Milestone 6 - Progress report 5 | Mahlathini Development Foundation

WWF-Milestone 6: Fifth progress report above including

a focus on improving social agency for value chain

support

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During this period, village-based learning groups in KZN (11) and EC (7) respectively, have continued with their prioritized

CRA learning and implementation processes.

•Conservation Agriculture has been implemented in KZN (126) and EC (30). Field monitoring has been undertaken

for around 60 participants. Experimentationhas included: intercropping, crop rotation, strip cropping, cover crop

mixes, perennial fodder and short season maize, awa use of tractor drawn 2 row planters to plant larger fields to

CA.

•Thisseason 9participants from Bergville and 2 from the Midlands in KZN are involved in fodder supplementation.

A large group in Ozwathini (Midlands) are still active in their calf rearing farmers’ association (43 participants).

•Vegetable production: 20 Micro tunnels have been procured to bring the total to 90 and are in the process of being

installed. Learning sessions in soil fertility, liquid manures, bed design, tunnel construction, natural pest and

disease control have been undertaken mainly in the EC, in 7 villages for 144 participants.

•Bucket drip irrigation systems have been installed in 53 tunnels to date and is ongoing.

•The household poultry production units (now 118 participants) have been supported throughout: farmers are now

providing monies for further orders of birds and feed.

Monthly farmers market stalls have collapsed in Bergville (KZN), partly due to the seasonal shift in emphasis for the farmers

and partly due to the village- based pension pay out points being discontinued by SASSA. Recently, a collaborative effort

with the Uthukela Economic Development Agency has been agreed to and the first market was held in Emmaus on the 2nd

of March 2022, with and overall income of R1 350 for 19 farmer participants.In Ozwathini (Midlands, KZN), the learning

group has continued with their monthly market stalls independently of MDF and have tried out a number of interesting

variations. At total annual income of around R78 000 has been realized from these market stalls, for an average of 12

participants per market day and an average income of R250 per participant per market.

Stakeholder engagement in the period has included:

•Conservation Agriculture farmers Day: Emmaus Bergville 2nd March 2022

•UCP Programme: 34th Quarterly meeting – Matatiele 25th February2022

•Presentation by Erna Kruger of a paper “CbCCA in central Drakensberg improves resilience for smallholder

farmers.” on 15th march at the SAMC conference

•Presentation of the farming for Climate Justice research at the Asset Research symposium at Stellenbosch

University on 14th March by Temakholo Mathebula.

The mid- term evaluation of this project was undertaken by theMDF team and Margaret Jack mid- December 2021- mid

January 2022.Recommendations have been made for each area (Matatiele, SKZN, Midlands, Bergville) and suggestions

have been included into the planning and ongoing work.

NARRATIVE REPORT

PROJECT DETAILS

Project No and Title

GT06177_ID315_ Climate Resilient Agriculture in mixed smallholder farming systems allows for

sustainable food and nutrition security and local incomes for the rural poor inthe lower

Drakensberg foothills of KZN and the Eastern Cape.

Date of approval

6th October 2020

Start and end date

1st October 2020-30th August 2022

Project value

R3 000 000

Contractor’s name

Mahlathini Development Foundation

Project objectives

Increased productivity and resilience inthe mixed smallholder farming system through

implementation of a basket of Climate Resilient Agriculture practices:

1. Work with existing CCA learninggroups to scale up production in the short term within the

confines of the COVID-19 pandemic

2. Support a range of intensified foodproduction activities; vegetableproduction, field cropping

and livestock integration

3. Improve social agency for value chain support (VSLAs’, bulk buying, local farmer centres

and local marketing initiatives)

Project outcomes

Outcome1 - Food and nutrition security at household level for poor, rural homesteadswith

enough farming income to sustainably maintain farmingactivities in the short term

1.Activity 1 - Learninggroup review and planning sessions to prioritize each participant’s most

appropriate basket of CRA practices to be implemented, within the present confined of the

COVID-19pandemic and climate change

2.Activity 2 - Prioritize a basket of appropriate adaptive practices for the individuals and groups

involved within different thematic categories: Crops, livestock, water, soil and natural resources

3.Activity 3 - Provide learning and implementation support for theCRA* practices using a

Participatory Innovation Development (PID) approach

Outcome 2 - Development of social agency for community ledlocal economic development and

social safety net Improvement of the natural resource base

4.Activity 1 - Build social and economic capital withineach of the learning groups using

approaches such as Village savings and loans associations (VSLAs), farmer centres, small

business development and local marketing initiatives

5.Activity 2 - Set up a participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) system for monitoring and

assessing the impact of the CSA practices on livelihoods and resilience.

