can develop theory, theory needs to be proven through practice,
practice can flag needs for research, research can overthrow theory, and research can improve the performance
of practice. Research, theory, and practice are not isolated activities, but are tightly interrelated.
©S Poggenpohl,2015
Figure 3: The relationships and interplay between research, theory and practice
Communities of practice are important because they:
Connect peoplewho mightnot otherwise havethe
opportunity to interact; either as frequently or at all,
Provide a shared context for people to communicate and
share information, stories, and personal experiences ina
way that builds understanding and insight,
Enable dialogue between people who come together to
explore new possibilities, solve challenging problems, and
create new, mutually beneficial opportunities,
Stimulate learning by serving as a vehicle for authentic
communication, mentoring, coaching, and self-reflection,
Capture and diffuse existing knowledge to help people
improve their practice by providing a forum to identify
solutions to common problems and a process to collect
and evaluate best practices,
Introduce collaborative processes to groups and
organizations as well asbetween organizations to
encourage the free flow of ideas and exchange of
information,
Help people organize around purposeful actions that deliver tangible resultsand
Generate new knowledge to help people transform their practice to accommodate changes in needs
and technologies.
To design or set up a CoP the following steps to develop a well-defined purpose linked to the needs and potential
benefits to members, are required:
1. Developing relationships: Interaction with and developing of a wider network of peers working with a
process of building trust, reciprocity, mutual respect and commitment.
2. Developing practice:Practice evolves with the community as a collective product, becomes integrated
into members’ work and organizes knowledge in a way that reflects practitioners’ perspectives.
Successful practice development depends on a balance between “the production of ‘things’ like
documents or tools and deep learning experiences for community members.
3. Carrying out tasks and projects: Small group projects, sponsored bythe community, help members
create personal relationships and also provide a way to produce the resources for developing the
practice: cases, effective practices, tools, methods, articles, lessons learned, databases, learning tools
and aids, models and the like.
4. Creating new knowledge:Members go beyond current practice to explore the cutting edge of the
domain, to innovate. Communitymay redefine its boundaries and membership and foster boundary-
crossing, possibly working with people from other communities to explore emerging technologies,
practices, and ideas.
Actions for the CoP are based on the premises of inquiry, design, activities, communication, interaction, learning,
knowledge sharing, collaboration, roles and social structures and piloting and roll out of the processes.
Examples of CoPs are learning groups, innovation platforms, forums, networks and research andimplementation
teams.
Essential elements of a CoP:
-Share experiences and know-how
-Discuss common issues and interests
-Collaborate in solving problems - Analyse
causes and contributing factors
-Experiment with new ideas and novel
approaches
-Capture/codify new know-how
- Evaluate actions and effects
- Learning
INNOVATIONSYSTEMS
Methodologies for agricultural development and research have been designed to incorporate the concepts of
social engagement,learning, experimentation and agency into the process.
The international development community is giving increased attention to agricultural innovation processes
and systems that lead to outcomes at scale. Inclusive multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder learning
processes are seen as important. Smallholder family farmers become more central in the design and
implementation of research processes as partners in planning and implementation processes(Kruger & Gilles,
2014).
Key trends in Participatory Agricultural development thinking show a movement or change from:
Increases in production to improvement in local livelihoods,
Technology transfer to local innovation development,
Beneficiaries of projects to influential stakeholders within programmes,
Technology transfer to co-development of innovation systems,
Functional participation to empowerment and
Applied and adaptive research to strategic and pre-adaptive research.
Global experience shows that new ways of thinking about and doing agricultural research and development
are required. The basic paradigm shift is one of moving away from the idea that research and development is a
process of generating and transferring modern technology to farmers. And then moving towards seeing the
idea as an inclusive multi-dimensional learning process that:
Works from a holistic perspective that includes biophysical, socio-political and economic perspectives in
agriculture AND natural resource management,
Draws upon diverse sources of knowledge from local to global,
Provides for meaningful participation of user groups in the process of investigating improvements in local
situations,
And buildssynergy between local capacities, resources and innovations by
oProviding decision support tools and information that enables various types of users to make
strategic choices and actions,
Which results in a wide range of knowledge products (technological through to socio-political) for
generating, sharing, exchanging and utilizing knowledge.
Now, concepts such as strategic and pre-adaptive participatory research become important as doesthe idea of
best practise scenarios and options and the mainstreaming of cross cutting issues and themes. In many ways,
these conceptsare still in a developmental phase and are not as yet integral in existing institutional and
research cultures.
The development of methodological frameworks and processes to encompassthe above themes and goals has
followed two broad tracks/lines depending to an extent, on the type of institution at work and their overall
aims; namely Participatory Action research (PAR) and Participatory Innovation Development (PID).(Brock &
Pettit, 2007).
PARTICIPATROYINNOVATIONDEVELOPMENT(PID)
Participatory Innovation Development (PID)is an approach to learning and innovation that is used in
international development aspart of projects and programmes relating to sustainable agriculture. The approach
involves collaboration between researchers and farmers in the analysis of agricultural problems and testing of
alternative farming practices.
It has developed out of methodologies such as Farming Systems Research andExtension, PRA (participatory rural
appraisal),PLA (participatory learning and action) and IndigenousTechnical Knowledge Systems and
incorporates further methodologies such as Farmer Field Schools.
This approach enables the research anddevelopment community to respond tolocally defined problems and to
find solutions that build upon local knowledge and are consistent with local resources and contexts. Moreover,
by involving farmers asthe users of the researchprocess, it is more likely that farmers would share and use
(new) knowledge.
Local innovation in agriculture and naturalresource management goes beyond technologies to socio-
organizational arrangements such as new ways of regulating the use of resources, new ways of community
organization, or new waysof stakeholder interaction. The term Participatory InnovationDevelopment (PID)
embraces this broader understanding of joint research and development and is now being used alongside, or in
place of PTD (Participatory TechnologyDevelopment). It is a process in which farmers and other stakeholders
engage in joint exploration and experimentation leading to new technologies or socio-institutional
arrangements for more sustainable livelihoods. This action-oriented approach promotes engagement in a
process that strengthensthe capacities of agricultural services to support community-led initiatives (Hartmann,
2009 ) (Wettasinha, Wongtschowski, & Waters-Bayer, 2009).
The following statement in a recent publication in the agricultural development and extensionfield, sums up
the imperative for working with these approaches:
“Scientists are being challenged to re-consider that their role in technology development is through innovation
and a complexprocess involving a reorganization of social relationships, not just technical practice. In this
context, technology shifts from something to be applied to something leveraged for networking and organizing.
To ensure the future, theidea of sustainability as adynamic process rather than an endpoint offers a route for
understanding and engagement between research, policy and personal spheres. For bothresearch and
extension agendas; in considering traditional agriculture in the context of economic development we have to
create the capacity to co-operate in a waythat opens up the possibility of social change; a way of interacting
that preserves and creates newforms of social cohesion. Researcherswill come to understand that attitude,
environment and relevant issues, not specific tools, achieves participation”.(Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012).
Figure 4: The interplay between researchers, facilitators and farmers, indicating associated methodologies
Farmer led innovationbuilds on the PID conceptsto
include local innovations intothe system and describes
the interactionbetween local communities and outside
facilitators, as:
Gaining a joint understandingof the main
characteristics and changes of that particular agro-
ecological system,
Defining priority problems,
Experimenting locally with a varietyof options
derived both from indigenous knowledge … and from
formal science and
Enhancing farmer’s experimental capacities and
farmer-to-farmer communication(Wettasinha C,
Wongtschowski M, andWaters-Bayer A. 2009, Rai S
and Shrestha P.K. 2006).
ADDINGTHEELEMENTSTOGETHER:COACTIVEGOVERNANCEINACHANCINGCLIMATE
The concept of coactive governance is borrowed from industry, where it is being developed to manage service
relationships.This new way sharesstrategy and responsibility between the client and provider equallyand
allows aninnovationenvironment to flourish.Implementing collaborative modelsin enterprise environments
requires organizational readiness that is, willingness toadopt a different working attitude that accepts
change as a condition, rather than an event (Batty C 2017).
A summary of the Farmer Led Innovation steps
1. Getting started (getting to know each other);
2. Joint analysis of the situation the problems
and opportunities;
3. Looking for things to try to improve the local
situation;
4. Trying them out in community-led participatory
experimentation;
5. Jointly analysis and sharing the results; and
6. Strengthening the process, often through
improving local organization and linkages with
other actors in R&D, so that the innovation
process will continue.
PRA/PLA
Farmer to Farmer
PTD/ PID
PAR
PRA/PLA
Farming systems
Research
Farmer Participatory
Research
PTD/PID
PID (Agro-ecosystems)
FFS
researcher
development facilitator/
extension/ innovator
farmer
In this process we need to combine and synergise the way people learn, whatthey learn and how they
incorporate this learning into changing their practice into a coherent modelthat can support an individual
farmer’s decision-making process about which adaptive practices to implement in their context andfarming
system.
PROJECTOBJECTIVES
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 inSouth Africa
(Output 2)
3. To test and adapt existing CSA decision support systems (DSS) for the South African smallholder context
(Outputs 2,3)
4. To evaluate the impact of CSA interventions identified through the DSS by piloting interventions in
smallholder farmer systems, considering water productivity, social acceptability and farm-scale
resilience (Outputs 3,4)
5. Visual and proxy indicators appropriate for a Payment for Ecosystems based model are testedat
community level for local assessment of progress and testedagainst field and laboratory analysis of soil
physical and chemical properties, and water productivity (Output 5)
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 andlocal practices to be included over time. This also includes linkages and reference to
external sources of technicalinformation around climate change, soils, water management etc and how
this will be done;
Process: Through which climate smart agricultural practices are implemented atsmallholder farmer
level. This also includes the facilitation component, communities of practice, communication strategies
and capacity building and
Monitoring and evaluation:local andvisual 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
CLIMATECHANGE
There is ample evidence of national and local changes in the temperature and rainfall climatology of South Africa
over at least the past five decades and a high probability that this process may increase in the coming decades:
Mean annual temperatures have increased by more than 1.5 times the observed global average of 0.65°C,
Maximum and minimum temperatures have been increasing annually and in almost all seasons,
Hot and cold extremes have increased and decreased respectively in frequency, in most seasons across the
country, particularly in the western and northern interior,
In almost all hydrological zones there has been a marginal reduction in rainfall for the autumn months.
Annual rainfall has not changed significantly, but an overall reduction in the number of rain days implies a
tendency towards an increase in the intensity of rainfall events and increased dry spell durationand
Extreme rainfall events show a tendency towards increasing in frequency annually, and especially in spring
and summer, with a reduction in extremes in autumn. (DEA, 2013)
Given South Africa’s present trajectory and already alarming increase in temperature, the predictions of strongly
increased drought, increased rainfall variability and strongly increased extreme rainfall events into the future
are all but guaranteed.
Climate change impacts onSouthAfrica are likely to be felt primarily via effects on water resources;with
increased evapotranspiration, run-off and soil erosion and reduced surface and underground water reserves.
Significant trade-offs are likely to occur between developmental aspirations, particularly in terms of the
allocation between agricultural and urban-industrial water use, linked to the highcosts of enhancing water
supply.(DEA, 2017)
With regard to the impact of climate change on food security in Southern Africa, the IPPC makes the following
predictions:
Maize-based systems, particularly inSouthern Africa, are among the most vulnerable to climate change with
predicted yield losses for South Africa and Zimbabwe in excess of 30%,
Loss of livestockunder prolonged drought conditions is a critical risk given the extensive rangeland in
Southern Africa that is prone to drought,
Groundwater recharge may also be significantly affected by climate change in areas that receive less than
500 mm per year.
CLIMATECHANGEADAPTATION
Small-holder farmers and pastoralists in particular are being especially hard hit by these changes. Many of these
small-scale producers are already coping with a degraded natural resource base. They often lack knowledge
about potential options for adapting their production systems and have limited assets and risk-taking capacity
to access and use technologies and financial services (SARVA, 2013).
Climate change is intricately linked to almost all facets of our society, particularly socio-economic progression
as resources such as water, feedstock inthe form of food andfibre and biodiversity, amongst others determine
the production potential of many sectors of the economy, which in turn affect human development aspirations
of the country.
