WRC-ESS Annual Progress Report Deliverable 3 | Mahlathini Development Foundation

Water Research Commission

Research Project C2019/2020-00150

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES:

UNDERSTANDING THE INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN WATER, ECOSYSTEMS AND SOCIETY

THROUGH SPATIAL MAPPING OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS

ANNUAL PROGRESSREPORT

Deliverable 3

Draft submitted

03 August2022

Table of content

1. Introduction4

1.1 Local context to the study area and connection to existing projects7

1.2 Project aims, outcomes and methods9

2. Assessment of Rainfall and Water Quantity: Progress to date and way forward11

2.1 Rainfall monitor11

2.2 Temperature monitor14

2.3 Streamflow monitor15

2.4 Way forward16

3. Mapping of land use and ecosystem services: Progress to date and wayforward18

3.1 Participatory mapping18

3.2 Way forward25

4. Ecosystem health and functioning mapping: Progress to date and way forward26

4.1 Ezibomvini Village 26

4.2 Costone Village33

4.3 Veld Condition Assessment Report39

4.3.1 Introduction39

4.3.2 Methodology40

4.3.2.1 Site description40

4.3.2.2 Data Collection42

4.3.3 Results44

4.3.3.1 Veld Condition Score45

4.3.3.1.1 Ezibomvini45

4.3.3.1.2 Costone45

4.3.4 Discussion46

4.3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations47

4.4 Way forward48

5. Decisions and social-cultural factors: Progress to date and way forward49

5.1 Decision making in Costone50

5.2 Way forward52

6. Co-learning for sustainable management of land and water: Progress to date and way forward53

6.1 Multi-stakeholder engagement53

6.1.1 Multi-stakeholder Adaptive Planning Process Workshop56

6.2 “Water village walks”58

6.3 Spring protection and reticulation59

6.4 E.coli testing60

6.5 EcoChamps60

6.6 Way forward61

7. Annual Reporting63

7.1 Capacity building63

7.1.1 Community63

7.1.2 Organization63

7.1.3 Postgraduate students63

7.2 Knowledge dissemination64

7.3 Work plan65

7.3.1 Timeline of aims65

7.3.2 Deliverables65

7.3.3 Work plan 2022/202366

8. References67

9. Appendices72

Appendix 1.72

Appendix 2.75

Appendix 3.76

1. Introduction

Sustainable land management for water, food and ecosystem services is crucial, and particularly

challenging, in degraded, water scarce and natural resources dependent communities, such as the

agricultural villages in the Drakensberg, KwaZulu-Natal. These communities are often disproportionately

impacted by socio-economic hardships, as well as climate variability and weather-related hazards. Such

communities have evolved to deal with environmental and socio-economic disturbances that have shaped

livelihood strategies over generations (Ostrom 1990). Despite decades of initiatives to improve livelihoods

and long-term sustainability of different rural and indigenous communities globally, the successes of

implementation are disparate and seemingly highly context-dependent. Scholars have set out to

investigate success factors in the implementation of these innovations. Increased participation by

stakeholders and community members, co-management and integration of knowledge systems have

been suggested to positively impact the implementation of natural resource management strategies

(Reed et al. 2009, Tengö et al. 2014). It has been found that factors such as power imbalances, poor

income distribution and gender inequities, as well as external and internal disturbances undermine

sustainability, and thus, impede the potential of successful outcomes of community-based natural

resource management strategies (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2018). Repeated evidence that the success of

such innovations are greatly context-dependent, suggests that there is a gap in the understanding of how

the factors that make these smallholder communities contextually different influences the land

management decisions. These communities are largely characterized by their cultural and historical

legacies that shape human-nature relationships within specific cultural and institutional contexts, which

in turn influencecollaboration around these resources (Cockburn et al. 2020). Accounting for the diversity

of social-cultural values, attitudes and understanding of human-nature relationships increases the

context-sensitivity in decision making processes such as land and natural resource management, but is

often overlooked in both science and policy (Muhar et al. 2018). Motivations behind decisions are rooted

in different social-cultural concepts such as worldviews, collective traditions and experiences, beliefs and

values, and play out both in individual and collective decision makingprocesses. While conventional

approaches to natural resource management have taken on technical problem solving processes, many

scholars have recently argued that when drawing on theories and methods from social sciences, the

human dimensions of natural resource management and environmental conservation can be better

understood (Charnley et al. 2017). Although scholars propose frameworks and models to account for

social-cultural concepts to improve the implementation and success of natural resource and land

management, the methodological applications still need to be tested in real cases.

Decisions on natural resources are linked to the property regime of the land being managed and are

commonly categorized into four basic regimes: open access, private property, communal property and

state property (Feeny et al. 1990). This categorization is useful for theoretical analysis but reality is often

more complex with combinations of these regimes; overlapping or conflicting. Communal property, or

common-property, is commonly the dominant property regime of smallholder communities such as those

in focus in this project. In theory, natural resources produced within common-property regimes are

managed by and accessible to a given community, where rights of equal access and use are shared by the

community members. However, in practice, access to resources is often not equal. In the South African

context, post-apartheid land tenure reforms ensured the retention of indigenous or customary authority

over communal land by establishing traditional authorities to govern the communities’ land and natural

resources. Rapid socio-economic and political change since the colonial era, which is when the policy of

traditional land tenure was established, has led to inequitable power structures in communities

(Benjaminsen et al. 2006). This is manifested through both formal and informal agreements and kinship

networks that influence community members’ access to land and natural resources. Powerful actors have

an advantage over the impoverished, and women often lack opportunities to control and manage land

(Cousins 2009). The combination of traditional authority over communal land, and national legislation and

policy adds further complexity to the issues of decision making towards long-term sustainability and

resilience in land use management.

Central to addressing the gap of understanding factors influencing decisions made by individuals and

collectives for land and natural resources management, is to investigate the human dimensions,

psychology and mental models around the human-nature relationship. ‘Social-cultural concept’ in this

context is a term used by Muhar et al. (2018), amongst others, to describe the worldviews, collective

traditions and experiences, beliefs, values and attitudes in relation to nature. This concept is often missing

in social-ecological systems research and natural resource management, but it is inherent in decisions

made by individuals or the collective. Having an understanding of what land usesare present and what

management strategies are in place is not sufficient for developing resilient and sustainable co-

management of the resources in smallholder agricultural communities. The multifaceted dynamics

between individual and collective decisions around the use and management of land, water and natural

resources determine the success of the same (Kenter et al. 2016). Therefore, social-cultural concepts that

shape individual and collective decisions must be considered in studies and policies targeted towards long-

term sustainability.

Scientific advancement behind natural resource management is increasingly being created using

sustainability science, social-ecological systems and resilience thinking approaches. Sustainability science

is inherently transdisciplinary, and participatory multi-method approaches are often required to address

the complex human-nature interactions that occur within social-ecological systems (Binder et al. 2013,

Pacheco-Romero et al. 2020). Fundamental to the theory of social-ecological systems is the notion that

feedback between social and ecological systems are interdependent and interact at various spatial and

temporal scales (Guerrero et al. 2018). Although water forms part of a social-ecological system, its

integrating and fundamental characteristics calls for additional emphasis in water focused research and

management. This project uses a novel conceptual framework where the water domain obtains explicit

attention within a social-ecological systems approach (Figure 1.1). This novel approach includes analysis

of components therein, and the feedbacks between, the coupled systems of water, ecosystems and

society. This three-domain framework encompasses and draws on concepts and methods from the

dominating disciplines withineach of the domains separately, as well as the interfaces between the

domains as follows: Water-Society: Sustainable management and use of water resources is the focus of

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), which fundamentally draws on the scientific

understanding of the process-based modelling and the dynamic interactions and feedbacks in coupled

human-water systems (socio-hydrology). Ecosystem-Water: There are also interlinkages between the

hydrological processes and the ecosystem functions (two-way dependencies), which is studied within the

field of eco-hydrology. Ecosystem-Society: Societies’ dependency on ecosystems for their well-being and

livelihoods is commonly assessed through the concept of ecosystem services, typically studied using a

social-ecological systems theory.

Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework: coupled water-ecosystem-society systems analysis.

The concept of ecosystem services has moved from predominantly being used for raising public awareness

around biodiversity and habitat conservation, or highlighting the economic values of ecosystems to

society, to become a mainstream paradigm that expresses the diverse sets of benefits and values humans

attribute to human-nature interactions (Peterson et al. 2018). Ecosystem services, being the benefits

humans obtain from interacting with ecosystems, relate to many dimensions of human well-being. These

interactions, between the natural environment, human skills and decisions, technology and

infrastructure, social-cultural organization and institutions, result in the co-production of ecosystem

services (Duraiappah et al. 2014). The resilience of ecosystem services is the capacity of a social-ecological

system to reliably sustain a desired set of ecosystem services, in the face of disturbanceand ongoing

evolution and change. Building resilience of a smallholder agricultural community by focusing on the long-

term provision of ecosystem services is a means to sustain livelihoods and the human well-being of its

inhabitants – a task critical in South Africa, and Africa as a whole. Novel ways of assessing different kinds

of ecosystem services (e.g. provisional, regulating and cultural), as well as linking them to livelihood

strategies, makes the ecosystem service concept particularly useful for exploring human-nature benefits

and values associated with different kinds of land uses, property regimes and social-cultural contexts

(Henriksson Malinga et al. 2018).

The research conducted in this project will result in analysis of all the components: water resources and

hydrological processes, ecosystem functions and ecological processes, and people’s and societies’

resource use, management and dependence, as well as cross-domain dynamics. This research will obtain

a comprehensive understanding of not only the natural resource base, but also the socio-economic

benefits the communities obtain from natural resources such as water and ecosystems, within the

communities and in the protected areas nearby. In addition, the social learning approach can provide for

more informed decision making about appropriate adaptive measures to ameliorate negative impacts and

synergise for positive re-enforcements in the social-ecological system. This transdisciplinary research

seeks to generate novel scientific knowledge to guide sustainable management of water resources and

promote equitable development. This, thirddeliverable of the project, coversannual reporting, minutes

from the latest reference group meeting held on May 24th2022, andprogress to date detailing the

multiple activities carried out and the interim findings thereof. The three main activities completed since

the last deliverable is installation of spring protection and reticulation for households in Costone (Aim 5),

a veld assessment in Costone and Ezibomvini (Aim 3), and a multi-stakeholder Adaptive Planning Process

(APP) workshop held in Bergville on June 14th 2022(Aim 5). The report further outlines a work plan and

how the project is meeting its capacity building targets.

1.1 Local context to the study area and connection to existing

projects

The uKhahlamba Drakensberg mountains, KwaZulu-Natal, is a protected area that encompasses

transboundary national parks, game reserves, wilderness areas, and includes declaration of both Ramsar

wetland importance andUNESCO World Heritage Site. These areas are home to rich biodiversity of

endemic and threatened species and habitats, and also host long-term research on grassland

management, soil conservation, and fire regime research. There are distinct fence line effects between

the protected areas and the nearby communities, but the dynamics between the two sides of the fence

in terms of benefits or threats, are not scientifically explored - a gap that this project seeks to address.

Further, the uKhahlamba Drakensbergis a key water source area in South Africa, and provides water to

Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal. It is of national priority to manage and protect this water source to sustain

supply to the end users. Within the uKhahlamba Drakensberg are the long-term Cathedral Peak research

catchments where extensive, interdisciplinary monitoring and observation is ongoing focused on the

impacts of global environmental change, water, carbon, biodiversity and energy. Research has shown the

rainfall in the Cathedral Peak catchments to be declining, with greater declines evident in the streamflow.

Changes have been shown in the fire regime overtime as well. Beyond this, the research in the catchments

is improving our understanding of hydrological processes. The knowledge that hasbeen generated about

the hydrology/hydro-meteorology of Cathedral Peak nature reserve (CPNR) has benefited the

management of the reserve, regional and national water planning but has not been of direct benefit to

the impoverished, water insecure communitydownstream of the reserve who have a fundamental right

to access the resource. These communities, whose livelihoods largely depend on natural resources and

the land they are managing, receive only small pockets of ad hoc support from provincial Government

Departments such as KZNDARD and DSD and civil society organizations. The Uthukela District Municipality

(UTDM) (11 326.12 sq km in extent and has a population of approximately 724 000 people) oversees and

coordinates social and economic development as well as water and health services for the three Local

Municipalities under its jurisdiction (Okhahlamba, Alfred Duma and Inkosi Langalibalele). Due to lack of

resources and other factors, the communities in this area have received little to no support relatedto

water services in their villages, relying instead on very old infrastructure (pre 1994) and undeveloped

water sources (springs and small streams) for their household water needs. There is no focus at all on

agricultural and landscape-based water resource management. Climate change mitigation and adaptation

processes have been limited to training and awareness within municipal structures, to enable

development of environmental management plans. Could the research and monitoring in the CPNR be of

direct benefit and be used in the communities decision making to lessen their water insecurity? Further,

could an understanding of the multiple benefits of high quality water result in opportunities where the

community could be compensated for ensuring that the quality of the water does not significantly decline

as it moves downstream? Research into the dynamic interrelationships between and within the water-

ecosystem-society domains will help explore answers to these questions.

Smallholder farmers in these communities rely heavily on their natural resource base to support their

non-commercial to semi-commercial maize and livestock-based farming systems. Irrigation infrastructure

is virtually non-existent although some individuals use local sources for vegetable production at

household level. Grazing management systems are managed by the traditional authorities and for the

most part is limited to setting annual dates for the cycles of livestock being moved into the mountain

grazing areas (summer) and being allowed back into the village confines (winter). Within this context it is

imperative for the local communities to understand and to start grappling with their resource

management issues and to garner as much support for these processes as they can. Given the very high

levels of poverty in the area, these communities cannot be expected to implement these processes on

their own, but they can go a long way towards jointly setting their priorities of action and undertaking

joint and collaborative activities within theirambit of influence. Mahlathini Development Foundation

(MDF) is a small NGO working in pro-poor agricultural innovation systems who have been supporting

smallholders in 20 villages (~550 direct participants, ~3000 beneficiaries) in the Okhahlamba LM. Local

understanding, planning and implementation of climate smart agroecological practices, linked to local

value chains and economic development can increase people’s adaptive capacity and resilience in the face

of further change. To this end, MDF and their partners have been working with two processes: i) Creating

awareness and appropriate models for implementation of Conservation Agriculture in conjunction with

Grain SA in KZN and the EC (2013 -2019) and ii) Designing and implementation of a decision support

system for smallholder farmer in implementation of a locally appropriate basket of climate smart

agriculture practices in conjunction with the Water Research Commission (2017-2020). The importance

of also including broader natural resource and water management concerns into these processes have

already been noted and initial steps have been taken with the learning groups involved to focus on these

issues; primarily fodder flow and grazing management for livestock and access to and management of

water resources for micro scale irrigation. These processes have provided a strong entry point into these

communities for the exploration and adaptive planning related to integrated water resource management

and ecosystem services that this project undertakes.