6.Activity 3 - Use an iterative approach of farmer level experimentation and social learning to

build local adaptation and innovation capacity

Reporting period

October 2020- 30 August 2022

Significant

approved changes

None

Changes in

capacity to deliver

outcomes

None

1PROGRESS PEROBJECTIVE AND OUTCOME

The last three months have been focused primarily on field cropping and the Conservation Agriculture experimentation

processes. In addition, installation of micro tunnels and drip kits, learning on agroecological gardening practices and

continuation with the poultry production aspects have been given some attention (12 villages in KZN and 7 in EC). A total of

372 participants have been supported

We have continued with local marketing processes where possible, mostly with organic produce market tables at central

points, such as pension days, hospitals and taxi ranks.

Table 1: Progress against specific outcomes and activities for the period January -March 2022

Outcome

Activities

Progress (Milestone 5)

Livelihood

security at

household

level

1. Learning group review

and planning sessions

KZN: Ezibomvini, Stulwane, Vimbukhalo, Eqeleni, Emadakaneni,

Madzikane, Gobizembe, Mayizekanye, Ozwathini, Spring Valley,

Ngongonini, Plainhill

EC: Rashule Nkau, Lufefeni, Mngeni, Ned, Mechachaneng, Nkasele

CCA introduction workshops held for 4 new villages in the EC

2. Prioritized baskets of

appropriate practises

Gardening: Tunnels, drip irrigation, mixed cropping, natural pest and

disease control, trench bedsand eco-circles, tower gardens and greywater

management

Conservation Agriculture: Experimentation with close cropping, inter

cropping crop rotation, cover crops, perennialfodder crops, short season

maize varieties and 2row tractor drawn no till planters.

Livestock integration: Continuation of micro poultry enterprises (broilers

and layers). Procurement of brush cutters for more intensiveveld grass

baling

3. Learning and

implementation support

Conservation Agriculture:

✓Planting and monitoring of CA plantings in 13 villages in KZN and

EC.

✓Late planting of short season maize and cover crops plots in KZN

(22 participants)

Livestock integration:

✓Fodder supplementation experimentation and monitoring in KZN

(11 participants)

Gardening:

✓Tunnel construction training KZN and EC (20 tunnels)

✓Gardening learning and mentoring in bed design, greywater

management, organic soil fertility, natural pest and disease control

(98 participants in EC)

✓Drip kit construction learning workshops in KZN and EC (53

participants)

Social

agency for

LED and

social safety

nets

1. VSLAs, business

development, farmer

centres

✓Monthly farmersmarket stalls for Midlands KZN

✓Marketing in Supermarkets and in association with Uthukela

Development Agency in Bergville KZN

✓26VSLA’sin KZN; monthly mentoring and share out meetings.

✓Continuation with bulk loan fund for two new groups (Ngongonini,

Bergville KZN).

2. PM&E system and

monitoring

✓Local marketing income monitoring

✓Poultry monitoring

✓CA crop growth monitoring

✓Initiation of resilience snapshots

3. Iterative PID approach

for improved adaptation

and innovation

✓34th quarterly UCP meeting: Presentation of CRA activities and

interactions with environmental programmes (Feb 2022)

✓CA open day in Emmaus Bergville, for `70 farmers and 110

stakeholders including students form UZKN (March 2022)

✓External evaluation: Formative (mid-term) conducted, and action

plan developed for remainder of project.

✓Case study in Midlands for solidarity networks and their role and

impact. Presented at Asset research symposium in Stellenbosch

(March 2022)

Progress overview.

CRA support for different activities is seasonal. During this period (January -March 2022) the following activitieshave been

undertaken:

➢The Conservation Agriculture (field cropping) activities undertaken for the 2nd round for 155 participants across

KZN and EC.

➢Support for micro poultry enterprises have continued and a total of 67 participants have been supported with

broilers and 51 with layers. This activity is extremely popular, as a quick win production strategy for income

generation and demand has far outstripped our ability to support smallholders. Participantshave continued with

their production units and have paid for their own inputs, after the initial support

➢Gardening (vegetable production) is traditionally a winter activity and 90 participants have been supported with

micro-tunnels and drip irrigation kits. Small learning workshops in organic vegetableproduction have been held in

all the villages where tunnels have been installed

➢Livestock integration activities supported consisted of planting of fodder production trials for 11 participants in

KZN only. In addition, members of one learning group have bought brush cutters for cutting and baling of vled

grass for their winter fodder requirements (Stulwane, Bergville, KZN).