In South Africa, emphasisis being placed onthe development of policies and strategies for climate change
mitigation, albeit slowly, with amuch smallerfocuson adaptation.Nonetheless, processes such as collaborative,
participatory research that includes scientists and farmers, strengthening of communication systems for
anticipating and responding to climate risks, and increased flexibility in livelihood options, which serve to
strengthen coping strategies in agriculture for near-term risks from climate variability, provide potential
pathways for strengthening adaptive capacities for climate change (IPCC, 2014).
The IPCC defines adaptationas the “adjustments in human and natural systems in response to actual or expected
climatic stimuli or effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities”.
Planned adaptations to climate risksare “most likely tobe implemented when they are developed as
components of (or as modifications to) existing resource management programs or as part of national or regional
strategies for sustainable development.” (ibid.).
CLIMATESMARTAGRICULTURE
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) presented itsresponse to climate change;an
approach it has termed Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)in 2010 (FAO, 2013).
According to the FAO, ‘Enhancing food security while contributing to mitigate climate change andpreserving the
natural resourcebase and vital ecosystem services requiresthe transition to agricultural production systems
that are more productive, use inputs more efficiently, have less variability and greater stability in their outputs,
and are more resilient to risks, shocks and long-termclimate variability. More productive and more resilient
agriculturerequires a major shift in the way land, water, soil nutrients and genetic resources are managed to
ensure thatthese resources are used more efficiently’ (ibid.)
CSA ‘…contributes to the achievement of sustainable development goals. It integrates the three dimensions of
sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) by jointly addressing food security and climate
challenges. It is composed of three main pillars:
1. Sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes,
2. Adapting and building resilience to climate changeand
3. Reducing and/or removing greenhouse gases emissions, where possible.
This approach aims to strengthen livelihoods and food security, by improvingthe management and use of
natural resources and adopting appropriate methods and technologies for theproduction, processing and
marketing of agricultural goods. Theapproachis entirely compatible with the idea that CSA practices are
essentially good developmental agricultural practices, applicable in and suitable for a wide range of contexts
(ibid).
Climate Smart Agriculture is the overarching approach(shown in the diagram below)that has beenused to
inform thisdecision support process for smallholder farmers. All CSA practiceshave the potential to directly
benefit farmers and increase food production inthe communities as a whole, irrespective of any climate change
predictions. However, they also have the capacity to buffer farmers against anyincreases intemperature or
changes in rainfall quantities and patterns occasioned by climate change.
Figure 5: The FAO concept of CSA asan overarching approach to sustainable development (Arslan, 2014)
From farm-basedto comprehensive development concepts
Conservation agriculture
Sustainable land
management
Agroecology
Organicfarming
Macro
Micro
Farming
technics Area - based
management Multi-function
planning and policies
Climatesmart agriculture
Value
chain
The FAO characterises CSA as an approach that:
1. Addresses the complex interrelated challenges of food security, development and climate change,
and identifies integrated options that create synergies and benefits and reduce trade-offs,
2. Recognizes that these options will be shaped by specific country contexts and capacities and by the
particular social, economic, and environmental situation where it will be applied,
3. Assesses the interactions between sectors and the needs of different involved stakeholders,
4. Identifies barriers to adoption, especially among farmers, and provides appropriate solutions in terms
of policies, strategies, actions and incentives,
5. Seeks to create enabling environments through a greater alignment of policies, financial investments
and institutional arrangements,
6. Strives to achieve multiple objectives with the understanding that priorities need to be set and
collective decisions made on different benefits and trade-offs,
7. Prioritizes the strengthening of livelihoods, especially those of smallholders, by improving access to
services, knowledge, resources (including genetic resources), financial products and markets,
8. Addresses adaptation and builds resilience to shocks, especially those related to climate change, as
the magnitude of the impacts of climate change has major implications for agricultural and rural
development,
9. Considers climate change mitigation as a potential secondary co-benefit, especially in low-income,
agricultural-based populations and
10. Seeks to identify opportunities to access climate-related financing and integrate it with traditional
sources of agricultural investment finance (FAO, 2013).
The FAO’s description of CSA makes it clear that appropriate technologies that have been developed under
different agricultural regimes can be entirely compatible with the broad concept of CSA. The approach here is
to work directly with smallholders in local contexts to improve practices and synergise across sectors. The
emphasis is thus at farm/household level. Here CSA aims to improve aspects of crop production, livestock and
pasture management,natural resource management, as well as soil and water management as depicted in
Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: Household level implementation of CSA integrates across sectors (adapted from Arslan, 2014)
CONCEPTSOFVULNERABILITYANDRESILIENCE
Vulnerability is a function of two factors:
oFirstly, impact (exposure and sensitivity of exposure to climate change in turn)
Exposure refers to the extent to which a system is impacted by climate change
Sensitivity refers to how affected the system is affected after the exposure
oSecondly, adaptive capacity the ability of the system to avoid potential damages, take
advantage of opportunities and cope with the consequences of damages. It can also be framed as
the capacity of people in a given system to influence resilience
Resilience is the ability of a system to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the effects of an
extreme climate event in a timely and efficient manner.
Contextual vulnerability is locally focussed and considers the present as the departure point and considers
socio-economic dimensions of vulnerability as a basis for assessing future vulnerability. This is largely a
participatory process as opposed to modelling approaches that are applied at programme and policy scales.
Vulnerability and adaptation needs are contextualised with the local context and will include factors that
aren’t necessarily directly linked to climate change or CSA.
Vulnerability and resilience frameworks are different in key aspects (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source
Book, 2013)
The vulnerability approach tends to:
SYNERGIES
Soil
and water
conservation
Be oriented towards research on hazards and risks,
Be centred on people and more translatable to application and policy outcomes,
Conduct assessments for single spatial scale and ‘snapshots’ in time,
Be less focused on ecological and environmental aspects and
Assess present and future vulnerability from past information.
The resilience approach, on the other hand, tends to:
Be oriented towards ecological sciences,
Be more focused on complex interactions, feedbacks and processes of social-ecological systems,
Be conceptual and not easily translatable into practice,
Assess one particular system and can often not be generalised for wider application,
Produce more dynamic assessments (but with present methodological difficulties in measuring and
characterising),
Be less focused on the social aspects of social-ecological systems and
Assess more positively future needs by building on present assets.
However, more recently, resilience frameworks are placing more emphasis on social systems (moving towards
a social-ecological-system framework), while vulnerability frameworks are including more environmental
factors and are thus becoming more alike. Nevertheless, both frameworks are connected through adaptive
capacity assessments (FAO, Climate Smart Agriculture Source Book, 2013). Ultimately, the effect of any CSA
intervention should contribute simultaneously to reduced vulnerability and increased resilience.
VULNERABILITYASSESSMENTS
Vulnerability of livelihoods is determined by the capacity of communities to replace a negatively affected
production system with one which would prevent losses in income, sustain subsistence production or supply
food to markets. Vulnerability assessments characterise areas that have low livelihood resilience, allow for the
identification of vulnerable subsectors in the community (e.g. elderly, women, youth) and provide the basis for
developing strategies to increase the resilience of livelihoods to climatechange (FAO, Climate Smart
Agriculture Source Book, 2013).
A useful toolkit has been developed by the CGIAR/CCAFS (UlrichsM, Cannon T, Newsham A, Naess l and
Marshall, M. 2015) .This vulnerability assessment toolkit for assessing community level potential for
adaptation to climate change, can be used to understand the interrelations between climate impacts, food
systems and livelihood strategies at the local level. It applies a multidimensional view of vulnerability of
livelihood strategies to climate change, with a focus on differentiated access and entitlements to livelihood
resources and food for different groups within the community (often determined according to gender,
ethnicity and socio-economic class). It is based on a concept of five (5) Dimensions of Vulnerability (DoV),
illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 7: The 5 dimensions of vulnerability (CGIAR/CCAFS, 2015)
For each of these vulnerability dimensions a set of criteria and indicators can be developed to benchmark the
baseline conditions in a locality. A wide range of participatory approaches, techniques and practicesare
available and include for example: transect walks, village mapping, historical timelines and climate trends,
well-being ranking, seasonal calendars, ranking of livelihood strategies, chaining farming practices and crops,
climate risk and coping mechanisms matrix, foodsystem analysis and institutional mapping and Venn diagrams
SMALLHOLDERFARMINGINSOUTHAFRICAANDCSA
Development in South Africa is inextricably tied to massive challenges rooted in both the past and in the
future. In the past, colonial appropriation and control of access to resources was taken to disastrous extremes
through the policies of apartheid; twenty-five years into democracy poverty and dispossession still plague us.
At the same time, problems anticipated in the future already loom large: South Africa as a water stressed
country can expect to face particularly difficult challenges in terms of food security due to the increased
temperatures and pests and decreased water access anticipated to result from climate change
About 2.5 million households (15,6%) were involved in agricultural activities in South Africa in 2017. Most of
these householdare found in Limpopo (25%), Eastern Cape (20%) and KwaZulu-Natal (20%). They are mainly
headed by females (52,8%) and mostly involved in the production of fruits and vegetables (53,4%), grain and
other food crops (51,8%), as well as in livestock (47,1%) and poultry (35,3%) farming. The main source of
income for these households is social grants. Furthermore, most households involved in agricultural activities
do so tosupplement food for the household(43,7%) (StatsSA, 2017).
Poverty levels in the rural areas of South Africa are difficult to assess and are now believed to be a lot higher
than the officially recorded level. Indigency, as recorded by the municipalities is around 22% of households,
meaning that these households earn less than R3200/ month (7 hh members). In 2015, over half of South
Africa’s population (55.5%) lived in poverty, below the poverty line for which the upperbound poverty line
was R1 183 per person in 2018. This percentage is slowly increasing every year. Poverty is highest in the
provinces with the largest rural populations; the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and KwaZulu Natal (Africheck,2018).
Women headed households are more vulnerable to poverty.
Within the smallholder sector, there are distinctions based on access to land, resources and agricultural
activities pursued. The table below provides a typology of farming in South Africa, as an illustration of these
differences.
Table 1: The agrarian structure of South Africa (from Cousins, 2016)
Farmers
Numbers
Key features
Top 20% of large-scale commercial farmers
on private land; almost all are white
7 000
Sophisticated, specialized, capital-intensive
farmers, producing for export or for agro-
processing and large retailers; produce bulk of
produce, perhaps as much as 80%
Medium- to large-scale commercial farmers
on private land; almost all are white
9,000
Some farmers succeed, some struggle, some
are unable to earn a living from farming alone
Small- to medium-scale commercial farmers
on private land; mostly white, some black
19,000
Many cannot survive from farming alone;
includes hobby farmers
Small-scale black capitalist farmers in
communal areas and in land reform contexts
5,000
10,000
Many farmers earn income from off-farm
incomes and businesses in addition to farming
Market-oriented black smallholder farmers
in communal areas and land reform
contexts, supplying tight value chains (e.g.
under contract)
5,000 -
10,000
Many grow fresh produce under irrigation,
others are livestock producers, and a few
engage in dryland cropping
Market-oriented black smallholder farmers
in communal areas and land reform
contexts, supplying loose value chains
200,000 -
250,000
Many grow fresh produce under irrigation,
and others are livestock producers. Few
depend wholly on farming
Subsistence-oriented smallholder farmers
growing food for themselves, and selling
occasionally
2 million -
2.5 million
Most crop production takes place in
homestead gardens, some of which are quite
large. Occasional livestock sales by some
SMALLHOLDERFARMINGSYSTEMS
Within smallholder farming systems people practice a mixed farming approach and use available natural
resources in the commonages. Access to resources (land, water and natural resources) depends to an extent
on what and how much is available and on the local arrangements that are in place, which are managed
through the traditional and local authorities. In theory, everyone has access; in practice this translates to those
who can leverage resources through individual influence and resourcefulness.
Mixed farming in communal tenure areas consists of homestead plots, fields and communal grazing for
livestock.