This research builds on knowledge gained through several projects involving the lead and collaborating

organizations, including the Mahlathini led WRC funded project “Collaborative knowledge creation and

mediation strategies for the dissemination of Water and soil conservation practices and Climate Smart

Agriculture in smallholder farming systems (K5/2719/4), and the project “Establishment of a More Robust

Observation Network to Improve Understanding of Global Change in the Sensitive and Critical Water

Supply Areaof the Drakensberg” (K5/2236), led by the CWRR. The research in this project further relates

to other projects implemented through CWRR and SAEON, as well as outreach activities by Ezemvelo KZN

Wildlife. SAEON is furthermore leading the establishment of the Expanded Freshwater and Terrestrial

Environmental Observation Network (EFTEON). EFTEON is a research infrastructure intended to provide

a platform of well-described and instrumented landscapes to the South African and International research

community, within which our project falls under the Northern Drakensberg Landscape.

UKZN, through the Centre for Water Resources Research, forms part of the African Research Universities

Association (ARUA) Water Centre of Excellence (CoE) along with several other South African and African

Universities. Through the Water CoE, the CWRR is involved with work on catchment restoration and

rehabilitation in a project led by the Institute of Natural Resources (INR) and Umgeni Water in the upper

uMkhomazi. There are thematic synergies between the two projects on sustainable management of land

and water resources, and cross-learning and sharing of knowledge will occur between the two project

teams.Furthermore, the study area of this projects falls within the South African National Biodiversity

Institute (SANBI) Thukela Catchment Living Catchment Project under which collaboration and co-learning

is taking place within a multi-stakeholder engagement process. Recently, the INR, MDF, and CWRR-UKZN

haveentered into a collaboration with the WWFto establish a Strategic Water Source Partnership (SWSP)

for the Northern Drakensberg with particular focus on the upper uThukela. The SWSP will implement work

related toclimate resilience agricultureand thecontrol of alien invasive plantsas well as supporting

stakeholder engagement.

1.2 Project aims, outcomesand methods

The aims of the project are as follows:

●Aim 1. To assess and quantify changes in rainfall patterns and water quantity over time to

inform communities’ decision making.

●Aim 2. To develop a transdisciplinary social-ecological GIS support tool for decision making and

management of water and natural resources and link land uses with ecosystem services and

livelihoods.

●Aim 3. To survey ecosystem health and functioning including biodiversity of community land

based on the needs of the communities for their ecosystem services and livelihoods.

●Aim 4. To improve the understanding of local decision making and resource use and

management and identify the social-cultural factors that influence decisions.

●Aim 5. To design and test a framework for supporting innovation and decision making for

sustainable resource use management and improved livelihood opportunities.

The five aims are corresponding to the five components, described in short as; 1. Rainfall and water

quantity, 2. Map layers of land use, ecosystem services and livelihoods, 3. Ecosystem health and

functioning, 4. Decisions and social-cultural factors, and 5. Co-learning for sustainable management of

land and water. Figure 1.2 provides an overview of how the aims correspond with the expected outcomes

and methods. The progress and methods are further outlined and clarified in sections 2-6.

Figure 1.2. Overview of the five aims and how they relate to the outcomes and methods.

2. Assessment of Rainfall and Water Quantity: Progress to

date and way forward

The first aim of this project is:

-To assess and quantify changes in rainfall patterns and water quantity over time to inform

communities’ decision-making.

This aim relates to outcome 1.1 which focuses on understanding of the water resource (changes of water

quality, quantity, streamflow, recharge potential, sediment load). To achieve this aim, the

hydroclimatological data from the Cathedral Peak research catchments was assessed to determine any

changes over time that have occurred.

The Cathedral Peak Research catchments were established in 1945 for the purpose of investigating the

influence of land management treatments on streamflow response. The catchments were highly

influential in informing water policy in South Africa, particularly as it relates to afforestation. In 1995 (and

earlier at some stations), due to a lack of funding, monitoring ceased in the Cathedral Peak catchments.

Recognising the value of the historical data from the catchments for assessing long term change, the

SAEON Grasslands-Wetlands-Forests node became actively involved in the landscape in 2011, and over

time intensified the monitoring the catchment and formally registering the Cathedral Peak research

catchments as a Long Term Ecological Research site.

An updated assessment of the hydroclimatological data is presented below. The long term data including

the historical period is presented, and qualitative comparisons drawn at this stage. Each month, SAEON

releases a rainfall and streamflow monitor for the catchments, the latest versionavailable of this is

included. The current hydrological season is not yet completed, and will only be presented in the next

deliverable.

2.1 Rainfall monitor

The SAEON Grasslands node has monitored rainfall for a full nine (2012/2013 - 2020/2021) hydrological

years (Oct - Sept) in the Cathedral Peak catchments. The primary weather station site, both now and in

the historical period, is the Mike’s Pass weather station. The annual rainfall totals for the hydrological

years that have been monitored (Figure 2.1) have been lower than the historical mean (1 392 mm) taken

as the period 1951 – 1980 except for the 2020 hydrological year. The mean was taken for this period as

the confidence in the data was high. The gap in the data between 1990 and 2012 at the Mike’s Pass station

limits the analyses. Thus, using the SAWS station at the Cathedral Peak hotel, the Mike’s Pass station was

patched for the period 1990 to 2011. The differences in altitude, localised rainfall events characteristic of

the area, and only having one gauge available to patch from, implies that the patching is not ideal and is

associated with high uncertainty. The annual rainfall anomalies from the 1951– 1980 mean for the full

period including patched data are shown in Figure 2.2. Given the short current record period and the

concerns about the quality of the patched record, no trend analysis has been undertaken.

Figure 2.1: Annual (hydrological years) rainfall anomaly for the Mike’s Pass meteorological station

During the drought experienced in the early 1980’s (1979 - 1984), the lowest annual rainfall total

experienced was 792 mm in 1984, and relative to the historical mean the total deviation for the six-year

period was 1 677 mm. During the more recent drought (2014 - 2019), the lowest annual rainfall total was

765 mm in 2018, the lowest annual rainfall total on record for the site. Although the difference between

the total in 1984 and that in 2018 isrelatively small, it is the total deviation for the more recent six-year

period of 2 120 mm that indicates the severity of the more recent drought relative to the 1980’s drought.

Further to this, the more recent drought comes on the back of two years of below average rainfall (2012

and 2013). The most recent hydrological year (Oct 2020 – Sept 2021) was wetter than the historical

average by 200 mm. To provide context, the standard deviation of the historical annual rainfall is 206 mm,

thus although wetter the most recent year was within one standard deviation of the historical annual

rainfall.

The monthly rainfall monitor to the end of December 2021 is provided in Figure 2.3. The above average

rainfall for the 2020/2021 hydrological year is due to the above average monthly rainfall at the start of

the 2020/2021 summer season. The winter months of the 2020/2021 were drier than average, as has

been noted for the other hydrological years since the start of the contemporary record at the site.

Figure 2.2: Annual (hydrological years) rainfall anomaly for the Mike’s Pass meteorological station for the

full period 1949 – 2020 using a combination of in-situ gauged data and infilled data

Figure 2.3: Monthly rainfall anomaly for the Mike’s Pass meteorological station

2.2 Temperaturemonitor

The mean annual temperature at the Mike’s Pass weather station since monitoring resumed in 2012 has

been above the historical (1951 - 1980) mean average temperature, and has been greater than the mean

by more than 0.5 ⁰C each year with 2015 and 2019 being more than 1.5 ⁰C warmer than the historical

mean average temperature (Figure 2.4).

The monthly mean temperature anomaly for the current period is shown in Figure 2.5. The monthly mean

temperature has generally been greater than the historical mean of the monthly average temperature,

especially during the winter months. Interestingly, the month of October in the current period has often

been colder than the historical mean for October (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.4: Annual mean temperature anomaly for the Mike’s Pass meteorological station

Figure 2.5: Monthly mean temperature anomaly for the Mike’s Pass meteorological station

2.3 Streamflow monitor

Majozi (2017) showed a declining trend in the streamflows for Cathedral Peak, Catchment IV from 1950

to 1995. With the current streamflow period becoming longer, with a full seven hydrological years of

streamflow data now available for the current period an analysis of the trends in flow will be undertaken

in this project in the nextyear.

As expected, the streamflow responses lag the rainfall experienced as they are moderated by the soil and

groundwater stores. The annual streamflow anomaly for the historical and current record period relative

to the 1961 - 1987 mean for Catchment VI, Cathedral Peak is shown in Figure 2.6. The lowest annual

streamflow on record was experienced in the hydrological year of 2018, in alignment with the lowest

annual rainfall total. During the current meteorological drought period, the streamflows in 2016and 2017

were above normal. The reasoning for this is related to the pattern of the rainfall experienced, the

unusually wet July of 2016 and the February 2017 which was 200 mm wetter than the historical average

for February. In alignment with the above average rainfall during the 2020/2021 hydrological year, the

streamflow was above normal.

The monthly streamflow anomaly for the current period (Figure 2.7) reflects the same pattern as the

annual streamflow graph, showing the influence of the wet July 2016 and February 2017 on the flows. As

well as the influence of the wet start to the summer rainfall season of 2020/2021, where the rainfall in

October 2020 to January 2021 was above normal resulting in the above normal flows in January and

February 2021.

Figure 2.6: Annual (hydrological years) streamflow anomaly for Catchment VI, Cathedral Peak

2.4 Way forward

The temperature, rainfall and streamflow monitors for the Cathedral Peak area will continue to be

produced on a monthly basis. How the information is prepared for the communities will be altered

through consultation with the project team and community learning groups. In addition, the data from

the MDF weather stations in the larger study area will be included and assessed.

Further indices to describethe patterns in the climate and associated variables such as fire risk, have been

produced and are being considered as possible inclusions based on community interests. The ACRU

agrohydrological model has been configured for the catchment area with broad information. The

information gathered through the mapping exercise (Section 4) will be used to improve the model

configuration in the next two months.

Figure 2.7: Monthly streamflow anomaly for Catchment VI, Cathedral Peak

3. Mapping of land use and ecosystem services: Progress to

date and wayforward

The second aim of this project is:

-To develop a transdisciplinary social-ecological GIS support tool for decision making and

management of water and natural resources and link land uses with ecosystem services and

livelihoods.

This aim relates to outcomes 2.1-2.5 as follows:

Outcome 2.1: Map of locally redefined land use, “social-ecological patches”

Outcome 2.2: Map of ecosystem services and livelihoods

Outcome 2.3: Understanding of gaps and priorities

Outcome 2.4: Overview of current management strategies and limitations

Outcome 2.5: Identification of power dynamics and inequitable access

To achieve this aim a series of maps is being created into a comprehensive GIS support tool for decision

making, compiling data from all the three domains water, ecosystem and society. These maps will provide

opportunities for multi-dimensional spatial analysis for identification of multi- and transdisciplinary

feedbacks, synergies and trade-offs between components of the three domains. Available land use/land

cover maps are typically produced at course resolutions, based on satellite imagery, secondary data and

assumptions. These maps are useful for large-scale landscape and development planning and regional

land management. However, in order to create more locally relevant land use maps for local decision-

making, verification, ground-truthing and re-classification of land uses are needed. The methods being

used in order to achieve this aim are a combination of methods drawing from multiple disciplines, across

natural, social and sustainability sciences. These include GIS, participatory mapping with transect/village

walks, focus-group discussions. COVID19 restrictions have resulted in a delay in fieldwork required for the

maps, however some progress has taken place and interim findings are being presented here and in

section 4.

3.1 Participatory mapping

Three participatory mapping exercises have been taken place in each of the communities Ezibomvini and

Costone; one group with women, one with men and one with decision makers (i.e. people in the

communities involved in decision making processes such as grazing or water committees), between

September 2021 and January 2022. Motives for having separate groups with men and womenare two-

fold; firstly, the differential use and dependencies of resources and parts of the landscapes between men

and women are important to understand and captured. Gendered activities such as livestock herding

carried out by men, and fetching water thatis usually women’s responsibilities, are enabled to be

discussed at more depth if the groups are separated. Secondly, persistent power dynamics between men

and women can affect the confidence and freedom to express ones views and perceptions by women in

the presence of men.

High-resolution satellite images sourced from Google Earth were used in order for the workshop

participants to mark and identify relevant places, land uses, ecosystem services and features in their

community landscapes. These images were printed out on A3 papers and mounted on a flip chart and the

questions/discussion followed a guide found in Appendix 1. The boundaries that were marked out by the

community leaders and members during the inception field visit to the communities were confirmed or

revised as a start.

Table 3.1 (Costone) and Table 3.2 (Ezibomvini) provide overviews of some of the reflections and

comments that were gathered during the workshops, as well as what features were discussed and marked

in the maps. Processing of all the rich qualitative and GIS data that was collected during these workshops

are underway. The information presented below should therefore be considered only parts of the

findings. Figure 3.1 shows an example of a map being created during the workshop with men in Costone,

and Figure 3.2 the initial data processing into a google earth satellite image. Figure 3.3 similarly shows an

example of a map created during the workshop with women in Ezibomvini, and Figure 3.4 the initial data

processing into a google earth satellite image.

Table 3.1 A selection of reflections and comments gathered during three participatory workshops in

Costone, with women, men and decision-makers respectively.

Step

Women (n=9)

Men (n=8)

Decision makers (n=7)

Identify natural

resources and land

uses

Livestock also graze within the

homestead

No specific area allocated as

cemetery but bury around their

homestead

No specific place for

medicinal plants collection -

everywhere on the landscape

Many do cropping

No specific place for medicinal

plants collection - everywhere

on the landscape

Thatch grass is only found along

the edges of the cropping fields

but when fields are cultivated

Identify areas of

inadequate supply

Some women used to collect

firewood from KwaKhanyile

forest but restricted now

The small dam is silted - sand

and plastics. If the dam could

be rehabilitated, it can help in

irrigating their cropping fields

The road to ehlathini

elimpunga is eroded, they can

no longer go and collect

firewoods, poles for funerals

and construction

They only get water from

springs and no taps

They mark an area no longer

used for livestock grazing

because of stock theft

Several degraded areas were

marked on the map

Road to Ehlathini elimpunga is

eroded and dongas formed. It is

difficult to get to the cropping

field near ihlithi elimpunga

The old road is no longer

working because of soil and gully

erosion and a wetland has

formed around that area.

The road that goes up to the

mountain on the way to

KwaMnukwa is eroded and the

oxes can't get upto load the

poles or ungcuba.