➢Monthly market stalls have continued for Ozwathini and alternative marketing avenues for Bergville are being

explored.

The table below provides an overview of the number of participants for all activities todate.

Table 2: Overview of participants in the WWF-GT project for all activities undertaken: March 2022

The proposed number of participants for theprogramme is135 per annum (55 from KZN and 80 from EC), thus 270 in total

over the 2 years of implementation. At present there are 372 participants in the programme, 233 from KZN and 139 from the

EC. In KZN the learning groups are well developed and are expanding everyyear as more participants come on board. In

the EC, thelearning groups are new and in the process of being introduced to thevarious aspects of CRA and working in

learning groups.

In terms of expenditure, the budget allocations and use for the various activities is summarized in the small table below.

Table 3: Summary of expenditure on CRA activities: March 2022

Cost break down

Mar-22

Remainder

Budget (2021 and 2022)

Poultry

R184 770,22

-R48250,22

R80000,00

Tunnels (90)

R432 849,20

-R2 199,20

R430 650,00

Seedlings, marketing etc

R21155,14

R73344,86

R94500,00

CA (2 seasons)

R102 068,82

-R2 353,82

R127 715,00

Fodder supp

R6 502,39

R16497,61

R23000,00

R747 345,77

R37039,23

R755 865,00

For all the activities (poultry, seedlings, CA and fodder supplementation) farmers were supported with a proportion of the

start-up inputs and have contributed to their own inputs thereafter. MDF is still assisting in procurement and delivery. Due to

the combined effects of COVID-19 and the social unrest, many agricultural inputs are in short supply and are not easy to get

hold of. This includes day old chicks, point of lay hens, maizeseed, fertilizer and seedlings.

Tunnels

Broilers

Layers

Fodder

supplementation

Total number

proposed 270

Proposed

Actual 2020/21

Actual 2021/22

Field cropping

ha's

Proposed

Actual 2020/21

Actual2021/22

Dripkits2021/2

Gardening

ha's

Proposed

Actual 2020/22

Proposed

Actual 2020/22

Proposed

Actual 2020/21

Actual 2020/22

2021/22

372

135

172

155

31,5

0,3

100

2,5

100

2020/21

360

KZN

233

112

125

Bergville

Midlands

SKZN

144

Mzongwana

Rashule,

KwaNed

Nkau

Mechachaneng

Nkasele

Conservation Agriculture 2nd cycle of implementation

A brief comparison of implementation in the 1st and 2nd season is provided in the small table below.

Year

Area

No of villages

No of participants

1000m2 trials (10x10

‘ s)

400m2 trials

Strips

Fodderspecies

Seed

Poultry

Two row planter

Short season maize

Actual planted

(hectares)

2021

KZN

365

184

119

25,66

2022

KZN

125

31,25

2021

0,32

2022

0,3

Both thenumber of villages and number of participants reduced in the 2nd implementation season, primarily due to attrition in

farmer numbers related to COVID-19. Some farmers could not afford to plant this season and dropped out as planting

subsidies were not longer beingprovided. For KZN the area planted however increased, as this season Government role

players took part in supporting planting through provision of tractors and spraying equipment.

This aspect hasa much larger focus in KZN, where co funding from the Maize Trust and further assistance from KZNDARD

extension officers, the LandCare unit and Local Municipalities have ensured coherent implementation for 125participants

across Bergville, the Midlands and Southern KZN. The table below outlines the CA experimentation undertaken both as

collaboratively managed trials (CMTs), where farmers andthe MDF staffwork together to plan and manage these CA plots

and what are called Baby trials, where farmers are supported through the Learning groups and in delivery of inputs but plant

their CA plots according to their ownpreferences. This has meant planting of 4,5ha’s of CA trials and around 12 ha’s of CA

plotsplanted to maize.