Homestead plots, as the word indicates, are situated around the farmers’ homes and range in size from
around 500m2to around 0,5ha. These plots may or may not be fenced and in the more formally planned
villages will have some access to a municipal supply of water. Water supply however is severely restricted in
most cases to the municipal allocation of 20 litres per person per day and only if that water is available.
Shared, communal standpipes outside people’s yards are the most common form of access to water. This
means that for around 90% of smallholders, they only have access to as much water as they can carry to their
homes on any given day. This water is used primarily for household needs. This means that dryland cropping is
still common even within homestead plots and that more intensive productive activities such as vegetable and
fruit production and rearing of small livestock usually is done only if additional sources of water can be
accessed, either through the municipal systems -- which is not common -- or through access to springs and
streams nearby. A very limited number of individuals have their own boreholes.
Fields are generally allocated to individuals and are often not in direct proximity to the homesteads. Sizes
range from 0,1ha -5ha, averaging around 1ha in size. Historically these have been used primarily for field
cropping grains (maize, sorghum, millet), pumpkin species and legumes (sugar beans). Fields may be fenced or
unfenced and are worked by hand or by paying for private or government-based mechanisation services. At
this scale, a number of group projects exist in the communal tenure areas and in some cases, projects run by
government and non-government organisations have included irrigation options. A very small percentage
(around 1-5%) of individuals have set up their own irrigation systems.
Communal grazing is managed on a village level and livestock are allowed to graze in and around the villages
and fields in winter months and adjacent veld, bush and hillsides during summer. Individual smallholders
often have kraals for their livestock and pay towards herding and dipping systems for their livestock. Mostly
these systems apply to cattle and sheep. In the past goats were not herded, but due to increasing pressure on
grazing areas and conflicts related to livestock destroying crops and gardens this is becoming more common.
Rangeland management is notoriously difficult in these communal tenure areas and the quality and quantity of
grazing appears to be in an almost continual decline. Systems for fodder production, supplementary feeding
and rotational grazing are not widespread.
Natural resourcesare harvested extensively for firewood, thatch, reed and grass crafts, food (e.g. wild leafy
greens) and medicinal purposes. Very few systems for control, management and regeneration of natural
resources are currently in place and in addition wide scale poverty and population pressure in the communal
tenure areas have led to overuse of resources and denuding of the commons.
Access to water for both household and agricultural purposes is considered the main limiting factor by
smallholder farmers (pers comm E Kruger). The figurebelow outlines the typical average monthly water
demand of a household. Most households receive around one fifth of this allocation of water.
Figure 8: Household water requirements and access (Kruger, 2016)
CLIMATECHANGEIMPACTSONSMALLHOLDERFARMINGSYSTEMS
The more extreme weather patterns with increased heat, decreased precipitation and more extreme rainfall
events; increase of natural hazards such as floods, droughts, hailstorms and high winds that characterise
climate change place additional pressure on smallholder farming systems and has already led to severe losses
in crop and vegetable production and mortality in livestock (Madondo and Kruger, 2016, pers comm). A
significant proportion of smallholders have abandoned agricultural activities and this number is still on the
increase. Smallholders are generally not well prepared for these more extreme weather conditions and
experience high levels of increased vulnerability as a consequence (Manderson, Kubayi, & Drimie, June 2016).
It is becoming clear that climate change will have drastic consequences for low-income and otherwise
disadvantaged communities. Despite their vulnerability, these communities will have to make the most climate
adaptations(Fenton, Reid, & Wright, 2015). It is possible for individual smallholders to manage their
agricultural and natural resources better and in a manner that could substantially reduce their risk and
vulnerability generally and more specifically to climate change. Through a combination of best bet options in
agro-ecology, water and soil conservation, water harvesting, conservation agriculture and rangeland
management a measurable impact on livelihoods and increased productivity can be made (Hansford, 2010.)
LOCALANDTRADITIONALKNOWLEDGEINCSA
Most of the CSA practices with which the project will be concerned are likely to be quite site specific, which
makes local and traditional knowledge extremely relevant for implementing such practices at a ground
(community) level. It should be acknowledged that some of the CSA practices correspond with many existing
local practices. Local and traditional knowledge is deeply embedded in many communities and the associated
practices are considered cost effective and easy to scale out to other communities.
The literature indicates that for adoption of CSA practices to be successful it should be built on existing local
and traditional knowledge (FAO, 2013). However, local understanding of the practices and reasons to take up a
practice often differs to that in the scientific domain. It is important for development practitioners and
researchers to have some understanding of the local and traditional knowledge to allow better
implementation of improved practices (e.g. CSA practices). Building links between the scientific information
and local and traditional knowledge presents a potential opportunity for developing a holistic approach for
dealing with the negative impacts of climate change at community level. The Association for Water and Rural
Development (AWARD) is implementing a programme to increase resilience in the Olifants River Basin-the
approach, involving systemic social learning, is one example of this (Kruger E and Selala S, 2017; AWARD,
2017).
It is important to note that the depths of such knowledge and the implementation of such practices varies
considerably between communities in different areas across South Africa. In areas with a long continuous
tradition of indigenous agricultural practices, such knowledge is strong and the practices well understood.
Such areas include much of Limpopo Province, and the coastal sections of the former Transkei homeland in the
Eastern Cape Province, historically inhabited by the amaPondo and amaThembu clans. However, in many other
areas such as those to which people were forcibly relocated during the establishment of the former
homelands -- there is not such a long continuous tradition and many of the farming practices have been
derived from people’s acquaintance, often as farm labourers, with the conventionalagriculture practiced by
the white commercial farmers. Even in these areas, however, it is possible to find traditional practices such as
‘matamo’ (construction of small ponds) or ’gelesha’ (ripping the ground to improve infiltration, prior to
planting) (DensionJ and ManonaS, 2007).
Communities are already needing to use local, traditional and indigenous knowledge to help cope with the
negative impact of climate change. This includes knowledge of food preservation techniques (e.g.
fermentation and sun drying), knowledge of indigenous plants (e.g. for use in natural pest control), seed
selection to avoid drought and disease control in livestock. The list below shows some other local and
traditional practices which correspond with CSA principles and practices:
Seasonal weather forecasting (Use of shift in seasonal migration for birds as an indicator for weather
forecasting)
Selection of seed to avoid the risk of drought and pests
Water harvesting techniques (e.g. roof water harvesting)
Use of ash for seed preservation
Soil and water conservation using planting basins, furrows and ridges
Use of sunken and raised beds to accommodate for water holding capacity and soil types
Mixed cropping or intercropping and diversification
Use of supplementary feed for livestock
Preservation of pasture for use by young, lactating and sick animals in cases of drought
Transhumance to avoid risk of livestock loss
Culling of weak livestock for food
Diversification in the herd to survive climate extremes (Kruger and Selala, 2017).
CSA may provide a valuable opportunity to revive local and traditional knowledge and practices, as they have
considerable potential for amelioration of some of the negative impacts of climate change on small-scale
agriculture.
DECISIONSUPPORTPROCESSES
This project aims todesign aframework of methodologies, associated processes and a selection of best bet
practices, informed by the issues thathave been discussed, which canbe used to assess, implement and monitor
likely local CSA strategies.The practices themselves are discussed in the accompanying handbook.
Within the climate change community, decision support systems for climate smart agriculture options at a
local level have thus far been designed in top-down processes- using climatic, geographic and demographic
databases and information to select a range of appropriate practices onregional level. (USAID, Care
International, FAO, …..). generally, a DSS is currently seen as a computer, or perhaps more saliently, internet-
based system, which enables large amounts of diverse information to be analysed in order for managers to
reach rational decisions.
A recent review, discusses the different types of models presently available and along with equation-, agent
and geographic- based models, discusses more participatory models as well (Nay J A, Chu E, Gallagher D and
Wright, H. 2014). Their conclusion is that it is advisable to adopt approaches incorporating both technical and
social componentsin a DSS.
The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), has developed a decision support
system for identifying appropriate CSA practices; described as a set of filters for evaluating CSA options &
establishing CSA investment portfolios forNational and sub-national decision makers donors, NGOs,
implementers (CGIAR, 2017). Both of these will also inform the project’s work with farmers.
Here however, we are focussing the decision support process on a bottom -up approach, where individual
farmers in a locality make decisions regarding the ‘basket’ of CSA approaches and practices most suited to
their specific situation.To do this in a way that also includes the concepts of social learning, innovation and
agency the following decision support concept has been developed
WHATGOESINTOTHECSASMALLSCALEFARMERDECISIONSUPPORTSYSTEM
Using a systemic approach and social learning from a socio-ecological perspective, the model consists of a
number of layers ofinput parameters or filters used to define a basket of best bet CSA options for a specific
smallholder farmer, using a combination of participatory processes linked to technical databases.
The process is designed to also support and assist the facilitator in their decision making, in support of the
smallholder farmers; meaning that the facilitator accesses information such as the basic climate change
predictions for the area, the agroecological characteristics including rainfall, temperature, soil texture etc) and
an initial contextualised basket of CSA practices from which to negotiate prioritized practices with farmers.
Practices are thus chosen by both facilitators and farmers.
Figure 9: The Small- Scale Farmer Decision Support System
The model is designed primarily as a participatory and facilitated process at community level. In support to this
process a computer-based model can be used alongside this methodology to provide further information and
decisions support to the facilitator. It is also possible for afarmer to access this model independently to derive
an initial basket of CSA practice options for themselves.
The computer model informationflow is designed as shown in the figure below and follows the same basic
steps as the facilitated model shown in Figure 9 above.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: Climate and geographical
parameters; GPS coordinates, agroecological zones,
soil texture, slope and soil organic carbon content
PRACTICES: Database of CSA practices including; managing available
water, improving access to water, controlling soil movement, improving
soil health and fertility, crop management, integrated crop-livestock
management, veld management and veld rehabilitation
Figure 10: The computer- based model for the smallholder DSS
In our case the set of criteria (proxies used as indicators for the complex reality)that helpsto make informed
decisions on management practices are:
The current farming systems; gardening, field cropping, livestock production and natural resource
management (NRM) (including trees),
The physical environment: agroecological zone, soil texture, slope and organic soil carbon and
The socio-economic background of the farmer; demographic information (gender HH head, age,
dependency ratio), level of education, sources of income (unemployment vs. external employment,
own business, grants, farm, etc.), total income, access to services, infrastructure, technology
(Electricity, water (tap, borehole, rainwater harvesting, etc.), irrigation (buckets, standpipes, etc.),
fencing and farming tools (hand vs traction/other), social organisation, market access (formalvs.
informal), farm size andfarming purpose (food vs. selling).
Besides this, the resources and related management strategies as well as a list of practices need to be
provided as input to the system. All information, except the physical environment; i.e. climate, soil and
topography, and the resources and management strategies, are derived through the use of a range of
participatory processes. Data on the physical environmental conditions have been taken from datasets freely
available online. This information can however be customised by the DSS user, in case more appropriate
information is available for the specific farmer concerned.
For the Facilitator-Farmer DSS the resources and related management strategies are discussed and negotiated
in the participatory process. For the computer based or Individual Farmer DSS these are provided as an input
into the model using the following framework:
FARMING SYSTEMFARMER SOCIO-ECONOMIC
BACKGROUND
RESOURCES TO MANAGE
SUGGESTED PRACTICES
CONSTRAINED BY
TYPOLOGY, SYSTEM
AND ENVIRONMENT
RANKED PRACTICES
BASED ON FACILITATORRANKED PRACTICES
BASED ON FARMER
FARMER BASED
PRIORITIES
FACILITATOR
BASED PRIORITIES
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
DSS PROCESS FLOW
Figure 11: Resources to manage and their associated management strategies
The practices have been identified by both farmers and experts; the latter based on experience in the South
African context and desk top reviews.
HOWDOESTHEFACILITATOR-FARMERDSSWORK
In effect, the DSS discussed above is a way of providing and making sense of information. This information is
contextualised in a social learning system (a group of people learning and implementing together) using the
framework shown in Figure 12 below.