Water sources that no longer

have water or in short supply

were noted

Identify restricted

areas and unequal

access to resources

No restricted place within their

surrounding

Women are only restricted in

the kraal at their household as

part of the culture

The forest called UMntwana

and KwaKhanyile are restricted

for only collecting poles that

are used in funerals

The forest called UMntwana

is restricted for only collecting

poles that are used in

funerals.

Livestock grazing iscommunal

The forest called UMntwana is

restricted. Only for collecting

poles for funerals.

Priorities/needs of

community on land

use and natural

resources

Water is essential to them

Fence the cropping fields

Fence cropping area

Maintain the springs

Some of the springs are

drying up on winter and dug

out in summer - e.g.

umthombo ngakwa Miya

nakwaMabaso

The need a cropping field area to

be fenced to prevent livestock

and begin to cultivate again

They also want a fence along the

main road to prevent livestock

from entering the homestead

Suggestions for

managing land and

water resources

sustainably and

equitable

Need policy to manage

resources equally and

sustainably

Check how much water is

available and protect it

Install a tank at the top of the

mountain and connect a pipe

that provides water, big

enough for everyone to get

water.

No one should collect water for

washing clothes but instead do

the laundry by the river

Elect one person to open and

close the tank at agreed times

Work together

Community members should

be an eye to everything

Community should work

together. Decisions should be

taken together. Agree together

as community on things that

help them

the community will sit down and

have a discussion about

protecting and managing their

resources and come out with

laws

Additional

reflections

Women know their area very

well, especially places where

they collect firewoods, washing

clothes and water sources

(springs)

They are afraid of entering the

intact forest called Umntwana

omkhulu

Grazing areas, dip, forest,

cropping fields identified as

important to men.

Umntwana omkhulu

nomncane are

indigenous/natural forest

Empungeni is gumtree

plantation

The contractor that put fence

in the area separated the

cropping fields and

This group was able to identify

many degraded areas such as

eroded roads

homesteads but placed the

fence incorrectly.

There is an area where they

collect medicinal plants but

restricted and outside their

boundary.

Figure 3.1 An example of a map being created during the participatory workshop with men in Costone.

Figure 3.2 Initial data processing from participatory mapping workshop with decision makers in Costone.

Work still in progress thus missing features and labels.

Table 3.2 A selection of reflections and comments gathered during three participatory workshops in

Ezibomvini, with women, men and decision-makers respectively.

Step

Women (n=6)

Men (n=7)

Decision makers (n=17)

Identify natural resources

and land uses

No wetland - dried out and people

have built houses there

The mountainous area called

Inyunyana is used as a grazing area

Thatch grass is found along the edges

of cultivated fields within the

homestead

Collect umlahlankosi at Inyunyana. no

women allowed to collect it, only men

or boys

Cropping fields are only found along

the homestead together with

vegetable gardens

Notes not yet

available

Livestock graze everywhere within

the community

Wildfood includes uMdolofiya,

umkhwebezane, amakhikhizelo,

ishaqa, amakamuketshe

No proper firewood but they do

collect inhlaba,uhalabhamo,

isiqhapheyane, ugagane,

intozwane, isitibhili

Buy poles from SAPPI. Thatch grass

is scarce and only get it when

cropping fields are cultivated.

They said no recreational area

Used to go to embhengeni/

nyanyane area to pray for rain in

the old days.

Collect amanqatha (incansi

eluhlaza) for cultural uses.

Collect imbomvu for painting wall.

Collect different type of building

sand along the river.

Use land within their homestead to

make mudbricks.

Identify areas of inadequate

supply

Most naturalwater sources are no

longer available

Built infrastructure such as tanks are

no longer working because pipes are

cut off

Notes not yet

available

Used to get bee honey in the area

called Engosisi but has been closed

by rocks

Some natural water sources

marked on the map are no longer

available

Some medicinal plants are no

longer found because of lack of

management such as following

rules of collecting medicinal plants.

Identify restricted areas and

unequal access to resources

None

Notes not yet

available

Norestricted area. e.g livestock are

free to graze or move around

neighbours

Priorities/needs of

community on land use and

natural resources

Water - protect the water sources.

Get Jojo tanks

Notes not yet

available

Protect water source, grazing areas

and preserve medicinal plants.

Suggestions for managing

land and water resources

sustainably and equitable

Get Jojo tanks installed at homestead

to harvest rain water.

Get jojo tank installed and a tap next

to the spring. Connect a pipe from a

tank for everyone to get water but

make sure the area is protected.

Provide fences to prevent livestock

from reaching the cropping fields.

Notes not yet

available

Work together. Be an eye of the

community. Be a good example of

the community.

Additional reflections

Notesnot yet

available

The participants seem to be very

interested in making use of what

they have. Can do thing by

themselves if they get support.

They no longer want to wait for

government to assist them.

The group was confused about the

boundary.

Rules suchas collecting medicinal

plants were lost because of lack of

traditional leadership. e.g. time of

harvesting and ploughing.

Figure 3.3. An example of a map being created during the participatory workshop with women in

Ezibombini.

Figure 3.4 Initial data processing from participatory mapping workshop with women in Ezibomvini. Work

still in progress thus missing features and labels.

3.2 Way forward

The data and information processed from the participatory mapping workshops will be completed during

July and August2022. Additional data that will feed in to aim 2 will be collected during community walks,

focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with key informants.

Social-ecological patches will be identified, which is spatial sub-units of land use that encompass the

natural resource base, vegetation, property regime (individual and communal land access) and the socio-

economic dependency and benefits in terms of ecosystem services and livelihoods opportunities that

people using the land obtain or seek to obtain (Sinare et al. 2016). This information will be layered with

GIS data gathered under aim 3 (section 4). These maps will be presented and discussed with the

communities during the series of co-learning workshops being planned under aim 5 (section 6).

4. Ecosystem health and functioning mapping: Progress to date

and way forward

To contribute to Aim 3 of the project viz. “To survey ecosystem health and functioning including

biodiversity of community land based on the needs of the communities for their ecosystem services and

livelihoods”, field and desktop surveys are to be used to develop maps of the ecosystem condition for

both the Ezibomvini and Costone villages. The section of the deliverable reports on the progress towards

the development ofmaps of ecosystem condition.

The maps of ecosystem condition will be informed by three aspects,

➢field based surveys which focus on water sources, including springs and wetlands, erosion and

invasive alien species and woody encroachment

➢use of land use andland cover satellite imagery and terrain maps, and

➢Veld Condition Assessments (VCA)

Due to national COVID19 lockdown restrictions and those imposed by the University on undertaking work

in community areas, the surveys were delayed. The field based surveysin both villages were conducted

between August and November 2021. However, the field component of the veld condition assessments

were only conducted in late January 2022 with the plant identifications and analyses continuing into

February 2022.

Thus, the field based surveys using GPS which mapped the water sources, including springs and wetlands,

erosion and invasive alien species and woody encroachment are reported in this Deliverable for each

village. The maps and discussions presented here are interim and will be finalised following the

completion of all aspects of the veld condition assessment. Boundaries for the villages were determined

with the community members during activities described in section 2. The field surveys considered areas

outside of the village boundaries to ensure that any upstream factors affecting the ecosystem condition

were included.

4.1 Ezibomvini Village

Within the village boundary demarcated by the village members there are two distinct areas, a higher

lying upper area which consists predominantly of grassland, woody vegetation and wetlands and the

lower lying area which is dominated by homesteads, agriculture and small grassland blocks (Figure 8).

Four streams run through the Ezimbomvini village and feed into the Lindequespruit River. The field survey

was undertaken for the catchment areas of two of the streams, and focused on the higher lying areas

(Figure 4.1). The lower section consists of homesteads, agricultural zones and grasslands. A notable,

unique and rare botanical feature of the area is a natural Aloe hybrid population betweenA.arborescens

and A.marlothii.

Figure 4.1: Ezibomvini village boundary with the streams, wetlands and springs and locations of E.Coli

tests, as well as the known points of water extraction and use.

Several springs are used for drinking water by the village. These springs are mainly in the higher lying area,

near the rivers (Figure 4.1). The water is mainly collected by buckets. The springs are also used by cattle.

The springs, however, are not high yielding. Water sources are limited, and are a significant concern in

this village. The water collected from the rivers is used in household cleaning, washing clothes and

bathing. Cattle, goats, pigs and ducks drink from several points along the river (Figure 4.1). The lower

regions of the streams are subjected to dumping of building rubble, household refuse, glass bottles and

nappies. The presence of the above mentioned will affect water quality. The presence of E.coli (Escherichia

coli) was tested at several points along both streams, with samples either testing positive for E. coli or

Coliforms Bacteria (Figure 4.2). These tests are going to be repeated as they were a single snapshot in

time. However, given the dependence of the village on these watersources the results were concerning.

Areas which appear to be wetlands were noted adjacent and near to the river systems (Figure 4.1). These

areas were wet in the dry season and had vegetation characteristic of frequently saturated areas. No

formal delineation of the wetlands was undertaken. The condition of the wetlands identified varied from

severely impacted (Figures 4.3 and 4.4) to near-pristine, however, the majority of the wetlands were

degraded and the functioning impaired with significant erosion present. Further, the riparian areas of the

streams have been eroded (Figure 4.4), in some areas significantly with deep gullies having formed. The

impacts on the wetlands and riparian areas noted in the field included cattle grazing, erosion, invasive

alien species and clay harvesting for brick making. The degradation of the wetland and riparian areas in

the upper higher lying areas of the village was noted as a significant concern. It is likely that the extent of

the degradation has already negatively impacted the water quantity and quality in the streams, with the

risk that further degradation could have significant negative impacts.

Figure 4.2. Results from the E.coli testing. A green colour indicates the sample is positive for E.coli, a yellow

sample indicates Coliforms Bacteria. The locations the samples were taken from are indicated on the map.

Figure 4.3. A Poplar stand growing within the wetland area adjacent to a stream (left) and an example of

the gully erosion in the catchment areas (right).

Figure 4.4. A wetland area where clay has been harvested from to be made into bricks.

To illustrate the extent of impact and concern of potential impacts going forward interventions should be

put in place. A concrete water tank with furthertanks downslope were noted during the mapping survey.

Community members were asked about the tanks, from their knowledge and memory the tanks were

installed by the Department of Agriculture and supplied water to various households and gravity fed

downslope areas through pipes. A pipe from the tank was pointed out by the community and it was noted

that it no longer supplied water. It was understood that the tanks used to be fed by a spring with a v-box

protection high up in the catchment area. On visiting the site of the supposed spring site, significant

erosion was found, no spring or evidence of it could be found and it appeared as if the v-box had collapsed

years prior due to the significant erosion.

The areas of erosion were not limited to the riparian areas, with erosion mapped across the higher lying

areas of the village (Figure 4.5). Deep gullies have been formed which, in some cases, have been invaded

by alien species (Figure 4.6). Scattered rocky areas occur in the high lying areas of the village. An extensive

network of cattle paths was noted in the invaded, rocky areas. This is presumably caused by herds of

goats. These rocky areas have been invaded by woody vegetation (Figure 4.7), mainly Lantana camara

(Lantana) and Aloe marlothii(Mountain Aloe). Lantana is one of the worst weeds in the world and category

1b invasive species in South Africa. The rocks provide a favourable micro habitat for Lantanaand Aloeto

flourish. They provide shelter from veld fires, shade, and increased moisture. Field observations of the

Mountain Aloe show all age groups present in the population. The opposite is found for Lantana which

mainly comprises of mature adults. The old aloe leaves and dead lantana branches are collected for

making fires. In this community, Lantana is dispersed by frugivorous birds defecating on the rocks.

Although the condition of the veld is yet to be determined, it was noted that the Lantana encroaches into

and competes with the grassland species.

Figure 4.5. The areas of significant erosionin the Ezibomvini Community.

Figure 4.6. Images of erosion within the Ezimbovini village.

A further invasive species noted and mapped wasPopulus alba (silver-leaf poplar). The Poplar, a category

2 invader, was commonly seen growing along or within the river. The Poplar has been planted and is

maintained by the community as it is used for wooden poles for building and fencing. They have a colonial

growth form and create dense stands, and given the deep rooted nature and greater biomass, a higher

water use than the grassland species they replaced. The water use of Populus albahas not been

determined in South African conditions, however, Ntshidi et al. (2018) found Populus canescensto have

a conservative impact on water use in the Western Cape due to the deciduous nature of the tree which

shortens the transpiration length during the year unlike the Acacia, Pinusand Eucalyptusinvasive species.

Ntshidi et al. (2018) suggested a low priority of Populus canescensin the alien clearing programs. As

Populus canescensis considered a hybrid of Populus alba, in the absence of field based measurements,

the water use of these trees could be considered a low priority. It has also been found growing in Costone.

Historical imagery will be used to determine whetherthe extent of the alien species invasion has increased

over time or remained relatively constant during the next stages of the map development. Growing within

fallow maize fields and verges of dirt roads is Lespedeza cuneata. This leguminous species was introduced

to South Africa as a forage species. However, it has the potential to become a serious invasive weed due

to the seed banks which can remain for decades. It has been declared a serious weed in several USA states

where it was introduced for erosioncontrol and proved to be an extremely aggressive invader in open

areas (https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/20616387).Further surveys have indicated the potential

invader is more widespread that initially thought. The species has been highlighted by the Enviro Champ

for removal.

Figure 4.7. The woody vegetation components in the upper region of the community.

4.2 Costone Village

The Costone village is characterized by a high altitude mountain boundary, three river systems, a large

wetland in the community area and grasslands. The high altitude regions contain springs that feed the

three rivers the flow down through the homestead areas (Figure 4.8). The steep mountain slopes are

characterized by a rich diversity of indigenous trees. The lower regions are covered by grasslands,

wetlands, homesteads and agricultural zones. As the village area is substantially larger than the

Ezimbomvini village, the full catchment areas of the rivers could not be walked. Thus, key areas were

identified prior to the field survey.

In contrast to the Ezimbomvini village, Costone has a number of water sources. A borehole has recently

been drilled in the village, with a pump and tanks installed that supply water to asector of the village.

There is a borehole with a hand pump above the homestead area, near to which there is a protected

spring (v-box) that feeds into two JoJo tanks from which community members collect water (a significant

distance from any houses however). A further key feature with regards to water, is a large wetland in the

lower homestead area of the village (Figure 4.9). There are three springs in this area that, at the end of

the dry season, had fair yield. Drinking water is collected from these springs, however, they are not

protected thus are used by cattle for drinking as well. A wetland assessment and delineation was not

done. However, from the field survey it was noted that the majority of the wetland vegetation remains

intact. A portion is used for agriculture during dry years and left fallow in wet years. Cattle are allowed to

graze within the wetland. There is a good flow of water exiting the wetland into the river. The importance

of protecting this wetland and building spring protections to ensure a sustainable water source for the

community was evident. Two sets of E.Colitests were undertaken on the springs and flow exiting the

wetland (Figure 4.10). The first tests were taken at two of the springs in the wetland (Points D and E in

Figure 4.9) and at the flow exit from the wetland (Point F in Figure 4.9). The second set were taken at the

three springs and the exit of the wetland. During October a spring tested positive forE.coliwhile in

November the flow from the exit of the wetland was positive. As these are points used for drinking water

collection, protection is needed.