Table 4: Conservation Agriculture experimentation details for participants form KZN: March 2022

CMTS per area

Baby trials

Area

Village

Name

Surname

10x10's

Strips

Fodder

Bergville

Ezibomvini

Phumelele

Hlongwane

Mantombi

Mabizela

5 males

Zodwa

Zikode

13 females

Nombono

Dladla

Eqeleni

Thulani

Dlamini

Sthabiso

Manyathi

Nomavila

Ndaba

Ntombakhe

Zikode

Thulile

Zikode

Stulwane

Nothile

Zondi

Khulekani

Dladla

Thulani

Dlamini

Dombi

Buthelezi

Nelisiwe

Msele

Vimbukhalo

Sibongile

Mpulo

Zibonile

Sithole

Zweni

Ndaba

Bukhisiwe

Ndaba

SKZN

Spring Valley

Mboniseni

Dlamini

Letta

Ngubo

7 males

Bonginhlanhla

Dlamini

3 females

Gertrude

Khwela

Ngongonini

Mandla

Mkhize

Leonard

Gamede

Moses

Zulu

Madzikane

Cosmos

Xaba

Nombuyise

Shozi

Midlands

Mayizekanye

Babekile

Nene

Ntombi

Shandu

3 males

Dumazile

Nxusa

11 females

Fikelephi

Mapumulo

Mavis

Shezi

Gobizembe

Rita

Ngobese

Ozwathini

Martina

Xulu

Nora

Sibiya

Aaron

Nkomo

Ndabenkhulu

Myeza

Lindiwe

Khanyile

Nomcebo

Zondi

Philani

Ngcobo

Nokuthula

Dube

TOTAL

KWAZULU NATAL

Bergville

We focused mainly on five villages: Stulwane, Ezibomvini, Vimbukhalo, Eqeleni andEmadakaneni with a total of 18 CMTs

and 47 baby trials.

The Okhahlamba Local Municipality and the local KZNDARD extension office assisted with tractors forboth spraying and

planting the CA plots, primarily inVimbukhaloand Stulwane, but also in the other two villages (20 plots in Stulwane, 28 in

Vimbukhaloand 5 in Eqeleni). They made use of the 2-row notill planters, owned by the farmer learning groups in these

villages.

CMTs were sprayed using knapsack sprayers, also using a tank mix of Round-up and Kemprin (600 and 250ml respectively,

in 2x16litres of water). The learning group members in each village assisted in all CMT plantings.

Figure 1: The OkhahlambaLM, municipal tractor and boom sprayer provided to participating farmers in B

Figure 2: Spraying of herbicide and pesticide 1-2

weeks prior to planting and Far Right: Learning

group members in Ezibomvini assist with planting

of the 1000m2 CMTs.

The mainissues in Bergville this season

havebeen difficulty withweeding, as

participants planted large control plots with

assistance from both KZNDARD and

GrainSA and then could not keepupwith

weeding. In addition, there has been

substantial run off damage in some plots -

especially those planted in January – fodder and short season maize. Insect damage has also been substantial – specifically

stalk borer as well as CMR and flea beetles. Farmers were responsible for buying their own insecticides and many did not.

LAN provided through the bulk buying process was not enough, which meant a large proportion of the CMTs were not properly

top dressed. This was partly due to a lack of supply of LAN in the local towns during December-January and partly due to a

very sharpincrease in prices thereafter.

Figure 3: Above Left: Runoffdamage to a short-season maize CA trial plot planted by Phumelele Hlongwane (Ezibomvini) in January

2022. Above centre: Weedy and yellowing maize in aCA control plot which was not top-dressed using LAN for Khulekani Dladla

(Stulwane). Above right: CMR beetle infestation on sunflowers in SCC CA trail plot for Bukisiwe Ndaba (Vimbukhalo).

Despite this, crop growth and production for most of the Bergville participants has been very impressive.

Figure 4: Left: Maize and beans intercropped with close spacing (Zodwa Zikode – Ezibomvini), Middle: Strip cropping of maize and cover

crops (Thulani Dlamini -Eqeleni) and Right: Summer cover crops (sunflower, Sun hemp and fodder sorghum) (Nombono Dladla-

Ezibomvini).

9 Participants planted small mixed plotsofthe fodder species, partly as this planting fromlate December- to Late January

coincided with heavy and almostcontinuous rainfall which made field preparation and planting very difficult.

Table 5: Fodder trails planted by 8 participants in the Bergville area 2021-2022.

Village

Name & Surname

Plot Type

Area Planted (m2)

Vimbukhalo

Sibongile Mpulo

Mixed Intercrop

101

Ezibomvini

Mantombi Mabizela

Mixed Intercrop

Zodwa Zikode

Mixed Intercrop

Eqeleni

Ntombakhe Zikode

Mixed Intercrop

Thulile Zikode

Mixed Intercrop

Stulwane

Khulekani Dladla

Intercropped 10x10s

500

Thulani Dlamini

Fodder

700

SSM+CP

1300

Nothile Zondi

Strip

600

Sabelo Mbhele

Mixed Intercrop

Figure 5: Clockwise from Top Left: Thulani Dlamini and Dlezakhe

Hlongwane preparing the Knapik planter for planting fodder strips.