Local good practice
CC
Farmer level
experimentation to test
practices
CoPs and innovation
platforms
Best practise
options
Impacts of CC
Introduction of new
practices and ideas to
try
Benchmarking for
visual indicators
Stakeholder
engagements
Adaptive strategies
Learning and mentoring
Activities and
processes
Materials and
information
Appropriate
practices
Assessment of outcomes
and impacts
internet based
platform
Cyclical, iterative
learning and
implementation
Facilitator-Farmer Decision Support System
Figure 12: A systemic view of the Facilitator-Farmer DSS indicating associated activities and processes
The DSS thus incorporates the whole system of social learning and innovation, inan iterative process that can
lead to social change and agency in climate change adaptation, as depicted in Figure 13 below.
Figure 13: Social learning, innovation and building agency is an iterative process that includes careful monitoring and evaluation
HOWTOFACILITATETHEFACILITATOR-FARMERDSS
An assumption made is that entry into a community has already been made and that it is possible to arrange a
community level meeting for interested participants.
This means that an introductory workshop explaining the processwould need to be held first, before launching
into the short series of 3 climate change adaptation (CCA) workshops. The intention of these workshops is also
to create and strengthen the learning group, to enable the social learning process to unfold.
In addition, as baseline survey is important to understand the existing conditions in the locality. These
baselines also provide the information for the individual DSS process in terms of the environmental conditions
and vulnerability criteria for the individual (socio-economic criteria and typology).
BASELINESURVEY
Generally, this is done during the 1st CCA workshop when individual household visits are undertaken., but can
also be a stand- alone exercise conducted at the beginning of a CSA intervention
THEBASELINESURVEYQUESTIONNAIRE
Agency
Innovation
Social
learning
quantitative; process,
output, outcome and
Cyclical analysis, planning,
implementation and
review (monitoringand
evaluation)
Date
Area
Village
GPS
Surname
First
name
Cell no
ID number
Gender
󰧓󰧔
󰧖󰧗
Household
head (Y/N)
Education
Members of Social
organisation/s
(describe) e.g.
savings group,
learning group…)
No of Adults in
household (hh)
No of children
Income sources
(grants,
employment,
remittances, other
specify)
Level of
income
monthly
hh)
Type of grant (s) -
add in no
Child Support Old Age Foster care
Scale of operation
0,1-1ha
1-2 ha
>2ha
Farming activities
Garden (size)
Fields (size)
Livestock (No)
Cattle
Goats
Chickens
Other:
Nat resources-
specify
Trees
Indigenous plants
Resources and
infrastructure
Water (list -tick
and describe)
-tap
-standpipe
-RWH
-Other
HH infrastructure
-dwellings
- electricity
-fencing
-other
Farming
infrastructure and
tools (list
Other
Other livelihood
activities (list)
Market access
(describe)
Training and
advice
(Name sources of
support)
EXAMPLEOFABASLINESURVEY
The responses to these questionnaires can be input into an excel sheet and coded to be able to summarise
information from a number of different participants and get an indication of the ‘profile’ of the participants
involved.
Below are two bar charts summarising information for 41 participants across 7 villages in KZN, EC and Limpopo
as an example. The charts summarise the livelihoods and resource indicators of the questionnaires.
Figure 14: Socio-economic baseline information from a survey conducted for 41 participants (April 2019)
29.0
51.2
31
10
18
8
41
31
20
16
12
3.2
2.8
1.14
26
19
15
2.33
5.77
Gender (F)
Average Age
Household head
Primary school
High school
Tertiary
Social organization
Learning group
Savings group
School gardening group
Farmer 's cooperative
No, of adults in HH
No, of children
Dependency ratio
Grants
Salary
Income from veg sales
Income (in R1000)- unemployed
Income (in R1000)- employed
Baseline information: Socio-economic (n=41)
Figure 15: Access to resources, indicated as a percentage for 41 participants (April 2019)
COMMUNITYLEVELCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONANALYSIS-OUTLINEOFTHE3
WORKSHOPS
In these community level workshops/dialogues; facilitation tools have been designed that can assist in the
analysis. These have been carefully chosen and tested, to ensure an ability todifferentiate between weather
and climate change, unpack changes in the environment and livelihoods, those most affected by climate
change, impacts of CC and current practices and adaptations already being implemented to respond to these
changes.
CCAWORKSHOP1:CLIMATECHANGEANALYSISIMPACTANDADAPTIVEMEASURES
This workshop runs over a period of two days.
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 themTools; A4 impact pictures or a PP presentation of
floods, droughts, erosion, declining natural resource base, declining yields, …)
2. Look at the difference between variability in weather and climate change. There is variability in weather
and there is also a major change in that variability in weather, predictions and certainty (Tools, role play-
Phone call; weekend visit vs moving to an area)
3. Exploration of temperature and rainfall and participants’ understanding of how these are changing (Tool:
Seasonal diagrams on temperature and rainfallnormal and how these are changing)
4. Timeline in terms of agriculture (Tool: livelihoodsand farming timelines -assessment of past, present and
future)
5. Reality Map: Changes (in natural resources), impacts (of changes), practices (past, present, future),
challenges/responses (Tool: Mind mappingof impacts)
73%
12%
12%
76%
73%
80%
20%
61%
22%
51%
37%
7%
49%
78%
73%
90%
12%
27%
41%
90%
0,1 - 1 ha
>2ha
Field cropping
No,other livelihood activities
Indigenous plants
Standpipe
RWH storage
Fencing
Traction; incl animal
Local markets
farm
scale
operatio
n
farming
activities
Natur
al
resou
rcesHH infrastructure
Farmi
ng
infras
truct
ure
Liveliho
ods
Baseline information: Access to resources (N=41)
6. 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:
OULTINEOFTHETWO-DAYWORKSHOP
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
resources), income
from farming]
Depending on the
size of the group,
this can take a long
time. If time is
short, then just do
a quick round of
introductions.
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
Materials
and
logistics:
Facilitation:
Recording:
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
Flip stand, newsprint, kokis,
data projector, screen,
extension cables, 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
and
logistics:
Facilitation:
Recording:
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
Ppt :
Facilitation:
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
Facilitation:
Recording:
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
12:00am
CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS
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:
Recording:
Weather vs
Climate
[10min]
Role play; phone
conversation - weekend
visit for weather,
relocating to an area for
seasonality/climate.
check in with
participantshow
they understand
the difference from
the role play
Facilitation:
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
changing and going to
change. Start with the
hottest month and then
the coldest month as
reference points
Do temperature
first or if the group
is small and works
quickly include
rainfall then on the
same chart.
Easy to use kebab sticks
bought from supermarket
for this. Small groups; each
needs a facilitator and
recorder
Facilitation:
Recording:
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
Facilitation:
Recording:
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 the -ve impact
statements into a +ve
outcome and ask what
actions are possible.
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:
Recording:
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
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:
Recording:
continuing with
practices
LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals - ~R45 per head (Rice and stew with one veg…
or something similar-)
DAY 2
9:00am
HOUSEHOLD VISITS
9:00 am-
12:00pm
To look at local
adaptations and
innovations
To assess the household
situations To 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
Facilitation:
Recording:
Team meets in evening (BEFORE DAY 2) to discuss mind maps and lists of solutions and
choose a range of practices from the database to present. (5-10) Also, summarise criteria
that came from the household visit discussions
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
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
and
logistics:
Facilitation:
Recording:
questions and
comments
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:
Recording:
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
decide 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
Facilitation:
Recording:
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 implementation of practices and farmer
experimentation
Choose 'volunteers' for the 4 proposed
tunnels for joint /group experimentation
per site
Learning sessions
Put together a list for each
small group for each
individualto record their
name, surname, tel/cell
phone and practices
Facilitation:
Recording:
LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals - (Rice and stew with one veg… or something
similar-)
CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS:
Hotter
1-4 degrees Celsius
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
Greater 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
HOUSEHOLDVISITS
This is part of day 2 of the 1st workshop. The idea is to do a bit of a transect walk through the village or area to
broadly ascertain from visual observation;
-General environmental conditions in the area
-Access to resources and infrastructure and
-Vulnerability of the people.
The household visits also provide an opportunity to conduct the baseline interviews (mentioned above) and
ascertain circumstances at household level.
In addition, these householdvisits are set up to showcase practices and local innovations that participants are
already undertaking. The ‘walkabouts’ are informal and conversations are recorded for later summaries and
photographs are taken to record the conditions in the area and the practices.
EXAMPLEOFAWALKABOUTWITHHOUSEHOLDVISITSINSEKORORO,LIMPOPO(2017)
Summary of discussions around CSA practices from a group of 9 participants visiting 4-5 households scattered
across the village:
PRACTICES WE ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH: mulching trench beds, furrows and ridges, intercropping,
planting herbs, diversification (or 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 WALKABOUT: small earth dams, planting grass 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. Participants learnt about pollination
processes for mangoes. They did not know about male and female flowers. They also commented that
‘normally when we see brown 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.
Above left to right: Local innovations: small dam, shallots grown and seed kept, banana circles with compost
and furrows and ridges for planting beans
EXAMPLEOFACCAWORKSHOP1PROCESS
A number of workshops were held across three provinces in 7 villages , working with around 200 participants
in total and the resultshave been summarised to provide a ‘snapshot’ of climate change impacts for these
three provinces
Table 2: Summary of climate change impacts fromCCA workshop 1, across three provinces (2017-2018)
Climate change impacts on livelihoods and farming
KZN
EC
Limpopo
Water
Less water in the landscape;
streams and springs dry up,
borehole run dry, soils dry
out quickly after rain
Less water in the landscape;
streams and springs dry up,
borehole run dry, soils dry
out quickly after rain
Less water in the landscape;
streams and springs dry up,
borehole run dry, soils dry
out quickly after rain
Dams dry up
Dams dry up
Dams dry up
Municipal water supply
becoming more unreliable
Municipal water supply
becoming more unreliable
Municipal water supply
becoming more unreliable;
Need to buy water for
household use now
sometimes for more than 6
months of the year
RWH storage only enough for
household use.
Soil
More erosion
More erosion
More erosion
Soils becoming more
compacted and infertile
Soils becoming more
compacted and infertile
Soils becoming more
compacted and infertile
Soils too hot to sustain plant
growth
Cropping
Timing for planting has
changed- later
Timing for planting has
changed- later
Can no longer plant dryland
maize
All cropping now requires
irrigation even crops such
as sweet potato
Drought tolerant crops such
as sorghum and millet grow=-
but severe bird damage
Heat damage to crops
Heat damage to crops
Heat damage to crops
Reduced germination and
growth
Reduced germination and
growth
Reduced germination and
growth
Seeding of legumes
becoming unreliable
Seeding of legumes
becoming unreliable
Seeding of legumes becoming
unreliable
Lower yields
Lower yields
Lower yields
Winter vegetables don’t do
well -stress induced bolting
and lack of growth
More pests and diseases
More pests and diseases
More pests and diseases
Loss of indigenous seed
stocks
Loss of indigenous seed
stocks
Livestock
Less grazing; not enough to
see cattle through winter
Less grazing; not enough to
see cattle through winter
Less grazing; not enough to
see cattle through winter
More disease in cattle and
heat stress symptoms
More disease in cattle and
heat stress symptoms
More disease in cattle and
heat stress symptoms
Fewer calves
Fewer calves
Fewer calves
More deaths
More deaths
More deaths
Natural
resources
Fewer trees; too much
cutting for firewood
Fewer trees; too much
cutting for firewood
Fewer trees; too much
cutting for firewood
Decrease in wild animals
and indigenous plants
Decrease in wild animals
and indigenous plants
Decrease in wild animals and
indigenous plants
Increased crop damage from
wild animals such as birds
and monkeys
Increased crop damage from
wild animals such as birds
and monkeys
Increased crop damage from
wild animals such as birds
and monkeys
Availability of indigenous
vegetables has decreased
No longer able to harvest any
resources due to scarcity
Increased population puts
pressure on resources
Social
More diseases
More diseases
More diseases
Increased poverty and
hunger
Increased poverty and
hunger
Increased poverty and
hunger
Increased crime and
reduced job opportunities
Increased crime and
reduced job opportunities
Increased crime and reduced
job opportunities
Increased food prices
Increased conflict
Inability to survive
Although many of the impacts are similar across the three provinces, the severity of these changes
is a lot more obvious in Limpopo; where comments like “we will all die”, “we will need to move
from here to the cities” and “it feels like the end of the world is coming” were not uncommon.