Upstream of the larger wetland, a smaller wetland was noted (Figure 4.9). The smaller wetland was

significantly degraded with the impacts noted being overgrazing, clay harvesting for bricks and agriculture.

There was no flow exiting this wetland.

Figure 4.8. Costone Village boundary with rivers, springs and points of water extraction shown as well as

locations of sampling for E.Coli

Figure 4.9: Lower portion of Costone Village with rivers, springs and points of water extraction shown as

well as locations of sampling for E.Coli, erosion areas and invasive species.

Other water features identified were springs in the upper areas of the village. Three springs in the high

lying areas surveyed (Figure 4.11), two of the springs (labelled A and B in Figure 4.9) were flowing while

one was dry. The first spring was downstream of an indigenous forest patch. The area immediately below

the spring eye is eroding, with the gullies forming and wattle invasions in these gullies (Figure 4.12). The

impacts noted on the area below the spring are cattle paths and overgrazing. The eye of the second spring

was not observed during the field survey, however, wet areas in the landscape were noted. The area is

characterised by deep continuous grazing lines, and downstream by a mature Podocarpusforest patch.

The third spring, which had the highest discharge, was on a steep slope with wattle invasions on evident

upslope of the spring eye, while significant erosion near and downstream of the spring were noted (Figure

4.13). Water samples taken at both flowing springs showed the presence of Coliforms Bacteria (Figure

4.14). These were a snapshot in time after the dry season.

In contrast to the Ezimbomvini village area, the erosion in the Costone village area was primarily limited

to near or adjacent to the streams. Similarly, the extent of the alien invasive species noted was less than

Ezimbomvini. Isolated patches of Poplar trees near to streams were noted. The riparian areas of the

streams in stretches appeared to be in a near-pristine state, and the upper regions of the village area had

a high diversity of indigenous trees and shrubs.

Fig 4.10. E.coli samples taken from points in the wetland on two different dates. A green colour indicates

the sample is positive for E.coli, a yellow sample indicates Coliforms Bacteria. The locations the samples

were taken from are indicated on the map.

Figure 4.11: Lower portion of Costone Village with rivers, springs and points of water extraction shown as

well as locations of sampling for E.Coli, erosion areas and invasive species.

Figure 4.12. Erosion downstream of the eye of the first Spring (Spring A)

Figure 4.13. Images showing the erosion and presence of wattle near the third Spring (Spring B)

Figure 4.14. E.coli samples taken from springs in the high lying areas in October 2021. A green colour

indicates the sample is positive for E.coli, a yellow sample indicates Coliforms Bacteria. The locationsthe

samples were taken from are indicated on the map.

4.3 Veld Condition Assessment Report

4.3.1 Introduction

Rangelands are indigenous vegetation that consists mainly of grasses and shrubs/trees that are grazed

and browsed by livestock or wildlife (Allen et al. 2011). These natural rangelands support livelihoods

through the provision of a range of goods and services. The production of livestock is one of these key

services through intensive ranching on private land or collective ranching on communal lands (Reid et al.

2008). Communal rangelands and their associated residential areas make up 13% of the land surface of

South Africa and support a quarter of the country’s population and half the country’s livestock (Ward et

al. 1998). Concerns havebeen raise about communally grazed rangelands in Africa and similar systems

across the world (Vetter et al.2006). The comparisons between commercial and communal rangelands

have highlighted changes on land degradation and productivity (Todd and Hoffman, 1999). Communal

rangelands are commonly considered overstocked, overgrazed, degraded and unproductive.

Rangeland condition is the health of rangeland functioning in terms of ecological status, resistance to soil

erosion and forage potential for livestock production (Ndandani, 2016). Rangeland degradation is the

continuous loss of species composition and invasion of woody plants (Bosch and Theunissen, 1992).

Communal rangelands condition in South Africa is declining due to poor management, land degradation

and climate change (Hoffman and Ashwell, 2001). In South Africa land degradation is mostly due to

overgrazing and human activities (Vetter, 2003). Overgrazing decreases palatable plants species and

increases in less palatable species (Kgosikoma et al. 2012). Additionally, overgrazing changes plant species

composition, basal cover, diversity, richness and soil moisture while making the rangeland more

susceptible to Invasive Alien Plants (IAP’s) and woody encroachment (Vetter, 2013). There is a direct

correlation between rangeland condition and animal production (Van der Westhuizen et al. 1999) and

therefore these compromised communal systems show a loss of rangeland productivity and poor

livestock performance (Lesoli, 2008).

Overgrazing is seen as the main cause of land degradation in Africa at 243 million hectares (UNEP, 2015),

while in South Africa a quarter of the land owned by the government and rural communities is degraded

(Ndandani, 2016). These communal rangelands are often characterised by high stocking rates and lack of

a grazing management system (Lesoli, 2008). Communal rangelands are a shared resource utilized by the

community members where everyone has equal access to resources the rangeland provides. However,

management decisions are over seen by individual owners (Gxasheka et al. 2017).

Rotational grazing is viewed as a basic grazing management tool in rangeland conservation (Liu et al.

2009). Livestock movements are monitored and controlled to best utilized rangeland resources and

increased livestock production (Gamoun, 2014). Features of a productive rangeland include higher

biomass production with high forage quality, good soil cover and species rich vegetation. On the contrary,

communal productivity is linked to continuous grazing and uncontrolled and unplanned fires (Rutherford

and Powrie, 2013). This management has shown the elimination of favourable vegetation and an increase

establishment of undesirable vegetation (Lesoli, 2008).

Species composition is one of the means of studying ecologicalchanges in a rangeland (Malan andvan

Neikerk, 2005). An indicator of rangeland condition is understanding grazing practises and its changes

over time (Abule et al. 2007). Veld Condition Assessment (VCA) is the health of the rangeland in terms of

ecological status, resistance to soil erosion and the potential forage production for continued livestock

production (Trollope et al, 1990). The majority of techniques to determine and monitor veld condition

require an assessment of species composition and an estimate of basal cover for the sample site (Hardy

andTainton, 1993). Furthermore, quantifying biomass production can provide realistic estimates of

stocking rates for sustainable grazing management (Kunst et al.2006). Veld condition assessments is

essential for both commercial and communal rangelands to document the effects of current management

on veld condition and to monitor changes over time and also for evaluating veld condition relative to its

potential in that ecological zone (Hardy et al., 1999). Therefore, this study aims to evaluate two communal

rangelands, Ezibomvini and Costone, in the Northern Drakensberg to understand current health condition

and recommend management tools.

4.3.2 Methodology

4.3.2.1 Site description

The Veld ConditionAssessment was carried at two Villages,Ezibomvini and Costone, communal grazing

lands located in Emmaus, Uthukela District Municipality of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The area is

located at the following coordinates: Ezibomvini - 28°51'50.60"S, 29°23'28.15"E and Costone -

28°55'4.50"S, 29°22'6.67"E with a mean elevation of 900 to 1440 m. Mean annual precipitation 710-

1120mm per year and mean annual temperature 16° C (Mucuna and Rutherford, 2006). The communal

rangelands are shared by members of the communities mentioned and neighbouring communities. The

rangeland is grazed continuously with no restrictions on stocking rates. Cattle and goats are the bulk

grazers whilesheep and horses arepresent in lower abundances. The communal rangeland falls within

two vegetation types: the Drakensberg Foothill Moist Grassland (GS10) and Northern KwaZulu-Natal

Moist Grassland (GS4) as described by Mucuna and Rutherford (2006). The vegetation and landscape is

described as moderately rolling and mountainous with river gorges of drier vegetation types and covered

in forb rich grassland dominated byThemeda triandraand Tristachya leucothrix. Acacia sieberianavar

woodii woodlands are common in valleys and disturbed sites.

Table 4.1. The dominant grasses for each vegetation type according to Mucuna and Rutherford (2006).

Northern KwaZulu-Moist Grassland (GS4)

Drakensberg Foothills Moist Grassland(GS10)

Alloteropsis semialata subsp eckloniana, Aristida

congesta, Cynodon dactylon, Digitaria

tricholaenoides, Elionurus

muticus, Eragrostis

patentissima, Eragrostis racemosa, Harpochloa

falx, Hyparrhenia hirta, Themeda triandra, and

Tristachya leucothrix.

Diheteropogon filifolius, Elionurus muticus,

Eragrostis capensis, Eragrostis chloromelas,

Eragrostis curvula, Eragrosti

s plana, Eragrostis

racemosa, Heteropogon contortus, Microchloa

caffra, Monocymbium ceresiiforme, Panicum

natalense, Rendlia altera, Sporobolus africanus,

Themeda triandra, Trachypogon spicatus and

Tristachya leucothrix

Figure 4.15. Study sites of the two villages, Ezibomvini and Costone, indicating the village boundaries and

communal grazing areas.

Ezibomvini

Costone

4.3.2.2 Data Collection

In January 2022, vegetation sampling was carried out at Ezibomzini and Costone villages. At each site four

100m line transects were demarcated across the landscape with 20m between each line transect. Sample

sites occurred within the grazing zones demarcated by the community for each village. Sites selection was

based on vegetation uniformity. We measured grass composition and degree of dominanceusing the

Step-Point. At every 2m intervals the nearest grass species were identified, distance and tuft size

measured.Forbs were excluded as they have a relatively low occurrence in the landscape. If no grasses

are found within a 0.2m radius from the point, it is recorded as bare soil. A 1 x 1 m quadrant was randomly

placed 50 times along the transect to estimate grass and forb cover. Grass species were identified to

species level and placed into ecological status classes using the method of Trollope (1989). The grasses

were grouped into Decreaser species, Increaser I, II and III species and further grouped according to their

life form (annual, perennial, and creeper).

Grass species are classified into four ecological classes based on grazing value, biomass production and

palatability. There ecological classes are recognized as follows:

Decreaser – Tufted and stoloniferous grasses that are abundant in good rangeland and decrease when

over or under grazed. High palatability,high productivity and high grazing value.

Increaser I – Tufted grasses that are abundant in underutilized rangeland. Medium palatability,

intermediate productivity and moderate grazing value.

Increaser II – Tufted and stoloniferous grasses that abundantin overgrazed rangeland. Increase due to

disturbing effecting of overgrazing. Medium to low palatability, high to medium productivity and low

grazing value.

Increaser III –Tufted grasses common in overgrazed rangeland. Species are competitive and difficult to

remove. Unpalatable, low productivity and low grazing value.

The Ecological Score method was used to determine veld condition. The benchmark method cannot be

used as a benchmark veld that would represent best possible botanical composition and cover in relation

to climate could not be found. The Ecological Score is uses data from the grass species composition survey,

the percentage composition of each class is calculated and multiplied with the specific class. The sum of

the values represents an Ecological Index with a maximum on 1000. The veld condition is evaluated using

the following guidelines:

Ecological Score

Veld Condition

0-399

Broadly indicates poor veld

400-600

Broadly indicates moderate veld

601-1000

Indicates good veld

Disc Pasture Meter (DPM) (Trollope and Potgieter, 1986, Zambatis et al. 2006) is used to determine the

grass production (fuel load) within most vegetation types. It’s a rapid, non- destructive method to

determine dry mass yield of rangelands. At each transect 50 readings (disc height in cm) were recorded,

200 reading per village, to calculate mean settling height of the disc. The equation of Zambatis et al (2006)

was used to determine grass Biomass (kg/ha):

Kg.ha-1 = [31.7176(0.32181/x)x0.2834]2

where: x = mean disc height in cm of a site

The percentage basal cover of each sample site was obtained by substituting the mean distance and the

mean diameter values into the following regression equation developed by Hardy & Tainton (1993). The

basal cover standards were recommended by Camp and Hardy (1999). The basal covers are: 1-5% critical,

6-10% poor, 11-15% reasonable and 16%+ good to excellent.

Basal cover = 19.8 + 0.39 (D) - 11.87 (logeD) + 0.64 (d) + 2.93 (loged)

D is the distance to the nearest tuft (in cmand rounded to the nearest cm) and d was the tuft diameter

(in cm and rounded to the nearest cm)

Figure 4.16. Images showing the use ofthe Disc Pasture Meter (DPM), quadrat and 100m line transect.

Features to note on the photo on the right, signs ofselective grazing and low sward height.

4.3.3 Results

Table 4.2Botanical name, ecological status, perenniality, grazing value and composition score of grass

species at Ezibomvini communal rangeland

Group

Species

Perenniality

Grazing

value

Grazing

value

Score

Ezibomvini

% Score

Decreaser

Themedra triandra

Perennial

High

2.5

Increaser I

Alloteropsis semialata

Perennial

Average

0.5

1.5

Digitaria tricholaenoides

Perennial

High

Tristachya leucothrix

Perennial

High

4.5

40.5

Increaser IIa

Heterpogon contortus

Perennial

Average

Increaser IIb

Hyparrhenia hirta

Perennial

Average

Eragrostis plana

Perennial

Low

Eragrostis racemosa

Perennial

Average

Sporobolus Africana

Perennial

Low

Sporobolus pyramidalis

Perennial

Low

13.5

40.5

Increaser IIc

Aristida congesta

barbicollis

Perennial

Low

Cyndon dactylon

Creeper

Average

0.5

1.5

Paspalum notatum*

Creeper

Average

150

Urochloa panicoides

Perennial

Low

0.5

Increase III

Diheteropogon filifolius

Perennial

Low

0.5

Cymbopogon pospischilii

Perennial

Low

0.5

Total

100

362

*exotic species

Table 4.3. Botanical name, ecological status, perenniality, grazing value and composition score of grass

species at Costone communal rangeland

Group

Species

Perenniality

Grazing

value

Grazing

value

Score

Costone

% Score

Increaser I

Tristachya leucothrix

Perennial

High

Increaser IIa

Heterpogon contortus

Perennial

Average

Increaser IIb

Eragrostis curvula

Perennial

High

Eragrostis plana

Perennial

Low

11.5

34.5

Eragrostis racemosa

Perennial

Average

3.5

Sporobolus africana

Perennial

Low

2.5

7.5

Sporobolus pyramidalis

Perennial

Low

Increaser IIc

Paspalum notatum*

Creeper

Average

186

Increase III

Aristida junciformis

galpinii

Perennial

Low

Diheteropogon filifolius

Perennial

Low

0.5

Total

100

294

*exotic species

4.3.3.1 Veld Condition Score

The veld condition score for both villages indicate the rangeland is in apoor condition or moderately

degraded.Ezibomvini has a smaller grazing area scored slightly higher than Costone with a larger grazing

area. The villages share a common dominant grassa perennial exotic stoloniferous grass, Paspalum

notatum. P.notatum occurrence is at least 50% for both villages.Referring to the dominant grass species

described by Mucuna and Rutherford (2006) threespecies were present during the survey with Eragrostis

planaand Eragrostis curvulawith a relatively high occurrence,Themedra triandraabsent to low

occurrence and P.notatumas a new dominant exotic rangeland invader.