In all the provinces, but more so in KZN and Limpopo people felt that they are being punished by
God for the disintegration of their social fabric. They mentioned that people no longer follow the
old rules or keep to their traditional beliefs and taboos, people do not care properly for their
families and immorality, violence and theft are all too common. There is thus a tacit understanding
that these social problems exacerbate their ability to survive well into the future.
Potential adaptive measures were discussed as an outcome of the impact mind map and participants
discussed in small groups possible practices and ideas which could help them adapt to the changes and reduce
the negative impacts of these changes.
Being practically minded, most of the participants moved straight from impacts to practices so strategies
were not really discussed. Some of the groups had many ideas, some of which were gleaned from working with
support organisations and NOGs. Those groups where noexternal support is available, did not have many
‘new” ideas, but focussed more on doing what they are currently doing better.
Below is an exampls of this discussion for Turkey in Limpopo (with limited external support)
Table 3: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Turkey (Limpopo) climate change dialogue process (2018)
Turkey CC workshop; December 2017
Impacts
Description and linkages
Outcomes
Potential adaptive measure
GROUP 1
Reduced
water
availability
Dams dry out, boreholes
provide less water, rivers dry
out, less rain
Reduced
production,
hunger, diseases,
no jobs, poverty,
crime, death
More boreholes, more dams, water
management, irrigation in evenings
and early morning, mulching, trench
beds (keep moisture in and soil cool)
Drying of
environment
Soils are hotter and drier,
drought, plants wilt,
increased pests
Save plant residues for animals, buy
fodder, control pests on animals
Reduction of
resources
Deforestation, Fruit trees die,
livestock, wild animals die
Planting of trees after they have
been cut down; make use of paraffin
stoves and electricity, government
involvement in solving the problem,
GROUP 2
Extreme heat
Early fruiting, trees wilt
Poor crop health
Shade netting
Shortage of
water
Rivers dry out, municipal
supply only once per week.
Boreholes dry out
Lack of education
towards saving
water
NGOs and government to assist
Trench beds, mulching, save water
in dams, drip irrigation, irrigate in
evening, boreholes, greywater
Reduction of
resources
Less grazing, seed shortage,
trees are removed,
indigenous animals are no
longer there
Donations for/of seed
Rather use paraffin stoves than
firewood. Only chop down mature
trees to allow others to grow,
planting trees, government
intervention
Taking care of indigenous plants
Plant fodder for livestock
Soils
Poor cultivation practices, soil
erosion, dry soils, sandy soils
Using crop residues and manure
Social
repercussions
Less or no food, health
problems, no jobs
Burning of buses,
divorce,
separation of
families, poverty,
crime
Getting access to health care,
parents must work
Shortage of
implements
Setting up cooperatives for
government support, use animal
drawn traction- oxen and donkeys,
improvise, make our own tools,
make use of hand hoes
When this table is compared to a community who have been involved in a support programme, such a Sekoroo
where Lima RDF have been running a Food security and livelihoods improvement programme, the differences
in suggestions clearly indicate some ideas gleaned from the facilitating organisation
Table 4: An example of potential adaptive measures from the Sekororo (Limpopo) climate change dialogue process
Sekororo; CC workshop November 2017
Impacts
Description and linkages
Outcomes
Potential adaptive measure
GROUP 1
Heat
Plants wilt and die
Lack of grazing,
livestock ide
Mulching, controlled grazing, reduce
stock, save/store fodder leaves
and grasses for dry season
Water
shortages
Rivers drying out, boreholes
drying out
Greywater, purification using
moringa seeds, water storage for
dry season
Soil
Soil erosion (more dongas),
soil fertility decreasing,
Deterioration of
roads- making
access difficult
Planting in tyres, keyhole beds,
tower gardens,
Crop
production,
resources
Lower yields, more pests, veld
fires, reduction of indigenous
trees
Common pests: cutworms,
millipedes, centipedes
Natural pest and disease control,
mulching (but this can increase
some pests), inter cropping, crop
rotation, use of multi- purpose
plants (e.g. marigolds)
Use the wild cucumber (yellow
inside) dry, grind and spray on crops
to control nematodes and soil pests
Manage cutting of trees and plant
more
Plant in tunnels
Livestock
Lack of grazing, more
diseases, more damage of
crops
Livestock
decreasing, not
healthy
Control grazing,
Social
repercussions
Poverty, diseases, hunger
Crime, murder
and theft,
domestic
violence, divorce,
increased death
rate, no money to
pay lobola
GROUP 2
Extreme heat
Veld fires
Use of tunnels, plant heat resistant
cultivars, irrigate in early mornings
and evenings
Lack of water
No grazing, drying of natural
vegetation and bushes,
wilting of plants, trees do not
fruit, extreme rains destroy
infrastructure,
Food shortages,
animals die due to
lack of grazing,
Water harvesting, earth dams, grey
water and management of existing
water, diversion furrows
Soils
Organic matter content is
low, dry soils, roots are
exposed, soil erosion, also
due to use of mechanisation -
ploughing
Liquid manure, make use of animal
manure, trench beds and eco-circles
Plant sweet potatoes to hold soil,
plant across the slope, plant
indigenous crops such as cowpeas,
Make use of hands and oxen to
plant using conservation agriculture
Loosen the soil to avoid water
logging and yellowing of plants
Crops
Reduced production
increased pests, medicinal
herbs destroyed in drought
and heat
Plant colourful flowers and plants to
attract pest predators and bees,
companion planting, making brews
form marigolds
Plant medicinal species in controlled
environments with the vegetables
9tunnels)
Social
repercussions
More diseases and health
problems, poverty food
shortages, low education
standards (because schools
are free)
No transfer of
knowledge, crime
Plant herbs and vegetables,
entrepreneurship, job creation,
plant your own crops instead of
always buying
Based on the adaptive measures suggested a selection of the CSA practices summarised as 1 pagers were
introduced to each group. This process was easy for groups that have had some exposure to agroecological
practices and support in implementation and a lot harder where little outside support has been available.
DATABASEOFCSAPRACTICES
…….
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
come in 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.
CRITERIAFORASSESSINGPRACTICES
Availability of material
Increased water infiltration and water holding capacity (water use efficiency)
Increased availability of water
Costs- costefficiency, cost-benefit
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.
CCAWORKSHOP2:PRIORITZATIONOFADAPTATIONSTRATEGIESANDPRACTICES
Below is a chronology of steps or processes to be undertaken at community level, assuming there is already
some level of relationship and interest. These steps work towards building a CoP /learning group:
-Understanding climate change and impact (academic understanding, community understanding)
-Climate change and agriculture (farmers’ roles and responsibilities, current practices/challenges)
-Changes, reasons and responses; Responses (what are we doing already, what do we think we 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 organisations, 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 likelydoable 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 (sourcesof expertise),
lead farmers
j. Monitoring and review.
1. Prioritization of practicesmatrix using farmer level criteria for assessment (matrix ranking and scoring)
2. Planning of farmer experimentation, learning sessions and implementation of practices (Individual
experimentation outlines, lists)
OUTLINEOFCCAWORKSHOP2
Community level climate change adaptation: Prioritisation and planning workshop outline
DAY 1
Time
Activity
Process
Notes
Materials
Who
9:00am
INTRODUCTION
9:00-
10:00am
Community and
team
introductions
In pairs, take 5 minutes
to talk to each other.
Each person names one
practice they know or
are doing that is good
for CCA - a CSA practice.
OR one they would
most like to try out.
Practices to be
summarised on a
flip chart.
Attendance
register -
with column
for CSA
practices - in
English and
Zulu/Pedi.
Name tags;
stickers, kokis
Preparation:
Facilitation:
Recording:
Purpose of the
day
Introduction of the
organisation/s and
purpose of this
workshop-Review of
understanding of CC,
Impacts and adaptive
measures. Introduction
to CSA principles
Summarise from
report of 1st
workshop - Use
the 5 categories -
summarise
measures under
each. Use two PP
slides attached
Flip stand,
newsprint,
kokis,
camera- and
one person to
undertake to
take photos
throughout
the day. Extra
batteries for
camera and
sim card
Preparation:
Facilitation:
Recording:
10:00am
Prioritization of practices
10:00 to
11:00am
Review practices
mentioned in
detail - both
community level
and presented
from 1pgers
Divide into small groups
- for prioritization
matrix; Use five
categories (Nat res, soil,
water, crop, livestock).
Supply with cards
where all prioritized
practises are written.
They then prioritize
these in a list under
each category, based on
what to try first, second
and so on - make sure
the criteria used for
these choices are
recorded. Come back
in plenary, present and
get overall choices
summarised for all
small groups
See Community
level
prioritization of
practices Excel
worksheet
Flipchart
paper, kokis,
cards with all
prioritized
practices
written out,
pres-stick
Preparation:
Facilitation:
Recording:
11:00 -
11:30am
TEA
Fruit (apples, oranges, biscuits, juice and water, paper cups
(lots) and plates… Generous helpings - and lots of juice if it is
hot. Find someone to be in charge of food and refreshments,
while the rest of the workshop continues
Preparation:
11:30
Demonstrations and learning
11:30-
2:30pm
Learning and
practical
demonstration
session on a
selection of
practices - start
with gardening
practices
(appropriate for
present season)
Presentation to group -
discussions etc, then
practical
demonstrations in an
appropriate garden -
preferable a household
garden. Choose 1-4
practices: e.g. trench
bed, mulching, liquid
manure, intercropping
Facilitators to come prepared
with handouts and learning
materials. Also, materials for
doing the practical
demonstrations such as mulch,
manure, seed, seedlings, tools,
and other e.g. shade netting,
poles, gravel and ash for tower
gardens - depends on practices
and must be planned for
Preparation:
Facilitation:
Recording:
2:30pm
Individual experimentation
2:30-
3:00pm
Individual choice
of practices for
household
experimentation
After the
demonstrations - Make
a list for individuals to
choose experiments to
try out. Headings are
practises. Each
participant writes their
name under the
practices they will try -
it can be one, a few or
all.
facilitators to discuss how an
experiment works i.e. the
farmer compares the new idea to
her usual practice. For example, if
she will do a trench bed, she has
to make a bed new to it the same
size the way she usually does and
plant both in the same way on the
same day. This way she will be
able to see the differences in
growth and yield from her
practice. She needs to monitor
how it is going and be able to
report back to this group what
has happened.
Preparation:
Facilitation:
Recording:
3:00pm
LUNCH Local catering groups to provide meals - ~R45 per head (Rice andstew
with one veg… or something similar-)
Preparation:
EXAMPLEOFCCAWORKSHOP2
This is a summary of a workshop that was held in Ezibomvini viallge, close to Bergville in KZN, in 2018.
CCA practices that are familiar to farmers
An introduction session over five minutes took place where farmers were to introduce each other and their
farming activities. Following is the summary of the results from the discussions:
The use drip irrigationto retain moisture for a long time in the soil.
Grey water harvesting practice.
Use of cow manure
Mulching
Intercropping
Bed design
Rain Water harvesting
Watering the garden before sunrise and after sunset
Blue death as pest and disease control measure
Conservation Agriculture (CA).
oCA farmers receive more yields, the level of pests such as stalk borer and cutworm has
decreased. Farmers are saving on inputs.
Review of participants understanding of Climate change
Farmers still remember that previously there was discussion that historically there is a change in climate as
compared to the current situation. The level of rainfall isnow lower and temperatures are high. The increase
in temperature has a negative impact on crop growth. There is the high level of wind which dries the soils.
Historically it was only windy in winter and presently it is windy throughout. There are no wetlands anymore
because there is no rain and people are building houses where there were wetlands.
The impact of Climate Change on farmer’s livelihoods
The outbreak of pests and diseases
There is an outbreak of pests such as aphids, termites, and cutworms, which farmers do not know how they
can solve this problem. Some farmers have ants in their gardens and they used blue death.
Shortage of animal feed
The high temperatures lead to dry conditions, therefore there is a minimum vegetation growing and available
for livestock to graze on the grazing lands.
Burning of Grazing veld
Different farmers have the different reason to burn the veld, some burn it to dispose of the straws left after
grazing so that the field can be ready for the following spring, and some burn it for soil fertility and health
purposes. At the end of the day burning of fields leads to disease outbreak tolivestock. Previously our great
grand fathers were creating fire banks so that fires do not spread all over, in nowadays males are lazy and they
do not do that.
Shortage of grazing lands
The population is increasing at an alarming rate, more people are building houses and this has led to the
building of houses in the grazing lands.
CSA practices that were suggested by farmers on the previous workshop
The following table outlines the practices and their categories
Table 5: Suggested practices for farmers, categorised into the 5 primary themes.
Natural RM
Soil
Water
crops
Livestock
1. Tunnels
2. Bed design
3. Mulching
4. Natural pest
and diseases
5. Rainwater
harvesting
6. Trench bed
7. Composting
8. Fodder crops
9. Underground
water tank
10. Mixed
cropping
11. Conservation
of wetlands
and streams
12. Burying of
disposable
pampers
13. Reducing
burning of
grazing veld
14. Greywater
Harvesting
Group Prioritisation of practices
After a presentation of practices, farmers prioritized practices as a team. Due to drought conditions problems
the group chose underground water tanks as the first priority. Due to harsh weather conditions farmers chose
tunnels as their second option. The following table shows farmers how farmer prioritised practices.
Individual choice of practical household experimentation
Above: Tema facilitating the prioritization of
practices
Group Priority
1. Underground water tanks
2. Tunnels
3. Trench beds
4. Mulching
5. Pest and disease control
6. Mixed cropping
7. Compost
8. Fodder crops
9. Conserving wetlands and streams
Farmers were given a variety of seeds; new crops to experiment with e.g. kale, mustard spinach, Chinese
cabbage, leeks spring onions and parsley. All farmers were given small packets with about 5g or seed. The
seeds were given to farmers so that they can experiment with new crops along with the other CSA practices
Out of 29 farmers who were present, 20 farmers considered trench beds as their priority. Farmers who chose
trench beds will therefore also try out mixed cropping and mulching. Most of the farmers from the nine left
already have trench beds in their homesteads. The following is the list of participants who considered atrench
bed as their first priority.
Table 6: Individual volunteers for trench bed experimentation in KZN (Bergville)
Name
Village Name
1. Jabulile Nkabinde
Ezibomvini
2. Fikile Hlongwane
Ezibomvini
3. Nonhlahla Zikode
Ezibomvini
4. Landiwe Gamede
Ezibomvini
5. Gcinekile Zikode
Ezibomvini
6. Hlengiwe Ndaba
Ezibomvini
7. Busisiwe Zikode
Ezibomvini
8. Alfred Gumede
Ezibomvin
9. Velephi Zimba
Ezibomvini
10. Sizeni Dlamini
Eqeleni
11. Lndokuhle Hlongwane
Ezibomvini
12. Conastance Hlongwane
Thamela
13. Thulile Zikode
Eqeleni
14. Sibongile Zikode
Eqeleni
15. Dambi Ntuli
Thamela
16. Zanele Hlongwane
Thamela
17. Thokozile Mpambo
Eqeleni
18. Nomalanga Khumalo
Eqeleni
19. Mvelo Zikode
Ezibomvini
20. Sdudla Sibiya
Ezibomvini
Another example, where the prioritization of practices was done slightly differently is shown below. This is for
participants who belong to a learning network Umvoto Buboni in the Eastern Cape.
Table 7:CSA Practices: Prioritization by groups and individuals
NOTE: Groups in this case are the small groups in the workshop setting consisting of homestead gardeners,
cooperative members and more commercial farmers
Practice
Scale(s) (Small homestead,
Medium <1ha, Large >1ha)
No of Groups
No of
Individuals
Swales
All
1
3
Greywater
Small
1
Small Dams
S/M
1
Fertility Pits
S/M
1
Contours
M/L
1
Terraces
ALL
1
Furrows/Ridges
All
0
1
Infiltration pits/Banana
Circles
Small
1
2
Raised Beds
All (considerable discussion here, with
some saying just S/M)
1
Trench Beds
S/M
1
Tower Gardens
S
1
3
Tunnel
All
1
2
Basins/In-field
All
1
1
Mulching
All
4
4
Close-spacing
Intercropping
Mixed Cropping
Considered to be very closely related
All in different ways
3
3
Crop Rotation
All
1
Minimum Tillage
All
1
Herbs
All
2
Liquid Manure
All
2
Bucket Drip
All (Drip, although buckets for just Small
scale)
3
5
Underground Storage
S/M
1
Rainwater Harvesting
(general)
All
1
1
What was perhaps most interesting about these outcomes was the great difference between the practices
selected by the different groups, with only mulching being identified by all 4 groups, and just the Bucket Drip
and the combination close/mixed/inter-cropping practices by 3 out of 4. Essentially almost all the practices
listed in the document were selected by one or another group.
The individual preferences as recorded in the register were similarly diverse with a similar concentration on
(bucket) drip, mulching and close/mixed/inter-cropping. Swales, tower gardens and tunnels were also
identified as being of specific interest to several participants. Only one participant identified large-scale
furrows and ridges and infield RWH as being of interest to them.
CCAWORKSHOP3:INNOVATIONCYCLE1
It is based on the group level prioritisation undertaken in the CCA workshop 2 process and builds in a further
level of individual choice and experimentation. Training and mentoring are provided for practices new to the
community participants.
An example of a workshop agenda is provided below, but at this stage it is dependent on the implementation
processes of the supporting organisation and the commitment of community level participants to an
innovation process
SCIONWEATHERPREDICTIONS
These are included as a learning exercise and to ascertain the level of engagement of community members in
seasonal weather predictions…….
SCIONWEATHERPROJECTIONS
Here an overview was provided of the Seasonal Climate Watch projections that are provided through the SA
Weather Services. Some of the quarterly temperature and rainfall maps were reviewed (Aug-Sept-Oct 2018)
and participants briefly discussed how useful they thought this information could be to them.
Most felt that they could not rely on information like this to make decisions around planting times, although it
does help to some extent with giving and indication of what the season would be like. The maps corroborated
their feeling that planting times are later, as the summer rainfalls have been starting later and later. It can now
even be as late as the 1st week of December. They do not know when to plant, but just do it and hope for the
best.
Agenda
Facilitation
1.1.Review of Climate Change discussion: Summary, present pictures from a
[previous workshop]
1.2. SCION weather projections
2.1.Impact maps; Adaptive measures
3.1.Prioritisation of practices
3.1. Matrix
3.2.Research: Demonstration Sites
3.3. Presentation of Practices
*Conservation Agriculture (Handouts)
*Tunnels
*Furrows
*Mixed cropping and trench beds
3.4 Discussion of logistics for demo suites
3.5 Farmer experimentation
3.6 Individual choices
3.7 Scheduling (Finding out the locations)
3.8. Scouting visit (4pm) to UmXhumbu (CA and furrow irrigation
Lives stock farmers suggested that they need to come up with practices that can be used, such as making hay
and silage in summer, for making food available in winter, as winter grazing is becoming more and more of a
problem.
Farmers liked the idea of being able to have some local indicators, such as rain gauges to help them make
decisions, but did not feel confident about relying on information such as the seasonal climate watch
forecasts.
FARMEREXPERIMENTATION
……. Farmer experimentation was introduced explaining that the best way to learn is to do it and compare it
with whatever you are doing. Thus, the control becomes the “normal way” and that is compared with the new
idea. It is important to try new ideas out on a small scale to reduce risk. Decisions about how to observe and
measure the differences are made at the onset of the experiment and these observations and measurements
are recorded throughout the season, so that an informed decision can be made about the potential benefits
and challenges of the new idea. An example was made of implementation of a tunnel (shade-house structure):
Here both the trail and the control will have trench beds, mulching and drip irrigation and be planted at the
same time to the same crop, so that the only variable becomes the tunnel itself.
INDIVIDUALCHOICES
Below is that table filled out by the participants in choosing the practices they would want to experiment with
for this coming season.
Table 8: Individual farmer led experimentation choices; EC, Aug 2018
Name and
Surname
Tunnel
Bucket
Drip
Tower
Garden
Trench
bed
Furrow
and
ridges
Grey
water
Small
Pans
Herbs
terraces
Fertility
pit
Swales
or
contour
Aviwe Biko
Monwabisi
Jende
Xolisa
Dwane
Thango
Hogana
Phindisiwe
Msesiwe
Siyabulela
Hafe
SCHEDULINGOFPRACTICALDEMONSTRATIONS
The following table shows the practices that were going to be demonstrated in the upcoming days.
Gardening
Field cropping
Tunnels (shade-house), with
drip irrigation - construction
Trench beds, mulching
Tower garden
Conservation Agriculture including:
- Mixed cropping, including cowpeas
- Winter cover crops
- Planters; MBLI, HARAKA
Contours; using a line-level
Swales; how to construct
Furrows and ridges; how to construct on contour
Short furrow irrigation
This group of farmers come from three different villages; uMxumbu, Berlin, and Qunwini. The demonstrations
were planned to allow those most interested to attend the trainings, as the sites are far apart and not all
participants can travel between them.
.
PARTICIPATORYIMPACTASSESSMENT
BACKGROUND
A specific framework for monitoring of impact of the CSA practices on livelihoods and vulnerability is required
to be able to assess increased resilience. This framework works alongside the more conventional process,
output and outcome indicators. ‘
For this process the PIA framework has been used to outline the indicators used at community level and
provide for a qualitative assessment of increased resilience by community members. A group process has been
designed and tested, as has an individual survey instrument. Both will be reported on here.
In PIAs there are three basic questions:
1. What changes have there been in the community since the start of the project/process
2. Which of these changes are attributable to the projects
3. What differences have these changes made to people’s lives
Practice
Venue
Time
Contact
Person
Contact Details
Demo 1
(day 1)
Field cropping
UMxumbu location
9:30
Xolisa
Dwane
0790580774
Demo 2
(day 2)
Tunnel and bucket
Drip
Berlin. Izingisi
Education Centre-
No 6 Carl Pape street
8:30
Eddie Parichi
0782971373
/0436852040 Izingisi
Educational Project
Demo 3
(day 3
Tower Garden
Qunwini
09:00
Phindiwe
Msesiwe
0835926707
Impact indicators measure changes that occur in people’s lives and can be qualitative or quantitative. These
indicators look at the end result of project activities on people’s lives. Ideally, they measure the fundamental
assets, resources and feelings of people affected by the project. Therefore, impact indicators can include
household measures of income and expenditure, food consumption, health, security, confidence and hope.
Community impact indicators may be quantitative, such as income earned from crop sales, or qualitative, such
as improved skills, knowledge or social status.
Therefore, tracking changes in food, income and expenditure can often be a useful way of measuring impact
against community indicators of impact and against coping strategies.
1
PIAWORKSHOPOUTLINE
1.RECAPCLIMATECHANGEIMPACTS
Explore what people have noticed about impacts and make lists under headings: natural, physical,
economic, human and social
Group level brainstorming of ideas; written on cards under the headings given, with arrows for increase or
decrease
2.RECAPADAPTIVESTRATEGIES/PRACTICES
What have people been doing to adapt to this, fix the problems, make things better?
What can be done? (first look at hat has been done and then any further ideas of what can be done)
Elucidate adaptations for each category: natural, physical, economic human, social
Group level brainstorming; write on different cards (those done and those thought of) and place next to the
impact, indicate with a * which of these have been facilitated or introduced (and by whom) this can be other
farmers, projects, extension officers….
3.PRACTICES:RECAP5FINGERSANDLISTALLPRACTICESUNDEREACHCATEGORY
Re-introduce the 5 fingersconcept and include a further category of the whole hand which is the
social and personal
Which practices have been implemented (introduced and other)?
Go around in the circle and each person mentions what s/he has done (productive, economic, social,
personal actions) and what she would still like to try
Add these practices to the five fingers diagram
Make an A1 diagram of the five finger and then add practices on cards
Go through practices recommended through the DSS
Use cards with ranked practices from the DSS- describe and show the ones that people are not familiar
with.
Rank practices for next round of implementation
Rank the list of practices by a show of hands.