4.3.3.1.1 Ezibomvini

16 species were recorded with nearly 95% been Increasers (Increaser I- 12%, Increase II – 86% and

Increaser III – 1%). Decreasers isrepresented by Themedra triandraat2.5%. The dominant species are

Paspalum notatum, Sporobolus pyramidalis, Digitaria tricholaenoides,andTristachya leucothrix triandra.

4.3.3.1.2 Costone

10 species were recorded with 100% been increasers (Increaser I - 9%, Increaser II- 90.5% and Increaser

III- 8.5%). Decreasers were absent. The dominant species are Paspalum notatum, Eragrostis plana, Aristida

junciformis galpinii andEragrostis curvula.

Figure 4.17. The comparison of aerial cover of grass species, forbs, bare soil and the basal cover of grass

species.

The veld is dominated by grasses and limited forbs. The aerial cover for grasses and forb are similar for

both villages. The basal cover for both villages are also above 16% indicating good to excellent cover.

This is attributed to the dominance of a single grass, P.notatumin both villages. The creeping habitat of

the species has reduced bare ground. The biomass production reveals a similar pattern. Ezibomvini has

a yield of 1342Kg.ha-1 and 1121 Kg.ha-1 for Costone. The low yield is attributed to the dominance of

P.notatumdue to its short sward height and prostate habitat.

4.3.4 Discussion

Overgrazing occurs when animals defoliate grass before ithas had time to recover (Voisin, 1988). This

occurs when livestock remain in an area for too long or return too quickly. Recovery time is important for

grasses to restore roots reserves and asexual and sexual growth. The period required to recovery varies

according to climate, season, and vegetation type and growth habitat. The time frame can vary from 10

days to 90 days or up one year resting (Savory Institute, 2015b). Recovery only occurs in the growing

season and in the absence of grazing. The high abundance of Increaser II species indicate long term

overgrazing at the loss of decreasers species in both villages. The increased abundance of species like

P.notatum, Sporobolus pyramidalisand Eragrostis plana is an indicator the system is fire suppressed.

Selective grazing has been shown to change the structure and species composition of rangelands and

favouring unpalatable species or species with low to average grazing value (Milchunas et al. 1988).

Furthermore, trampling and nutrient enrichment significantly impact species diversity (O’Connor et al.

2010). P.notatumis a highly persistent grass that is able to withstand close defoliation due to its extensive

rhizome network and low growing points and responds well to fertilizer. The competitive adaptationsof

P.notatummake it resistant to selective grazing and benefits from additional nutrients.

100

Grass Forbs Bare GroundBasal cover

Ezibomvini

Costone

The primary disturbance mechanisms in rangelands are fire and grazing. They work to shape the structure

and composition of the vegetation (Van Wilgen & Scholes1997). Controlled burning is the use of fire to

change rangeland vegetation to favour optimum forage and animal productivity (Trollope and Trollope,

1996). The use of fire is communal rangeland is uncontrolled and influenced by the need to produce fresh

green belt of grass. Livestock will select fresh grass from burnt areas over unburnt areas (Trollope, 1989).

The frequency and time of fires in communal areas often leads to rangeland deterioration. The flush of

green growth at the incorrect time of year is short lived and negatively affects growth vigour. Root

reserves are depleted and favourable species are weakening to the advantage of increaser II species. Fire

intensity refers to the rate of heat released during a fire and determines vegetation recovery. Fire intensity

is directly linked to fuel load. The fuel loads in both systems are low due to the dominance of a P.notatum.

The rangelands cannot support high fire intense burns due to the short and sparse sward blades. Thus

leading to a fire suppressed system.

On a positive note, degraded communal rangelands are resilient and can recover with changes in species

composition and species diversity. Harrison and Shackleton (1999) have shown changes in grass species

composition and grass basal cover with theremoval of high and continuous grazing pressure in communal

rangelands. The resultant changes may represent replacement of species groups that already exist

(Walker et al. 1997). An increase in palatability indigenous species will be favoured over annuals and

unpalatable species. Additionally, the absence showed an increase in the occurrence of palatable species.

The protection from grazing reduced the competitive advantage of undesirable species and lead to a

decline (Frost et al, 1986). This created openings to facilitate recolonization of palatable species.

P.notatumis a strongly stoloniferous, adaptable and long lived species. The grass was able to withstand

intense grazing and dominate species composition due to it to wide network of root reserves which

Strugnell and Pigott (1978) substantiated through root studies. Therefore rotational resting may

encourage perennial species to replace P.notatum.

4.3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

The communal rangelands in both villages are moderately degraded and dominated by grass species with

an average palatability and low grazing value. The continuous overgrazing has lead to a single species

dominating the rangeland. Fire as a tool for regeneration is misunderstood. These disturbances have

changed the species composition and richness.The use of fire needs tobe carefully planned and rest

periods where appropriate need to be incorporated after its use. Controlledburning must be integrated

with other grazing management techniques to gain the full benefits.Degraded communal rangelands are

resilient and can recover with changes in species composition and species diversity.

Changing current communal grazing management depends on the success of any intervention through

the presence of local-level institutions and organisation (Rasmussen and Meinzen-Dick, 1995).Moyo et al

(2008) has shown communal range management is complex and varies factors are required to make

implement grazing management interventions. The study highlighted that rotational grazing through

fencing and paddocks was the ideal method to improve rangeland health and productivity in communal

areas but lack of local level institutions, limited knowledge of rangeland management, lack of rules and

restrictions on rangeland resources are constraints that would reduce the effectiveness of fencing.

Planning rangeland interventions would require to consider socioeconomic and ecological factors,

strengthening of local-level institutions and utilizing land more effectively.

In depth community engagements to understand grazing management strategies and practices are

required:

1.To understand historical management and the influence on grazing practices

2.Identify current factors determining present grazing strategies

3.The role of fire in the rangeland

4.Livestock stoking rates

4.4 Way forward

This part of the research aims at linking ecological and hydrological knowledge to inform sustainable land

management based on the identified needs of the communities to enhance prioritised ecosystem services

and livelihood options. The finalised maps from the field surveys presented in sections 4.1 and 4.2 will be

combined with the participatory mapping (section 2) to produce spatial maps of land uses and ecosystem

services and health for use in the co-learning activities and workshops. The co-learning will be based on

the existing condition of the land and availability of resources, and on the understanding of what the

communities prefer to obtain from that environment, and whether the ecosystems obtain sufficient levels

of water to maintain the ecological functions. The basis of this approach is to be able to provide knowledge

support for management options that are not purely top-down, i.e. scientists informing stakeholders

without consideration of their needs. Thus, this ecosystem health and ecological surveying will respond

to community needs and survey the habitats, species composition and various aspects of biodiversity that

is relevant for informed decisions regarding land management such as for grazing, medicinal plants, wild

foods, building materials, or energy sources. The maintenance and enhancement of these different

ecosystem services inevitably require different sets of ecosystem functions, species composition, as well

as sufficient levels of water quantity and flow, all of which comprise a comprehensive set of variables

within the ecological domain of the social-ecological system (Pacheco-Romero et al. 2020). This approach

will also identify potential synergies and trade-offs between services, i.e. what management practices will

enhance multiple ecosystem services simultaneously, and what practices lead to declines in other services

when targeting a specific service (Lindborg et al. 2017). Relevant spatial and statistical analyses will be

performed to identifycorrelations, synergies, trade-offs, spatial patterns and interlinkages between the

natural resource base, land use, ecosystem services and livelihoods. These may include, but are not

limited to, cluster mapping, redundancy analysis, principal component analysis and multivariate analysis.

5. Decisions and social-cultural factors: Progress to date and

way forward

The fourth aim of this project is:

-To improve the understanding of local decision-making, resource use and management, and

identify the social-cultural factors that influence decisions

This aim relates to outcome 4:1, which focuses on understanding of local, individual and communal,

decision making. In order to guide and support decision making towards sustainable land and water

resources management in communities, it is imperative to understand the full set of factors that influence

the decisions made for the land, including land that fall under individual property regimes, as well as

communally managed land uses. This project will therefore investigate the social-cultural concepts (e.g.

worldviews, collective traditions and experiences, beliefs and values) behind individual and collective

decision-making made within the various land uses. The decisions in focus here are what management

practices are used, and what ecosystem services are targeted, by individuals in their private land plots and

in their use of communal lands, and by collectives (community leaders) in their management and decisions

regarding the communal lands.

For the assessment ofthe social-cultural concepts behind collective decision-making, community leaders

and other relevant stakeholders will be engaged through an iterative series of focus-group discussions

(Fischer and Young 2007). This process will allow for inductive reasoning, interaction and reflection of the

social-cultural concepts between the participants and facilitators, and is particularly useful in research

processes that aim at preparing ground for natural resource co-management strategies such as this

project. Thefirst rounds of such focus group discussions have taken place, namely one group in Ezibombini

and two groups in Costone. In Ezibomvini, a group of 20 community members attended (17 women and

3 men). Five participants representing water and diptank committees in Costone were part of one focus

group discussion, and 22 community members (not in committees) attended the other group (20 women

and 2 men). The discussions aimed at learning and understanding from the communities in relation to a

number of topics such as: natural resource management and land use; land use practices in past, present

and future; who makes decisions, and for whom; who have access to resources; communities’

relationships to traditional authorities and ward councillors; roles of ward councillors; changes in access

to resources over the past decade; and the impact of climate change on natural resources and community

members’ access thereto (see Appendix 2). Below follows the summarized notes from one of these focus

group discussions, namely one of the groups in Costone (n=22) - included here as an example of the

outcomes of these discussions. The notes from the other two groups (one in Costone and one in

Ezibomvini), along with more focus group discussions being scheduled for February - April 2022, will be

compiled and analyzed.

5.1 Decision making in Costone

Understanding of natural resource management. The participants clearly defined an important role of

natural resources in their community in which the grasses and trees provide grazinglands for their

livestock, shelter through building thatched houses, habitats and food source for wild animals, some of

which are hunted by community members. Other herbs and indigenous trees are used to mix traditional

medicines hence deforestation of wild forests and destroying these resources will mean that the

community will not have the above-mentioned benefits long-term. The water resource is a cornerstone

in their community with many uses, their lives depend on groundwater and streams found within the area

hence pollution of natural water sources found in their community will harm their livelihoods. The

community advocates against water pollution including litter and toxic chemicals at or near their water

sources which channel through their community and are their only source of water for drinking by humans

and animals in the area.

Land use priorities. Firstly, as Costone is a farming community, land use management means sustainable

food production for them; without healthy soils and sufficient soil moisture their community cannot grow

crops. Community members have therefore adopted conservation agriculture practices which reduces

soil erosion and enriches the topsoils with organic matter important for the sustainability of food

production for the future generation. The community has grazing rangelands where they keep their

livestock during the planting season. They do not allow anyone to use the rangelands for farming or

building homes because they will disturb their livestock from grazing. There arealso protected forests

that are only used for collecting logs used in burial practice and no one is allowed to collect wood from

those forests for other uses. Furthermore, there are protected streams for drinking water.

Present land use practices. Even though the number of people who are farming in their community has

reduced in recent years compared to the past, a considerable number of people are still farming in the

community, especially the older generation. The capable youth majority is moving into big cities and the

remaining youth in the community is showing less interest in farming. Job opportunities have improved

in the community through the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP), which include clearing

roadsides, community halls, schools, and alien invasive species. The use of grasslands, forests and

wetlands for various benefits include sand mining (mainly for building houses), fetching water from the

stream (where there is no Jojo tanks connected to the groundwater and borehole taps), collectingred clay

to use for sunscreen and fetching wood, thatch grass, mud for bricks to build houses.

Land use practices in the past.The land that the Costone community currently resides on was a private

commercial beef farm which was managed as grazing land with grazing camps and a rotational grazing

schedule. The community was relatively small with fewer families living and working on the farm and also

utilized the commercial farmer’s grazing land for their livestock. Oxen-drawn ploughs were used for land

preparation. Growing crops was common in their community as everyone was farming to supplement

their earnings from the farm, then commonly applying conventional tillage practices.

Communities were not yet introduced to making mud bricks to build houses. The houses were instead

built using wood to erect the structure of the house and hard soil blocks were dug on the fields and

carefully placed between the wood to have complete house walls. The roofs were entirely made from

thatch or straw before the corrugated metal was introduced to them. They were entirely dependent on

natural resources to build their homesteads. The majority depended on the firewood for cooking and

warming their households.

Land use practices in the future.The number of people who are farmingare believed by the participants

to drastically decline in future as interest in farming is being noticed among younger generations.

Participants also foresee long dry spells prohibiting farming and causing death to livestock as the grazing

lands will be reduced and streams providing drinking water will dry up as a result of climate change.

Forests are believed to become depleted due to deforestation or as a result of the increasing drought

condition that threatens the conditions for forests and wild animals. The participants foresee that roads

leading to their deep rural village rich in many resources will attract investments, and as a result,

industrialization of their village for job creation for youth. People will gain financial freedom which will

allow them to change from making mud brick houses to upgraded houses made from concrete bricks.

Participants see the collection of firewood as a dying practice as other people have adopted the use of

electric stoves for cooking and warming. They also believe that their community has abundant

groundwater and those who can afford to drill boreholes will have them in the future. They furthermore

foresee a development towards the delivery of drinking water by the municipality with infrastructure

reaching to peoples homesteads through pipes and taps.

Decision makers and decision making.The decisions which affect the community are largely made by the

community members, especially men, to maintain peace and preserve the natural resources such as the

protection of the forests used for collecting wood for burials is something that the community men

discussed amongst each other and informed other community members to follow on the idea. The grazing

rangelands are protected by the livestock farmers who forbid anyone from settling their homesteads or

farming in these areas and the local chief assists them in solving the disputes arising from this matter if

they encounter any resistance from the new occupants. With regards to cropping the community decides

on their own when to plant and the livestock farmers follow instinctively when to take their livestock to

grazing areas away from the community to avoid any disputes arising from livestock damaging growing

crops as many growing fields do not have proper fencing to prevent livestock from grazing through the

fields. Any dispute arising from this matter is solved at the discretion of the field and livestock owners.