1
Catley A, Burns J, AdebeD and Suji O. 2014. ParticipatoryImpact Assessment: A Design Guide. Feinstein International Centre. Tufts
University, Somerville, USA.
4.WHATHAVEBEENTHECHANGESORBENEFITSFROMEACHPRACTICE
What changes have there been?
Brainstorming changes an interrogate to get to the more
How important are these changes to your lives? How do you decide? Which criteria would you use to
decide?
Do a matrix ranking: changes (in columns), criteria (in rows) Use proportional piling, working down
each column by asking “how important is this practice for the criteria” and comparing the practices
with each other (to an extent) as you go down the list…. Exercise is done in small groups of 5-8
participants
Below is an example of how this could look
Food
Income
Soil, water
Access, ease,
knowledge
Trench beds
Tunnels
CA
Cover crops
Legumes
Other crops;
potatoes, sweet
potatoes
Savings
Subsidised
inputs
Saving for inputs
Farmer centre
Small businesses
Learning group
Water
committee
6.EXPANDINGONPRACTICES
Introduce new practices for each of five fingers
Participants assess each practice (after deciding on criteria for how you decide this practice is useful?)
Eventually the whole exercise can be summarised in the table below
Natural
Physical
Economic
Human
Social
CC impacts
Adaptive
strategies
Actions/
practices
Changes due to
practices
Importanceof
these changes
to your
livelihood
7.EXAMPLEOFAPIAASSESSMENTOUTCOME:BERGVILLEKZN(2019)
Below a few of the outcomes of a PIA process conducted for a Climate Smart Agriculture learning group
consisting of participants from 5 different villages is summarised as an example.
PARTICIPATORYASSESSMENTOFCLIMATECHANGEIMPACT
Table 9: Climate change Impact assessed according to livelihoods indicators (Bergville;April 2019)
Natural
(environment and
farming
Physical
(infrastructure,
environment)
Economic
Human (Skills,
knowledge,
agency)
Social
(organisation,
cohesion)
Earthworms
disappear
Water shortages;
reduced flow in
streams and springs,
boreholes dry up
Food shortages
Increase in
diseases in
humans
No progress here
Degradation of veld
and reduced grazing
Severe erosion of
roads and damage to
houses by heavy
rainfall
Water shortages
at household
level
Farming is done
by older people;
the younger
people are lazy
People don’t
work together
Livestock break into
fields and eat crops
Dongas are
increasing in number
and size
Farming inputs
and services are
very expensive
Water borne
diseases from
drinking dirty
water
Traditional
leadership is no
longer respected
More diseases in
cattle, requiring
purchase of
medication and
vaccines and more
deaths
Damage to wetlands
from people building
there, overgrazing
and other uses.
Other
community
members steal
farmers’ produce
Contours in the
fields, that were
made many years
ago have not been
maintained causing
erosion in the fields
Severe erosion due
to denuding of land,
followed by heavy
rainfall
Learning groups;
some conflict in
some of the
learning groups
has reduced
participation.
More crop damage
from birds than
before
SOME GENERAL ADAPTIVE MEASURES PROPOSED
- Savings
- Rotational group saving for buying and putting up fencing
- Small businesses
- Buying fencing
- Request support for fencing and ask Government support as well although with
the latter participants are aware that Government support is unlikely.
COMMENTS ON PLANTING DATES
-People who planted in November- have struggled with lack of germination
- More germination for those who planted in December
- Spraying with Decis (pesticide against cutworms andstalk borer) helped with
germination and growth (more pests were present) and reduced eating of seed by
birds
- A few participants even planted in January and this worked quite well in this last
season
Dry soil
Seeds don’t
germinate
Extreme winds that
damage vegetation
and crops
More veld fires
More pests in crops
and new pests that
were not present in
the past
Fertilizer is
ineffective in hot, dry
conditions
Planting times for
crops are changing in
unpredictable ways
- One participant in Thamela mulched her whole field and planted in November and
has had promising germination and growth from this
-Participants also noted that beans did not grow at all, but the cowpeas have done
reasonably well, even under these difficult conditions.
It is difficult to make decisions about planting dates now that the climate is more
unpredictable.
The importance of crop residues to maintain soil moisture cannot be under-
estimated
There are small
water sources in
some people’s
homesteads, which
they refuse to share
with others
PARTICIPATORYASSESSMENTOFCLIMATESMARTPRACTICES
Participants described CSA practices they are using under the five fingers (soil, water, cropping (gardening and
field cropping, livestock and natural resource management. We decided also to include a further category -
social agency, or what they described as people management
Table 10: CSA practices implemented in the Bergville area 2017-2019
Soil
Water
Crop (garden and
field)
Livestock
Natural
Resources
People
Making compost
Drip irrigation
Diversified crops in
gardens; beetroot,
Chinese cabbage,
carrots, parsley,
thyme,
Vaccinations
Savings
Use of goat and
cattle manure
Mulching
Shade cloth tunnels
Dipping
Small
businesses
Canopy cover and
legumes (Lab-Lab)
Infiltration pits
Beds: raised beds,
trench beds, eco-
circles
Proper feed;
including from
fodder
produced
Farmer
centres
Diversified crops
to hold soil and
prevent erosion
Garden layout
with shallow
furrows for water
harvesting and
retention
Tower gardens
fertility and greywater
management
Addition of
supplements
Selling
chickens
Greywater
management
Conservation
agriculture; including
management of
residues
Limiting
burning of veld
Improved
irrigation
practices
Inter cropping and
crop rotation
Planting grass;
ungwengwe
and kikuyu
Rainwater
storage in JoJo
tanks and drums
Diversified crops in
fields; different
varieties of maize,
sorghum, millet,
legumes (e.g. cowpeas,
beans, Lab-lab), cover
crops
Spring protection
Use of Decis Forte
(Pyrethrins) for pest
control in fields
Buying JoJo tanks
and negotiating
Liquid manure
with water trucks
to fill these
Mixed cropping in
gardens
PARTICIPATORYASSESSMENTOFCHANGESANDBENEFITSFROMCSAPRACTICES
This exercise consisted of doing a matrix ranking of practices farmers have used in the past year; incorporating
gardening, field cropping, livestock management, soil and water conservation and water issues (access,
availability).
Impact indicators for this exercise were developed in 2 small groups by asking participants to outline how they
make decisions about which practices to use and what changes they would observe.
Below is a summary of the Matrix for each of the 2 small groups. A process of proportional piling was used for
the scoring of each practice and indicator where 100 counters were provided for each indicator and the small
group decided how these would be placed proportionally for each practice. In this way participants can
comment on; more or less, and how much more or less. The outcome of the exercise is quantifiable in terms of
gauging percentages.
MATRIX1
For this matrix the practices were conflated to encompass all specific practices within that category.
Conservation agriculture; minimal tillage, soil cover, crop diversification
Savings: Village saving and loan associations, rotational saving in small groups towards specific
infrastructural needs, personal savings
Livestock; fodder production, vaccinations, dipping, supplementation
Gardening; bed design (trench beds, eco-circles, raised beds, tower gardens, tunnels, mulching, mixed
cropping, crop diversification, inclusion of herbs, infiltration pits and water conservation furrows.
Crop rotation; 3-4 crop rotations in field cropping
Intercropping: grain-legume and grain -cover crop intercropping options in field cropping
Small businesses; including agricultural and non- agricultural businesses; sale of snacks in schools,
sewing, baking, poultry production, maize milling etc.
The impact indicators developed by this group are of particular interest as they are multi-dimensional talking
at least two different aspects for each indicator Additionally, the exercise was run so that each practice is
compared with the other practices when considering one of the indicators or criteria. This greatly increases the
value and reliability of the scores provided by the group.
Soil;
health
and
fertility
Money;
income
and
savings
Productivity;
acceptance
of practice,
saving in
farming
equipment,
labour
Knowledge;
increased
knowledge
and ability
to use
Food; how
much
produced and
how healthy
Water;
use
and
access
Social agency;
Support,
empowerment
Total
Conservation
Agriculture
22
21
26
28
18
23
18
156
Savings
6
15
14
15
12
11
15
88
Livestock
19
11
18
7
5
12
11
83
Gardening
14
15
12
13
15
17
21
107
Crop rotation
16
12
13
12
12
15
10
90
The overall impact on livelihoods (which is seen as the combination of the indicators chosen by the group) is
shown under the ‘total” column. From this, the participants clearly consider the Conservation Agriculture (CA)
process as the most significant, followed by gardening, small businesses, savings and livestock in decreasing
order.
MATRIX2
Money
Food
Fertility
Saving water
Total
Mulching
8
13
26
23
70
CA; Maize and bean
intercrop
11
23
20
15
69
Pipes for channelling
water to households
17
24
6
12
59
Trench beds
19
7
18
19
63
Using animal traction
13
19
6
15
53
CA; crop rotation
23
11
18
9
61
Tower gardens
9
4
6
7
26
Intercropping
12
13
15
12
11
11
9
83
Small
businesses
11
17
15
10
20
11
9
93
RESILIENCESNAPSHOTS
These are individual questionnaires that provide an in-depth assessment of the impact of the implementation
of CSA practices on a person’s livelihood. Proxy indicators for resilience are built up from the interview.
Below is an outline of the questionnaire
THEINDIVIDUALCLIMATECHANGERESILIENCEQUESTIONNAIRE
RESILIENCE SNAPSHOT
Date
Province
Village
Increased in
farming (Size)
Before
(Size in
sqm)
Now (Size
in sqm)
Comment: Percentage increase
Gardening
Field cropping
Livestock
Trees nat
resources
Increased
diversity in
farming
Y/N
before
Y/N now
Comment:
Gardening
Field cropping
Livestock
Trees, nat
resources
Increased
diversity (1)
Managem
ent and
practices
before
No
b4
No
now
What has
changed;
new crops
What has
changed; new
practices
What has
changed; ,
new
manageme
nt
Gardening
Field cropping
Livestock
Trees nat
resources
P a g e| 59
Types
BEFORE:
Quantity
(KG, No)
NOW:
Quantity
(KG,No)
Percent
age
increas
e
Increased
productivity
Gardening
(Amount in
kgs/tonnes,
10,20,50kg
bags/containers,
no of meals (for a
family)
Field cropping
Livestock
Trees nat
resources
Increase
Access
Inc
RWH
Inc water
holding
inc water
productivity
(irrigation)
SCALE
Increased water use
efficiency (incl RWH,
water holding, water
access, water
productivity)
0= same or worse than
before; 1= somewhat better
than before, 2= much better
than before
Increased
livelihood security
(income)
Income before
(ave monthly in
Rands)
Income now (Ave
monthly in Rands)
Comments
Increased
livelihood security
(Household
provisioning and
food security)
Food types (staples, veg,
livestock, fruit)
Quantity/
week (kg)
No of times/
week (1-7)
Sales/week
(in Rands)
Comments
P a g e| 60
Increased
livelihood
diversity/opti
ons
Income
options
Before
Income
options
Now
Comment; name new
options e.g. which
crops, etc
Scale
1=social grants; 2= remittances;
3=farming income;4= small
business
Amount per
month Before
Amount per
month Now
Use of savings
Scale
Savings (safety,
security,
achievement)
1=food; 2=household use;
3=education; 4= production;
5=other
Increased
growing season
Yes/no
Before
Yes/no Now
Comment
Gardening
Field cropping
Livestock
Trees nat
resources
Collaborative
actions/social
agency
Activities in groups Before-
name
Activities in
groups Now
E.g. savings, church, learning groups,
coops, farmers associations, work
teams, selling, inputs, farmers
centres water committees
Informed
decision
making
Information used to
choose activities Before
Information used to choose
activities Now
E.g. Other community
members, learning in
groups, written info, radio,
facilitators, extension
officers, etc
Positive
mindsets
Rate your
mindset
Before
Rate your
mindset
now
SCALE:0=less positive about the future; 1=the same;
2=more positive about the future; 3=much more positive
EXAMPLEOFARESILIENCESNAPHSHOTASSESMENTFOR6PARTICIPANTSINBERGVILLE,KZN
APRIL2019
Here the individual resilience assessments for 6 participants have been combined and summarised.
Summaries of the responses to specific questions are summarised in bullet point and tables.
P a g e| 61
LEARNINGANDCHANGE
WHATHAVEYOULEARNTABOUTDEALINGWITHCCANDCLIMATICEXTREMES?
I have learnt that practices such astrench beds and CA provide goodgrowth and yields,despite difficult
weather conditions. Also, these practices are cheap. We get more food than we did before and will now
be able to continue farming
Adaptive practices like mulching help to deal with increased heat and water stress
Practices such as trench beds, eco-circles, mulching and mixed cropping enables the soil to hold
moisture for longer and withstand the heat anddry spells.
WHATISYOUREXPERIENCEREGARDINGTHEIMPACTOFCCONYOURLIFE?
This season we had drought; the beans did not grow and maizeis stunted. I fear will not have enough
food
Cattle have been negatively impacted- more disease and deaths as grazing diminishes
The climate is changing; low rainfall during the planting season and high temperatures areaffecting
farming activities
I have not experienced climate change I do not have water issues (participant in Midlands of KZN)
Climate change has destabilised our planting patterns and has created a lot of uncertaintyabout
planting dates for both summer and winter crops
DOYOUSHAREYOURKNOWLEDGEANDEXPERIENCESWITHTHELEARNINGGROUPORCOMMUNITY
MEMBERS?
Yes, I talk to my neighbours about the gardening practices, so that they can also try and revive their
gardens
Yes, I have talked to neighbours, some come andvisit to see the garden and experiments and some
have even taken pictures.
Yes, I talk to my neighbours and friends and invite them to the learning group sessions if they are
not members yet.
HOWDOYOUSHARETHEKNOWLEDGEGAINEDWITHOTHERMEMBERSOFYOURCOMMUNITY?
Discussions at savings meetings, at the springs when we collect water
When people visit, I show them my garden
WHATHELPSYOUTOLEARNMOREABOUTNEWINNOVATIONSANDINFORMATION?
No
(N=6)
Comments
Listening to other farmers
experiences and experiments
6
I get motivated by other farmers’ work, get new ideas such as
planting potatoes in bags
By doing and experimenting in own
garden
4
This helps me to know how good the practices area, have tried
a no of experiments and included my own ideas
Motivated by other farmers work
and experiences
5
Learnt about raised beds in Msinga
Learning workshops
5
I find them useful because I always hear new information and
experiences form the facilitator and farmers
WHATNEWTHINGSHAVEYOUADDEDINTOYOURPRACTICES?HOWHASITWORKED?
I have not tried anything else new, outside of the practices we were taught; CA, trench beds, mulching,
mixed cropping, RWH, greywater management, seedling production
I have tried a u-shaped garden which helps to collect water, helping plants to grow better.
I have used some of the maizeand sunflower seed I grew in the CA trialsto feed myindigenous chickens;
this has helped for a better survival rate and even the ability to sell a few.
P a g e| 62
CLIMATESMARTPRACTICES
IMPACTSANDLESSONSLEARNT
Past issues
Past Practice
Present Practice
Impact and lessons
Livestock
Low
production
Bartered
indigenous
chickens
Selling indigenous
chickens locally
Feed too
expensive
to buy
Fed chickens’
scraps
Feed of sunflower
and crushed maize
seed from own
production
More chickens survive and grow
well making sales possible
Gardening
Low yield
and dry
beds
Raised beds
Trench beds and
raised beds
Better growth and yield,
increased water holding, beds
remain moist during hot periods,
beds hold water for a long time
fewer pests and diseases,
Fetched water
from communal
taps and springs
Also RWH and grey
water use
(unfiltered)
Saves water and time in fetching
water to irrigate
Mulch (dry grass)
Mulch retains moisture, but can
encourage termites
Buy seedlings
Seedling production
Increased number and types of
crops;
Standard veggies
New veggies and
herbs
There is demand in the village
for the new crops; kale, Chinese
cabbage, carrots, More and
different food for longer periods
in the year
Short season for
planting, or no
planting due to lack
of water
Winter planting
Grow crops in garden and in the
fields (sweet potatoes, potatoes)
Field
cropping
CA
Increased water holding and less
run-off, increased ability to
withstand drought
Intercropping
Increased availability of more
types of food,
Legumes
Increased yields
Cover crops
Increased soil health, Feed
availability for livestock
ASSESSMENTOFIMPACTFORCSAPRACTICESTRIEDOUTUSINGLOCALINDICATORS
-1 = worse than normal practice; 0=no change; 1=some positive change; 2=medium positive change; 3= high
positive change
Name of practice
Soil
Water
Productivity
Labour
Pest and
disease control
Cost and
maintenance
Livelihoods
Adaptation
1
Trench beds
2
2
3
-1
2
0
2
3
2
RWH
0
3
1
-1
0
-1
1
3
3
Mulching
2
2
3
0
3
0
1
2
P a g e| 63
4
Tower garden
2
3
3
2
0
0
2
2
5
Planting basins
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
7
Raised beds, with mulch
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
1
8
eco-circle
2
3
2
-1
1
0
1
1
9
CA; w intercropping, legumes,
cover crops
3
2
3
1
1
0
2
2
1o
Using goat manure
(composted in a kraal)
3
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
RESILIENCESNAPSHOT
This table is a summary of the overall questionnaire (in this case for 6 participants combined)
Resilience indicators
Rating for increase
Comment
Increase in size of farming
activities
Gardening 18%
Field cropping 63%
Livestock 31%
Cropping areas measured, no of livestock
assessed
Increased farming activities
No
Most participants involved in gardening, field
cropping and livestock management
Increased season
Yes
For field cropping and gardening- autumn
and winter options
Increased crop diversity
Crops: 12 new crops
Practices: 8 new practices
Management options include; drip irrigation,
tunnels, no-till planters, JoJo tanks, RWH
drums,
Increased productivity
Gardening 72%
Field cropping 79%
Livestock 25%
Based on increase in yields
Increased water use
efficiency
25%
Access, RWH, water holding capacity and
irrigation efficiency rated
Increased income
13%
Based on average monthly incomes
Increased household food
provisioning
Maize- 20kg/week
Vegetables 7kg/week
Food produced and consumed in the
household
Increased savings
R150/month
Average of savings now undertaken
Increased social agency
(collaborative actions)
2
Villages savings and loan associations and
learning groups
Increased informed decision
making
5
Own experience, local facilitators, other
farmers, facilitators, extension officers
Positive mindsets
2-3
More to much more positive about the
future: Much improved household food
security and food availability
P a g e| 64
REFERENCES
Africheck, 2018. FACTSHEET: South Africa’s official poverty numbers. URL:
https://africacheck.org/factsheets/factsheet-south-africas-official-poverty-numbers/ Accessed 2019/04/05
Arslan A (2014). Climate Smart Agriculture. Climate change, agriculture and food security. EPIC, FAO. Centre for
Development Innovation, WUR. September 17,2017. Powerpoint.
AWARD (2017). Progress Report. Quarter 2. 2016-2017 FY. Resilience in the Limpopo Olifants. Association for
Water and Rural Development. Available: www.award.org.za/project/resilience-in-the-limpopo-basin
Batty C. 2017. The New Face of Governance: How toCoactively Manage the New Sourcing Relationship.ISG
White Paper. Information Services Group, Inc.
Brock, K., & Pettit, J.(2007). Springs of Participation: Creating and Evolving Methods for Participatory
Development. Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action
Cousins B (2016). Why South Africa needs fresh ideas to make land reform areality. The Conversation: May 31,
2016. http://theconversation.com/why-south-africa-needs-fresh-ideas-to-make-land-reform-a-reality-60076
Dale, E. (1969) Audiovisual methods in teaching, third edition. New York: The Dryden Press;Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2013. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios Flagship Research
Programme (LTAS) for South Africa. Summary for Policy-Makers. Pretoria, South Africa.
DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2017. National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Republic of
South Africa. Pretoria. South Africa.
Denison J and Manona S (2007). Principles, Approaches and Guidelines for the Participatory Revitalization of
Smallholder Irrigation Schemes. Volume 2 of 2.WRC, Pretoria, South Africa.
Emirbayer, MandMische, A.1998.What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 4 (pp. 962-1023
).Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable .URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/231294
Accessed 2019/03/26
FAO, 2013. Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
2013
Fenton A, Reid H and Wright H (2015). Ten principles to help assess funding for local climate change adaptation.
IIED Briefing Pges 1-4.
Hansford, B ( 2010). Adaptation-protecting natural resources. Footsteps No 82, pp. 12-13.
Helmer Poggenpohl S. (2015). Communities of Practice in Design Research. She Ji: The Journal of Design,
Economics and Innovation, Vol 1, Issue1, Pages 44-57.
Hartmann M. (2009 ). Participatory Innovation Development and Extensionin Ethiopia: A Case Study.
Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting, InterContinental San Juan Resort.Puerto Rico: AIAEE.
P a g e| 65
IPCC (2014). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier,
B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Kruger E, & Gilles J. (2014). A Review of Participatory Agricultural Researchand Development in South Africa and
KwaZulu Natal.www.mahlathini.org.
Kruger E and Selala S (2017). AWARD. Resilience in the Limpopo-Olifants Programme. Agricultural Support
Initiative. Jointcommunity-based review of learnings to date and local facilitator training. Sedawa_20170424
-Internal report.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-42374-0.
Lotz-Sisitka H and Pesanayi T. (2019)Mediation Processes to support systems approaches to knowledge flow in
Water for Food Social Learning Networks. Rhodes University, South Africa. WRC ProjectNo K5/2713/4. Project
Title: Amanzi [water] for Food': Developing a social learning network approach toknowledge dissemination and
uptake in the agricultural learning system, focusing on the management, use and conservation of water for small
scale farming and household food production.
Manderson, A., Kubayi, N., & Drimie, S. (2016). The impact of the South African drought as experienced by
smallholder farmers over the June 2015-February 2016 period in the Mopani District of Limpopo, SouthAfrica.
(pp. 1-8). Stellenbosch: Agro-ecology Awareness Project, South African Food Lab.
McCarthy N and Brubaker J (2014). Climate-smart agriculture & resource tenure in Sub-Saharan Africa: a
conceptual framework, Rome, FAO.
National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (2002). Retrieved from Community of Practice Design Guide: a step by
step guide for designing and cultivating communitiesof practice in higher education.:
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/nli0531.pdf
Nay J A, Chu E, Gallagher Dand Wright, H. (2014). A review of decision-support models for adaptation to climate
change in the context. Climate and Development (6:4, DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2014.912196), 357-367.
New C. 2007. Structure, Agency and Social Transformation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 24(3) (pp.
187 205). DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1994.tb00252.x
Rai S and Shrestha P.K. 2006. Guidelines to participatory innovation development. Accessed 4 April2019.
http://www.eldis.org/documents/A45474
SARVA (2013). South African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas (Department of Science and Technology, Pretoria 2013)
Shaxson L, Bielak A, Ahmed I, Brien D, Conant B, Fisher C, Gwyn E, Klerkx L,Middleton A, Morton S, Pant L and
Phipps D. (2012) Expanding Our Understanding of K*. In UNU-INWEH.K* 2012 Conference, Hamilton,ON,
Canada, April, 2012.
StatsSA, 2017. Key findings: 03-00-14 -Food Security in South Africa,2017.URL:
http://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1856&PPN=03-00-14&SCH=7665 Accessed 2019/04/05
P a g e| 66
Thompson, K 2012. The five major theories of how people "learn": a synopsis.in Think Differently. URL:
http://www.bioteams.com/2012/11/05/the_five_major.html.Accessed 2019/03/26
Ulrichs M, Cannon T, Newsham A, Naess L andMarshall M. (2015). Working Paper 108: Climate Change & Food
Security Vulnerability Assessment Toolkit for assessing community-led adaptation.Biodiversity International &
Institute of Development Studies, CGIAR/CCAFS.
Wettasinha C, Wongtschowski M, andWaters-Bayer A. (2009). Recognising local innovation:Experience of
PROLINNOVA partners. Silang, Cavite, the Philippines: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction / Leusden:
PROLINNOVA International Secretariat, ETC EcoCulture. 66pp.