Any failures to solve the matter between the two are forwarded to a local chief who provides resolutions

and penalties with fines to the matter depending on who is at fault. At harvesting season, the local chief

gives precise harvesting dates to community members, anyone who harvests before the given dates by

the isiqongo is subjected to a fine, and failures to complete the harvest within the given time frame is

considered the farmer's fault as the livestock owners are allowed to bring back the livestock from

mountains to forage in the community for stover remaining on the harvested fields.

Access to resources.Everyone has access to community resources including non-community members

once permitted by the community, especially for acquiring land to build a homestead or farming. New

residents must communicate with a landowner at first regarding purchasing or renting the land for

building or farming and the landowner must further inform the community members and the local chief

about the change of land ownership. Once those processes are completed the new residents may utilize

the land in any way they choose. Other resources like the Jojo tanks installed in the community to provide

easy access to drinking water for community members are open to everyone included extended

community members.

Relationship between community and local chief and councillors. The community members have a solid

relationship with the local chief as he resides in the nearest village called Eqeleni, unlike the local

councilors who reside at eMaswazini which is a village further away from their community. They

communicate with the local chief through the communal iNduna if they have matters that require his

intervention to solve serious communal disputes. The community can only interact with the councilor to

address their matters or listen to him talk on the meetings called once in a while hosted atthe community

hall or the, for many inaccessible, Bergville city hall. Currently, the councillor has no tangible role that is

known to the participants.

Impact of climate change on natural resources.The type of grass which is specifically used to build thatch

houses has become scarce in the community as they have to select certain patches or walk long distances

to find good grass material used in building thatch houses and they believe that this is caused by climate

change. Other water sources are dryingup as a result of climate change which forces them to walk long

distances to find water sources with potable water. The long dry spells in previous years forced the

community to change their planting period as a result of low rainfall in those years whichresulted in

reduced yield production.

5.2 Way forward

Further focus group discussions regarding decisions of communal land are scheduled to continue during

July to October2022. The outcomes, inthe form of narratives and personal perceptions will be analysed

to assessthe social-cultural concepts (e.g. worldviews, collective traditions and experiences, beliefs and

values) behind decision making. Key informants identified as those who form part of decisions will further

participate in in-depth interviews and smaller focus group workshops. To assess the social-cultural

concepts behindindividual decision making(i.e. homesteads and agricultural plots), a combination of in-

depth interviews, multiple-response option surveys and/or participatory games (Pardoe et al. 2016) will

be used, also during the secondhalf of 2022.

6. Co-learning for sustainable management of land and water:

Progress to date and way forward

The fifth aim of this project is:

-To design and test a framework for supporting innovation and decision making for sustainable

resource use management and improved livelihood opportunities.

This aim relates to outcomes 5.1, which is to test innovations including technical training and providing

equipment, 5.2, which focuses on co-designing a framework for sustainable resource use, and 5.3, which

will evaluate sustainable management of resources and scoring of sustainability indicators. The project

team including scientists, community members and leaders have, from the onset of the project, been

involved in a series of activities that aims to lead to the co-design of a framework for supporting innovation

and decision making for sustainable management of land for food, water and ecosystem services, that

takes equity, diversity and inclusion, and the environment into consideration. The co-learning process and

co-development of the framework requires iterative communication, collaboration and consensus

throughout the project. The knowledge produced during Aims 1-3, and the deeper understanding of

decision-making processes under Aim 4 will strengthen the outcomes of Aim 5 and provide the content

of the workshops according to themes. Following the introductory visit in the Costone, Ezibomvini and

Mhlwazini communities in November 2020, the community engagement has proceeded in the Ezibomvini

and Costone communities.

The core group of participants in each community are the groups that have been participants of the MDF

led WRC project K5/2719/4. These groups are already in the process of developing decisions,assessing

and planning innovations involving practices such as stream protection, conservation agriculture, fodder

production and grazing rotation. Additional community level stakeholders have been invited to participate

in the activities, including community leaders, community facilitators, committee members of grazing

committees and water committees, youth groups and other community members.

6.1 Multi-stakeholder engagement

For the purpose of engaging a wider range of stakeholders, other than community members and leaders,

a stakeholder mapping exercise was prepared to provide a provisional overview of relevant stakeholders,

their role in/in relation to the community and what insight or information they can provide to the

community and/or project (see Table 6.1).The project team is closely involved in the DSI/WRC funded

SANBI Living Catchments Project in the upper uThukela, aiming at enhancing research, development and

innovation for socio-economic impact through engaged communities of practice in key catchments

associated with strategic water source areas, through and supporting existing collaborative platforms at

catchment level to integrate research, planning and implementation. Our project lie within the

geographical area and scope of the Thukela Living Catchment project and close collaboration with the

convener team (INR, UKZN and MDF) is under way. Through the project team’s involvement in the SANBI

Living Catchment project, contact and relationships have been established with a wide and diverse range

of stakeholders within the upper uThukela Catchment. The team (project teams and community

representatives) initially engaged through a first multi-stakeholder meeting in Bergvillearranged for the

SANBI upper uThukela Living Catchment Project in May 2021.

Table 6.1 Overview of relevant stakeholder categories, their role(s) in the community and the source of

insight and information they (can) provide the community.

Stakeholder

Role in community

Sources of

information/insight

Local community members (e.g. individuals,

landowners, committees, co-operatives)

Resource users, decision

makers

Community, NGOs,

researchers, extension

offices

Traditional leaders

Land owners and

representatives of local

people, decision makers

Local communities, decision

making processes

Community facilitators

Work with local communities

and researchers

Local people and researchers

Ward councilor

Local development

Local governance

Mahlathini development foundation (NGO)

Implement learning on climate

smart conservation agriculture

programmes

Local communities,

researchers

OKhahlamba local Municipality

Supply basic delivery services

Local communities and

government, District

municipality

uThukela district Municipality

Infrastructure, water supply

Government, Local

municipality, Water

Managers

UThukela water

Provide water services

Department of Agriculture and Land Reform

Agricultural land use, food

security

Local communities,

commercial farmers

Department of Water and Sanitation

Water and sanitation

Cathedral Peak Hotel

Create job opportunities for

local people

Drakensberg-Ukhahlamba Park, Maloti-

Drakenberg Transfrontier Park, Ezemvelo KZN

wildlife, SANBI

Biodiversity conservation,

tourism

Neighbouring protected

areas, environmental

community land protection

Students, scientists and researchers working

across various disciplines (UKZN, INR, SAEON,

EFTEON)

Facilitate learning, knowledge

and training

Scientific knowledge,

problem solving

Educators (natural science teachers and

principals)

Facilitate learning and

knowledge

Department of Education

Commercial farmers association/club

Downstream water resource

users, neighboring land owners

The SANBI 2nd Catchment-based Indaba on Ecological Infrastructure, held 2-4 November 2021 in the

neighboring Didima Resort, further provided an opportunity for the project team to engage with a variety

of stakeholders among those listed in Table 6.1. Around 110 delegates from the spheres of government,

academia, research institutions and civil society organisations attended the Indaba within which the MDF

hosted a field visit in the Ezibomvini and Costone communities. A group of 24 visitors representing the

INR, SANBI, DUCT, Amanzi Ethu Nobuntu, UKZN, Ezemvelo, MDTP, WRC, and WWF, visited three project

participants and were discussing the implementation of Climate Resilient Agriculture practices, resource

conservation and water managements practices as well as crop-livestock integration.

Figure 6.1. Multi-stakeholder field visit to Ezibomvini/Costone 2 November 2021 during SANBI 2nd

Catchment-based Indaba on Ecological Infrastructure. Top left: Mam Zikode explaining the construction

and use of her bucket drip irrigation system in her tunnel. Top right: Mam Hlongwane showingThe header

tank (2400 L Eco tank) where spring water is collected before being reticulated to 200l drums (blue drum)

for each of 9 households. Bottom left: Mam Hlongwane’s micro tunnel. Bottom middle: Mam Nothile’s

enclosure built for storage of haybales made from cover crops and veld grass. Bottom right: Visitors and

community members.

The first visit was at Thulile Zikode’s homestead in Ezibomvini, where participants were being introduced

to vegetable production in micro tunnels where drip irrigation and grey water was used for watering

(Figure 6.1, top left). Drip irrigation occurs through buckets containing sand filters to enable the use of

greywater. Ezibomvini does not have any access to water supplied by the government and for the most

part smallholders undertake dryland cropping and extensive grazing of livestock only. Some of the

learning-group participants are among the few engaged in small-scale irrigation for vegetable production.

The participants then visited Phumelele Hlongwane (Ezibomvini), who explained the expansion of her

garden and the multiple water sources used– grey water, water from the group self-supply scheme from

a protected spring and most recently drilling of her own borehole at her homestead (Figure 6.1, top right,

bottom left). Lastly, the Indabavisitors visited Nothile Zondi’s homestead in Costone discussing activities

related to crop-livestock integration and showed the visitors the veld hay bales collected for livestock

supplementation. They also discussed their use of winter supplementationas well as production of fodder

crops within their Conservation Agriculture systems. These activities have been designed to augment the

natural grazing, to reduce grazing pressure and also to provide for better nutrition for livestock in general,

with a view to cattle sales at local auctions. Homesteads in this village also do not have access to water

infrastructure for potable water or irrigation and as springs are far, irrigation is undertaken strictly with

rainwater or grey water.

6.1.1 Multi-stakeholder Adaptive Planning Process Workshop

On14th June, almost 40 stakeholders who live, work or have an interest in the water resources in the

upper uThukela catchment, met at the Okhahlamba Local Municipality in Bergville for a one-day Adaptive

Planning Process (APP) workshop(Figure 6.2). This second multi-stakeholder engagement built on the first

workshop of the Living Catchment Project in the upper uThukela in May 2021, and included a structured

process to collaborate towards creating a shared vision between a wide and diverse range of stakeholders.

The participants consisted of 17 women and 22 men, representing the local communities, water

committees, action groups, youth Eco Champs, representatives of the Amakhosi areas AmaZizi,

AmaNgwane and AmaSwazi; as well as ward councillors, and representatives from Okhahlamba Local

Municipality, WWF, Wildlands Trust, Department of Water and Sanitation, the South African

Environmental Observation Network (SAEON), University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), University of Free

State, Rhodes University, the Farmers No-till Club and KZN Department of Agriculture and Rural

Development.

The organizing team (i.e. the upper uThukela Living Catchment project conveners, namely Institute of

Natural Resources (INR), Mahlathini DevelopmentFoundation (MDF) and the Centre for Water Resources

Research, UKZN) kicked off the workshop by describing its purpose and presenting overviews of current

research projects in the Catchment. Brigid Letty from INR presented an overview of activities and plans

within the Living Catchment project and researchers from UKZN (Rebecka Henriksson and Mdoda

Ngwenya), SAEON (Sachin Doarsamy) and MDF (Michael Malinga) provided a progress report on the Aims

1, 2, 3 and 5 of this project.

The workshop then moved on to the Adaptive Planning Process (APP) - which allows stakeholders to

understand that everyone has something to contribute, and that collaborative approaches are critical to

addressing complex problems. The APP intends to be a learning space where “all voicesare heard”, where

problems are examined from different angles to have a fuller picture of the causes and consequences,

where a shared vision can be created, and where stakeholders can envision a role that they can each play

in shifting this problem. Participants were divided into three mixed and diverse groups that were led by

facilitators to explore, share and discuss current concerns, values for successful collaboration, threats and

challenges to the valuable characteristics of the catchment, and finally creating a shared vision. The visions

from the three groups involved collaboration, co-management and stewardship of the environment and

water resources, fair access of water for socio-economic growth, as well as knowledge, awareness and

capacity building around sustainable management of resources – with a key point being a recognition of

the role that local communities can play in addressing challenges. All plenary and group conversations

were translated between isiZulu and English for fair engagement and inclusion.

The three groups’ visions were co-developed as follows:

Group 1: Communities take ownership and stewardship for fair access to clean water in collaboration

with clear roles for key stakeholders.

Group 2: Integration of different entities to conserve and utilize the functioning water resources to

empower communities while achieving improved socio-economic growth.

Group 3: Communities work together and with other stakeholders to protect springs and maintain and

improve infrastructure for households to have close access to water. Communities have environmental

education and awareness to protect the environment and water sources.

For the purpose of emphasising the importance of building partnerships, Samir Randera-Rees from WWF

presented information about their efforts to establish Strategic Water Source Partnerships, one of which

is the partnership for the Northern Drakensberg, which will focus on the Upper Thukela. Through the

initiative, WWF has also managed to unlock funds for some implementation work associated with climate

resilient agriculture and control of alien invasive plants, as well as some funds for supporting stakeholder

engagement. The workshop ended with a plan for the first steps towards collaboratively achieving the

vision, including actions committed to by various groups of stakeholders to report on during the third joint

multi-stakeholder engagement for this project and the Living Catchment in the upper uThukela, in October

2022.

It was emphasized during the workshop that the meetings and workshop cannot alone solve the persisting

water security challenges in the catchment, but that collaborating and building partnerships between

wide and diverse stakeholders can shift the problem towards a more equitable, sustainable and desirable

future.

Figure 6.2.Stakeholders of the upper uThukela Catchmentgathered during a one-day Adaptive Planning

Process (APP) workshop to share knowledge, perspectives and visions for the water resources

management in the catchment. Okhahlamba Local Municipality, Bergville, KwaZulu-Natal, 14 June 2022.

6.2 “Water village walks”

While the Aims 1-4 will increase the communities’ knowledge and understanding of their natural resource

base to be better prepared to make decisions for improving their management practices, the communities

are not technically and financially equipped to test and experiment innovations. This projecttherefore

committedto provide the participants with additional support for community experimentation during, to

test innovations which they, through this long-term co-learning decision making process, have thoroughly

reached consensus to implement. Building the innovation testing on thorough decisions, including

reflecting on how decisions are made under Aim 4, reduce therisk of project funding to be inefficiently

used. As a preparation of such innovations (and as part of the resource mapping described in section 4),

water and resources mapping walks (“water village walks”) were carried out in the two communities.

These walks were aimed at co-assessing the water sources with the most potential to be protected and

developed for water provision to the communities. The project team and key informants from the

communities (water committee members) were accompanied by an agricultural engineering consultant

whichprovided valuable opportunities to co-learn about the landscape, resources, options, needs and

priorities.

6.3 Spring protection and reticulation

After the water village walks, the agricultural consultantdeveloped potential layout and access scenarios

for a number of optionsfor Costone, aligned with the priorities of the community representatives and

feasibility. The prioritization looked at the geographical positions, strength and condition of these sources

as well as their potential to supply as many households as possible with water. These scenarios were used

to work with the committee and community members to finalise the options for implementation. It was

decided to protect Spring 1 and installa gravity fed reticulation system (Figure 6.3). 26 households are

included in the scheme, who contributed financially to establish a maintenance fund, and with labour to

dig ditches, bring building material to the site and assist with the construction work. The EcoChamps also

assisted the scheme with labour.

Figure 6.3. Construction of spring protection and reticulation inCostone.

6.4E.coli testing

Water quality testing is an element that has been added to the activities, not originally planned in the

project. During the field based surveys (section 4) and the village walks (section 6.2) water was tested

for E. coli and Coliforms bacteria.In Ezibomvini, the presence of E.coli (Escherichia coli) was tested at

several points along both streams, with samples either testing positive forE. coli or Coliforms Bacteria.

In Costone, two sets of E.Coli tests were undertaken on the springs and flow exiting the wetland. The

first tests were taken at two of the springs in the wetland and at the flow exit from thewetland. The

second set were taken at the three springs and the exit of the wetland. During October2021a spring

tested positive for E.Coli while in Novemberthe flow from the exit of the wetland was positive. As these

are points used for drinking water collection, and given the dependence of the village on these water

sources, the water committees were engaged and trained to carry out a weekly sampling and analysis of

E. coli during three months. The water committees in both communities get assistance from the

EcoChamps to collect samples at selected sites.

6.5 EcoChamps

Eight EcoChamps (four young community members from Costone and four from Ezibombini) have been

involved in training and application of a number of ecosystem and water resource management and

restoration activities(Figure 6.6). These activities include river ecology (clarity tubes, MiniSASS and

velocity plank), E.coli testing,clearing alien plants, building check dams, brush packs, planting on bare

lands, spring protectionand other ad hoc work in the communities. The EcoChamps haveworked

together across both communities and assisted community groups, such as the water committees, and

thus contributed to cross-community learning, sharing and relationship strengthening. The EcoChamps

were also represented by two participants during the recent multi-stakeholder workshop.

Figure 6.6 EcoChamps involved in ecosystem and water resource management and restoration activities

in Costone and Ezibomvini.

6.6Wayforward

A planned co-learning workshop series will systematically cover the thematic contents of the aims and

activities of the various project components. These themes includerainfall and streamflow and how

observed changes are likely to affect water availability in the future (Aim 1), vegetation and biodiversity

and how the current condition of the grassland areas determine opportunities for land management

activities (Aim 3), individual and collective decision making and how social-cultural factors influence the

decisions made regarding water and natural resources (Aim 4), and testing of innovations for sustainable

water and land resources management. The workshop series is being planned as processing of data and

analysis of the information gathered thus far is being completed.

In order to guide sustainable management of resources, there is a need to evaluate the sustainability of

land and water resource managementstrategies from an ecosystem service and livelihoods perspective.

In other words, through a set of indicators, the capacity of the communities to reliably sustain a desired

set of ecosystem services to secure livelihoods and human well-being of its inhabitants will be scored

through a science-community co-learning exercise. Initially, such evaluation was planned to take place at

the beginning and at the end of the workshop series. Given the delays of the workshop series due to

COVID19 regulations, the evaluation process needs to be adapted. The sustainability evaluation, using

maps, analysis and findings from the previous sections will be discussed during a workshop in mid 2022,

and a set of sustainability indicators will be scored by the participants, teammembers and additional

stakeholders. The indicators used to provide the scores are modified from Biggs et al. 2015 and Delgado-

Serrano et al. 2018, and in addition to the condition of the land and water resources that sustain

ecosystem services, they include aspects of knowledge and learning, governance and equity,

infrastructure and health, and livelihoods. These indicators will assist communication with community

leaders and other relevant stakeholders to determine if the characteristics of their currentand future

water and natural resource management strategies are likely to be conducive or may impede the potential

long-term sustainability.

For extended learning exchange, cross-study visits between the different participating community groups

are planned for exchange of experience, dissemination of results, and for further advancement of the

framework, towards the second half of 2022.

7. Annual Reporting

7.1 Capacitybuilding

7.1.1 Community

The Costone and Ezibomvini communities are through their involvement in this and related projects

gaining an increased understanding of the natural resource base which they depend on and manage for

ecosystem services and livelihoods. The participation in mapping exercises and focus group discussions

increase the awareness of their surrounding landscapes and the use and management of these resources.

This isstrengthened through themulti-stakeholder co-learning workshop(s)and thematic workshops

whereby the communitiesget better informed and equipped to implement sustainable and equitable land

management strategies. Through technical and financial support the communities can test innovations

they would not otherwise have capacity for.

7.1.2 Organization

The multi- and transdisciplinary nature of the research, and bringing a diverse research team together to

address several aspects of the complexity that sustainable water and natural resource management

entails, will benefit UKZN. Material and products, and lessons learned will be incorporated in the

undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Further, SAEON, as well as the EFTEON platform will benefit

and develop from participating in this project. Bringing a diverse team of scientists together and

responding to the needs of the communities will strengthen the organization's capacity to address

complex issues from a multi- and transdisciplinary approach. Ezemvelo will draw on lessons learned from

the interactions with the local communities adjacent to the protected areas and develop their outreach

activities according to the needs and requests of the communities identified through this project.

Participating in this project is also leading to institutional development of Mahlathini by increasing the

facilitators' knowledge and understanding of the natural resource base and the processes that influence

community members' and leaders' decision making and management of resources.

7.1.3 Postgraduatestudents

Two MSc students are involved in this project. Mr Mdoda Ngwenya registered in April 2020 for an MSc in

Hydrology atUKZN, and is supervised by Dr Rebecka Henriksson (UKZN) and Erna Kruger (MDF). Ngwenya

has a National Diploma in Nature Conservation from Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, a B-Tech

in Nature Conservation from Mangosuthu University of Technology and a BSc Honours in Environmental

Science from Rhodes University. His current research will further broaden his field of expertise, also

gaining from his many years experience in community facilitation and outreach in various natural

resources management projects. Ngwenya’s MSc project titled “Participatory mapping and analysis of

social-ecological patches, ecosystem services and livelihoods in the Drakensberg, KwaZulu-Natal” fits

within Aim 2 of this project and is instrumental in completing the expected outcomes under this aim.

Crucial to the work of this aim is a deep understanding of the local conditions, the socio-cultural context

and language. Ngwenya is a native isiZulu-speaker and is furthermore originating from a village located

only a few kilometers away from the study area. His background significantly contributes to a greater

understanding of the lives the community members lead and the contexts within which their natural

environments are being managed, which will benefit the kind of field research his MSc project entails.

Ngwenya has further completed the course “Training of Trainers -Introductory course to facilitating social

learning and stakeholder engagement in natural resource management contexts” at Rhodes University.

The course aimed to buildcapacity of current and future practitioners of environmental learning

processes such as training, facilitation, stakeholder engagement and information sharing by drawing on

up-to-date learning theory, methods and processes, which will greatly build Ngwenya’s personal

capacities, and benefit the greater project as well. Ngwenya is currently completing his research proposal

and literature review, and started his field research in October 2021. Ngwenya’s disability status (visual

impairment) has been considered in the supervisory support through assisting with printing out reading

material and providing a computer monitor for use at home during the Covid19 lockdown. He has further

been assisted by UKZN’s disability support unit and been granted access to the UKZN visual support LAN.

This LAN was however not open during the lockdown. The project lead continuously assesses Ngwenya’s

need for support to facilitate his work.

The second student who has contributed to the project is Mr Sachin Doarsamy, who is registered for an

MSc in Grassland Science, served as an intern on the project. Mr Doarsamy has a BSc and BSc Honours in

Grassland Science and Ecology from UKZN. Mr Doarsamy has contributed towards the project by using his

knowledge gained through his MSc to undertake the mapping aspect and veld condition assessments.

7.2 Knowledge dissemination

The researchers within the team, and their respective organizations form part of numerous networks and

partnerships in South Africa and globally, which will contribute to a wide dissemination of knowledge,

information, and collaboration. The expected knowledge dissemination in this project cover a range of

applications. Project team members will attend the Southern African Mountain Conference in March

2022, at which anoral presentation will be held, titled “Community based climate change adaptation in

the Central Drakensberg improves resilience of smallholder farmers” (authors: E Kruger, R Henriksson and

M Toucher, see Appendix 3 for accepted abstract).

A brief information video was produced by SANBI during the 2nd Catchment-based Indaba field visit on 2

November 2021. This video was narrated by the field visit host, MDF facilitator M Malinga who presented

an overview of the topics discussed in the three homesteads during the field visit.

A policy brief will be produced, and policy makers will be invited to relevant meetings and feedback

sessions for further dissemination. The research team, community members and relevant stakeholders

will participate in yearly learningforums/workshops for community feedback and conversation between

scientists, communities and others. All learning material relevant to community members will be

translated into isiZulu and distributed, and available at the relevant project partners’ websites.

Dissemination will also occur through popular articles or blog posts, and continuous progress updates in

lead and collaborating organizations newsletters (CWRR and SAEON). The academic advancements will be

presented at national and international scientific conferences and symposiums and through peer-

reviewed publications in scientific journals (by researchers and MSc students). The knowledge produced

will further be incorporated in lecturing of undergraduate and postgraduate students at UKZN, and two

MSc theses are expected to be finalized.

7.3 Work plan

7.3.1 Timeline ofaims

Figure 9.Timeline of the activities under each aim.

7.3.2 Deliverables

The deliverables of this project are as follows:

1.First Annual Progress Report: Report on progress to date including inception workshop invitation

and documentation. Clarifying methodology and finalising activities among the research team.

Submission date: 15 December 2020 - complete

2.Interim Report: Multi-stakeholder co-learning Workshop in Community.Report detailing interim

results and reporting from Community Workshop. Target date: 31 January 2022

3.Second Annual Progress Report: Report on progress to date including findings and reporting back

on community engagement. Target date: 31 May 2022

4.Interim Report/ Policy Brief: Policy recommendations based on methodological advancements

and findings. Target date: 15 November 2022

5.Final Report: Comprehensive synopsis, methodological advancement, conclusions and

recommendations from above-mentioned deliverables. Target date: 13 December 2022.

7.3.3 Work plan 2022/2023

Del.

Del. Title

Deliverable and Tasks

Due date and status

Second Annual

Progress

Report

Report on progress to date including findings and reporting

back on community engagement

30-June-22

Field work by MSc student M Ngwenya: village walks and in-

depth interviews

June - September 2022

Series of community engagements: spring protection

innovations, focus group discussions

June 2022 onwards

Multi-stakeholder co-learning workshop. Adaptive Planning

Process. Co-hosted with the INR (uThukela SANBI Living

catchment Project co-learning conveners)

14 June 2022

Interim Report:

Policy Brief

Policy recommendations based on methodological

advancements and findings

15-Nov-22

Policy user needs assessment: Consult stakeholders (decision and

policy makers) on format and content of policy brief

July 2022

Field work by MSc student M Ngwenya: village walks and in-

depth interviews

June - September 2022

Finalize community engagement(focus group discussions and

thematic co-learning workshops, participatory games, interviews)

July - October 2022

Development of GIS decision tool: combining maps

August – September 2022

Cross-study visits between communities for enhanced co-

learning

October 2022

Develop policy brief according to user needs

September - October 2022

Final Report

Comprehensive synopsis, methodological advancement,

conclusions and recommendations from above-mentioned

deliverables.

13-Dec-22

Stakeholder feedback workshops in communities

November 2022

8. References

Abule, E, Snyman, HA, Smit, GN et al. 2007. Rangeland evaluation in the middle Awash valley of Ethiopia:

I. Herbaceous vegetation cover. Journal of Arid Environments, doi: 10.1016 2006.12.008.

Allen, VG, Batello, C, Berretta, EJ, Hodgson, J, Kothmann, LiX, McIvor, J, Milne, J, Morris, C, Peeters, A,

Sanderson, M et al. 2011. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass and

Forage Science 66: 2 – 28.

Benjaminsen, T, Rohde,R, Sjaastad E et al. 2006. Land reform, range ecology, and carrying capacities in

Namaqualand, South Africa. Ann Assoc Am Geo 96:524–540

Biggs, R, Schlüter, M, & Schoon, M Ed. 2015. Principles for building resilience. Sustaining ecosystem

services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Binder, C, Hinkel J, Bots, P et al. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems.

Ecol Soc 18:26.

Bosch, OJH, Theunissen, JD et al. 1992. Differences in the responses of species on the degradation of

gradient in the semi-arid grasslands of southern Africa and the role of ecotypic variation. In: Chapman, G

(Editor). Desertified Grasslands: Their Biology and Management. The Linnean Society of London, London,

pp. 95-108.

Charnley, S, Carothers, C, Satterfield, T. 2017 Evaluating the best available social science for natural

resource management decision-making. Environ Sci Pol 73:80-88.

Cockburn, J, Schoon, M, Cundill, G et al. 2020. Understanding the context of multifaceted collaborations

for social-ecological sustainability: a methodology for cross-case analysis. Ecol Soc 25(3):7.

Cousins, B. 2009. Potentials and pitfalls of ‘communal’ land tenure reform: experience in Africa and

implications for South Africa. Paper for World Bank Conference on Land Governance in Support of the

MDGs Responding to New Challenges, Washington

Delgado-Serrano, M, Oteros-Rozas, E, Ruiz-Mallén, I et al. 2018. Influence of community-based natural

resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems. Reg Environ Chang

18:581-592.

Duraiappah, A, Asah, T, Brondizio E et al. 2014. Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services

for human well-being: a conceptual framework for understanding the New Commons. Curr Opin Environ

Sust 7:94–100.

Feeny, D, Berkes, F, McCay, B 1990 The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Hum Ecol 18:1-

Fischer, A & Young, J 2007 understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for biodiversity

management and conservation. Biol Conserv 136:271-282

Frost, P, Medina, E, Menaut, JC, Solbrig, O, Swift, M, Walker, B et al. 1986. Responses of savannas to

stress and disturbance, Biology International, Special Issue 10.

Gamoun, M. 2014. Grazing intensity effects on the vegetationin desert rangelands of Southern Tunisia.

J. Arid. Land. 6, 324-333.

Guerrero, A. M., N. J. Bennett, K. A. Wilson, N. Carter, D. Gill, M. Mills, C. D. Ives, M. J. Selinske, C.

Larrosa, S. Bekessy, F. A. Januchowski-Hartley, H. Travers, C. A. Wyborn, and A. Nuno. 2018. Achieving

the promise of integration in social-ecological research: a review and prospectus. Ecology and Society

23(3):38.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10232-230338

Gxasheka, M, Solomon, TB, Mlisa, NL, Lesoli, M et al. 2017. Farmers’ perceptions of vegetation

change,rangeland condition and degradation in three communal grasslands of South Africa. J. Trop.

Ecol.58,217-228.

Henriksson Malinga, R, Lindborg, R, Andersson, E et al. 2018. On the other side of the ditch: Exploring

contrasting ecosystem service co-production between smallholder and commercial agriculture. Ecol Soc

Hardy, M, Tainton, NM. 1993. Towards a technique fordetermining basal cover in tufted grasslands.

African Journal of Range and Forage Science. 10:2:77-81.

Hardy, M, Barnes, RD, Kirkman, K. 1999. Sour grassveld. In Tainton N (ed) Veld management in South

Africa, University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

Harrison, YA, Shackleton, CM. 1999. Resilience of South African communal grazing lands after the remov

Hoffman, T, Ashwell, A. 2001. Nature divided. Land degradation in South Africa. University of Cape

Town, South Africa.al of high grazing pressure. Land Degradation & Development 10: 225-239.3(4):9.

Kenter, J, Jobstvogt, N, Watson, V et al. 2016. The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-

based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation

and storytelling. Ecosyst Serv 21:270-290.

Kgosikoma, OE, Mojeremane, W, Harvie, BA et al. 2012. Grazing management systems and their effects

on savanna ecosystem dynamics: A review. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment 5 (6): 88 - 9.

Kunst, C, Monti, E, Perez, H, Godoy, J et al. 2006. Assessment of the rangelands of Southwestern

Santiago del Estero, Argenina, for grazing management and research. Journal of Environmental

Management. 80: 248 – 265.

Lesoli, MS. 2008. Vegetation and soil status and human perceptions on the condition of communal

rangelands of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. MSc. Dissertation, University of Fort Hare, Alice, South

Africa.

Lindborg, R, Gordon, LJ, Malinga, R et al. 2017. How spatial scale shapes the generationand

management of multiple ecosystem services. Ecosphere 8(4):e01741.

Liu, H, Han, X, Li, L, Huang, J, Li, X et al. 2009. Grazing density effects on cover, species composition, and

nitrogen fixation of biological soil crust in an Inner Mongalia steppe. Range. Ecol. Managem. 62, 321-

327.

Malan, PW, Van Niekerk. 2005. The extent of grass species composition in Braklaagte, Zeerust District,

North-West Province, South Africa. African Journal of Range and forage Science 22(3): 177- 184.

Milchunas, DG, Sala, OE, Lauenroth, WK et al. 1988. A generalized model of the effects of grazing by

large herbivores on grassland community structure, American Naturalist 132, 87-106.

Moyo, B, Dube, S, Lesoli, M, Masika, PJ et al. 2008. Communal area grazing strategies: institutions

andtraditional practices, African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 25:2, 47-54.

Mucina, L, Rutherford, MC. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SANBI,

Pretoria.

Muhar, A, Raymond, C, van den Born, R et al. 2018. A model integrating social-cultural concepts of

nature into frameworks of interactions between social and natural systems. J Environ Plan Manag

61:756-777.

Ndandani, A. 2016. Range condition assessment to document the extent of degradation on selected

semi-arid rangelands of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. MSc Thesis University of Fort Hare, Alice, South

Africa.

Ntshidi, Z., Gush, M., Dzikiti, S., Le Maitre, D., 2018. Characterising the water use and hydraulic

properties of riparian tree invasions: A case study of Populus canescens in South Africa. Water SA 44..

doi:10.4314/wsa.v44i2.18

O'Connor, TG, Kuyler, P, Kirkman, KP, Corcoran, B et al. 2010. Which grazing management practices are

most appropriate for maintaining biodiversity in South African grassland?, African Journal of Range &

Forage Science 27, 67-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2010.502646

Oström, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Pacheco-Romero, M, Alcaraz-Segura, D, Vallejos, M., and Cabello, J. 2020. An expert-based reference list

of variables for characterizing and monitoring social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 25(3):1.

Pardoe, J 2016. Multiple and more frequent natural hazards: The vulnerability implications for rural

West African communities Doctoral dissertation University of Bonn, Germany

Peterson, G, Harmackova, Z, Meacham, M. et al. 2018. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES:

“Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecol Soc 23:39

Rasmusen, LN, Meinzen-Dick, R. 1995. Local organisations for natural resource management: lessons

from theoretical and empirical literature. Environment and Production Technology Division Discussion

Paper 11. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Reed, M, Graves, A, Dandy, N et al. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods

for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90:1933-1949.

Reid, R, Galvin, KA, Kruska R et al. 2008. Global significance of extensive grazing lands and pastoral

societies: an introduction. In: Galvin KA, Reid R, Behnke RH, Hobbs NT (eds), Fragmentation in arid and

semi-arid landscapes: consequences for human and natural systems. Dordrecht: Springer. pp 1–24.

Rutherford, M, Powrie, L. 2013. Impacts of heavy grazing on plant species richness: A comparison across

rangeland biomass of South Africa. S. Afr. J. Botany. 87,146-156.

Sinare, H, Gordon, L, & Enfors Kautsky, E 2016. Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village

landscapes – A case study from Burkina Faso. Ecosyst Serv 21(Part A):141-152.

Savory Institute. 2015b. E-book eight: The fundamentals of Holistic Planned Grazing. Colorado: Savory

Institute [Online]. Available: https://savory-institute.myshopify.com/collections/ebook-bundles [2022,

May 25].

Strugnell, RG, Pigott, CD.1978. Biomass, Shoot production and grazing of two grasslands in Rwenzori

National Park, Uganda, Journal of Ecology, 66, 73-96.

Tengö, M, Brondizio, E, Elmqvist, T, et al. 2014. Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced

Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio 43:579–591.

Todd, SW, Hoffman, MT. 1999. A fence-line contrast reveals effects of heavy grazing on plant diversity

and community composition in Namaqualand, South Africa. Plant Ecology 142: 169- 178.

Trollope, WSW. 1989. Veld burning as a management practice in livestock production. In: J. E.

Danckwerts and Teague, W. R. (eds). Veld management in the Eastern Cape. Department of Agriculture

and WaterSupply, Eastern Cape Region, South Africa. pp. 4930: 67-73.

Trollope, WSW, Trollope, LA, Bosch, OHJ et al. 1990. Veld and pasture management terminology in

Southern Africa. Journal of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa 71: 52 – 61.

Trollope, WSW, Trollope, L. A. 1996. Fire in African savanna and other grazing ecosystems. Paper

presented at the seminar on “Forest Fire and Global Change” held in Shushenkoye in the Russian

Federation from the 4th-10th August, 1996. pp. 1-27.

UNEP. 2015. The Economicsof Land Degradation in Africa, ELD Initiative, Bonn, Germany Available from

www.eld-initiative.org

Van der Westhuizen, H, Snyman, H, Fouché H et al. 2005. A degradation gradient for the assessment of

rangelandcondition of a semi-arid sourveld in southern Africa. African Journal of Range and Forage

Science 22(1): 47-58.

Vetter, S. 2003. What are the costs of land degradation to communal livestock farmers in South Africa?

The case of the Herschel District, Eastern Cape: PhD thesis, University of Cape Town. South Africa.

Vetter, S, Goqwana, WM, Bond, WJ, Trollope, WSW et al. 2006. Effects of land tenure, geology and

topography on vegetation and soils of two grassland types in South Africa. African Journal of Rangeand

Forage Science. 23: 13 – 27.

Voisin, A. 1988. Grass productivity. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Walker, BH, Langridge, JL, McFarlane, F et al. 1997. Resilience of an Australian savanna grassland to

selective and non-selective perturbations, Australian Journal of Ecology, 22, 125-135.

Ward, D, Ngairorue, BT, Kathena, J, Samuels, R, Ofran, Y et al. 1998. Land degradation is not a necessary

outcome of communal pastoralism in arid Namibia. Journal of Arid Environments 40, 357–371.

Zambatis, N, Zacharias, PJK, Morris, C, Derry, JF. 2006. Re-evaluation of the disc pasture meter

calibration for the Kruger National Park, South Africa. African Journal of Range and Forage Science.

9. Appendices

Appendix 1.

Participatory Mapping Workshop Schedule

Village: Ezimbomvu/CostoneDate:

Group: Men/women/decision makers

Venue:

Equipment:Maps, flipchart, markers, camera

Introduction – (3 mins)

Goals and objective: The objective of this mapping workshop is to identify and map different social-

ecological patches found across the village landscape

Why:In order to assist the community to manage their natural resources sustainably and equitably

How:By mapping all key natural resources that are perceived to be important by local community

members.

With who:Different community members and groups– (Community leaders/decision-makers, local

facilitators/community liaison ppl, Water committee, Grazing committee, MDF group members, Non-

MDF group members

Output:Village map of key social-ecological patches

Step 1: Introducing the activity to participants – (3 - 5mins)

· A clear explanation to participants on what the map will be used for, and what it will not be used

for.

· The map will not be used for any official uses such as land demarcation, and will not be shared

with those outside the research team such as local government or other implementers

· Explain clearly what mapping activity will be done during the session with each group (e.g. grazing

lands with grazing committee group, water sources with water committer group or cropping fields lands

with crop farmers)

· Explain that any use of the map (e.g., in future scientific publications) will maintain the anonymity

of the village and need prior approval from participants

· Allow some time for questions and for addressing concerns.

· Each group will be assigned with different colour makers for each category so that it is easy for the

researcher to analyse the results and when presenting the maps to participants.

· Ask participants to make a mark or draw a polygon to locate a feature.

Step 2: Familiarizing participants with the map – (5-10 mins)

· Participants will be given a chance to familiarize themselves with the map before the mapping

activity; to make sure everyone understands the mapping exercise;

· Participants will be asked to first draw the village boundaries and identify key locations in the

Village that people are familiar with (e.g. roads, houses, spaza shops, fields, mountains, etc.)

Step 3: Identify and map main land uses – (15 -20 mins)

Participants will be asked to mark and draw the following main land uses:

· Where your residents located (their houses)?

· Where are grazing lands located?

· And what types of livestock are grazing there the most?

· Where are your farmlands (homesteads, crops fields)?

· What types of crops are grown most?

· Where are recreational and sacred areas (sacred areas or gravesites)?

· Do men and women have their own/separate land?

Step 4: Identify and map ecosystem services – (15 -20min)

Ask participants to list all the key ES found in their village and where these collected:

· Water

· Livestock grazing

· Hunting

· Firewood

· Medicinal plants

· Building materials (poles, thatch grass, broom grass)

· Recreational and cultural meeting places (playground –soccer, river swimming)

· And more

Step 5: Identify areas of inadequately supply – (2 mins)

· Ask participants to mark and draw where ecosystem services are no longer or provide insufficient

supply (e.g. degraded areas which includes overgrazed areas, gullies, dongas, wetlands, bush

encroachment).

Step 6: Identify power dynamics and unequal access to ES –(2 mins)

Ask participants to mark and draw areas with restricted/open access

If restricted why?

Step 7: Priorities/needs of ES – (2 mins)

· Ask participants to mark and draw areas that need to be prioritized in terms of social-ecological

patches, ecosystem services and livelihoods.

Step 8: Suggestions for managing land and water resources sustainably and equitable – (3mins)

· how ES can be protected, conserved and managed equitably and sustainably for the benefits of

women and society.

Step 9: Asking participants to update the map – (1 min)

· Ask participants to change village boundaries or add anything that may be wrong ormissing.

Appendix 2.

Guide for focus group discussion on decision-making.

Focus group questions DECISION-MAKING

What do you understand by natural resource management and land use management (See what

people say and then add some definitions to assist)?

What are the land use practices in your area at present. What were they in the past? What might

they look like in the future? (consider cropping, livestock, water, harvesting of wild plants, cutting

of trees for firewood, sand mining, demarcation of land, PTO’s etc)

Who makes decisions in each case? And how are these decisions made? (For each of the land use

management practices described in question 2)

Who gets access and who doesn’t. Please explain and outline? (e.g., men-women, poor-rich,

friends-others, long term residents-new residents etc)

What is the relationship of community members with TAs and Councillors? (Is it the same for all

people, how do you gain access, can anyone interact, what are the rules…)

What role do the councillors play? (Do they have any role in natural resources and land use

management – e.g., water,

How has access changed in the last 10 years and why?

How has CC affected the natural resources? And community members access to these?

Appendix 3.

Accepted abstract for oral presentation at Southern African Mountain Conference in March 2022.

Community based climate change adapTation in the Central-Drakensberg improves resilience of

smallholder farmers

Kruger, E.1, Henriksson, R.2and Toucher, M.3

1Mahlathini Development Foundation, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. 2Centre for Water

Resources Research, University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, KZN, South Africa. 3Grasslands-

Wetlands-Forests Node, South AfricanEnvironmental Observation Network, Pietermaritzburg, KZN,

South Africa

Keywords: CbCCA, Social-ecological systems, climate resilient agriculture, resilience impact assessment.

Introduction

Weather variability and climate change have significant impacts onthe livelihoods of the rural poor in

communal tenure villages in the Central Drakensberg region. While annual rainfall totals have been lower

in the catchment the recent decade compared to the historical mean (1951 – 1980), the mean annual

temperature hasbeen above the historical mean (1951 – 1980) bymore than 1.5 ⁰C. Increased co-learning

with local communities is necessary to be better equipped to adapt to the changing social-ecological

circumstances and to tackle climate challenges.

Aim

Village based climate resilient agriculture (CRA) learning groups were aimed to provide for a coherent

social-ecological setting for exploration and implementation of adaptive strategies and practices, as well

as improved understanding of the natural resource base and its use and managementwithin the

communities.

Methods

In this transdisciplinary mixed-method approach, 250 smallholder farmers across 18 villages have

implemented a range of CRA practices including regenerative agriculture, livestock integration and

intensive homestead food production alongside rainwater harvesting, soil and water conservation and

management of local water source areas. A suite of climate resilience impact indicators and indices has

been developed to track social, economic, environmental and productivity aspects of resilience and

provide snapshots for improved adaptation and resilience. In two villages, a social-ecological participatory

mapping exercise is being developed to assess the nature resource base, local land uses and associated

ecosystem services andlivelihood benefits.

Results

Smallholder farmers have made significant strides in improving the sustainability of their farming systems

and developing local value chains and food systems and have improved their livelihoods through

increased productivity and local marketing initiatives. Positive trends in soil health, water availability and

infiltration and water productivity have been measured, and increased understanding of the climate

impacts and management implications on the community landscape and its resources is being developed.

Discussion

This approach has highlighted the importance to improve social agency for natural and water resources

management in community based climate adaptation. Ongoing mentoring and implementation of CRA

strategies, alongside with co-learning within a multi- and transdisciplinary team provides sustainability in

community level management of current and future resources.

Conclusion

Further deepening of the co-learning process and long-term establishment of innovations is required to

maintain the positive impacts of this approach, and methods to upscale the project are necessary.