Khulekani Dladla standing is his fodder trial and strip cropping oftall

fescuebetween Lespedeza re-growth from 202/21.

Southern KZN

Participation in CA in this region has dropped substantially this

season –primarily as subsidized inputs were no longer

available thought support programmes. Those who have

continued are now in their 4th and 5th seasons of

implementation and are seeing very marked improvement in their production. Mr Xaba from Madzikane (Creighton) is one of

these farmers.

Mr Xaba really admires the two-rowtractordrawn planter not only for its efficiency in saving time and moneybut also for

sparing the soil needless ploughing. The CA plot where a combination of practices; micro dosing, rotation, intercropping, relay

cropping, retaining residue; are implemented simultaneously is proving it’s worth when compared to a plot in thesame field

just next to it. Maize growth, colour and health differences are vivid and provide evidence of gradually improving results..

Figure 6: Above left: CA strip cropping trial visible in the background, with yellowing stunted maize in the foreground. The latter was not

planted to CA and clearly shows the differences in production due toCA being implemented over a period of time, vs the conventional

tillage typical in the area. Above right: tow of Mx Xaba’s strip plots in his CA trial – late season weeds are present, but not impacting

growth of the maize all that much.

Midlands

14 CMT’s were planted and 2 fodder experimentation plots. One CA demonstration was conducted with a new group which

is interested in learning more about regenerative agriculture. For all CMTs, germination of maize has been good (85-95%),

germination of beansand subsequent growth has been poor (40-75%), germination of the SCCs has been poor and there

has been an abundance of weeds. Thehigh level of rain fall has made it difficult for participants to get into their fields to

undertake weeding. The season has also shown a high level of stalk borer infestation.

Figure 7: Left: Summer cover crop plot (Norah Sibiya- Ozwathini). Middle: Mazie plots in the backgroundand pumpkin in the foreground

(Norah Sibiya-Ozwathini). Right: Maize and bean intercropped plot (Martina Xulu- Ozwathini).

CRA implementation in EC, Matatiele

In Matatiele, the Climate Change Adaptation Introduction workshops where participants assess the impact of climate change

and explore strategies and practices for adaptation have been conducted for 144 participants across 7 villages.

MDF has been collaborating with ERS and SaveAct in the implementation and have brought the eco-champs in the region

on board in terms of training in CRA. Theintention was that they could assist in the implementation as a part of their

environmental management and monitoring activities. Four eco-champs have taken on this process and will start Learning

Groups in their own villages (Phumla Nyembezi, Katleho Tsokele, Motobatsi Nthunji and TukuloMtshayelo). They will also

assist with implementation and monitoring in adjacent villages where the learning groups are active.

This cropping season, 30 participants undertook the Conservation Agriculture experimentation, fewer than in the first

season. Most participants are a lot more intent on assistance with mechanization and inputs (seedand fertilizer) and did not

want to focus on methods for improving soil quality and production. In addition, the soils have suffered from inappropriate

management practices for at least 50 years, leading to soils with no structure, almost no organiccarbon with high levels of

compaction and acidity. Strong remedial actions will need to be taken before CA is likely to be able toeffect positive

changes in the soil.

The largest participation (98 participants, across 5 villages) has been in the intensive homestead food production CRA

practices: mainly gardening and poultry production.

Table 6: Summary of CRA activities undertaken in Matatiele: March 2022

Activity

Village

Individu

als

Learnin

g group

particip

ants

Quantity

delivere

CCA Workshops and trainings

All villages - 7

144

Conservation Agriculture (30)

Nkau

1 two row planter

1 Haraka planter, 2 MBLI’s

Lufefeni

Mngeni

Rhashule

Poultry: Broilers (15)

Nkau

422day-old chicks, 13 drinkers and feeders

Layers (14)

Lufefeni

123 POL hens, 15 drinkers and feeders

Nkau

Mafube

Rhashule

Gardens: Tunnels (22)

Nkau

10 tunnel kits and mixed bunch of seedlings

Rhashule

Ned

Nkasele

Mechachaneng

Gardening practices: (98)

Nkau

Tower gardens, eco-circles, natural pest and disease

control, liquid manures, seed saving, soil and water

conservation

Rhashule

Ned

Nkasela

Mechachaneng

Learning workshops have been undertaken in the CRA practices:

➢CCA introduction (Ned,Mechachaneng, Rashule, Nkasela)

➢Greywater management and tower gardens (Rashule)

➢Bed design: trench beds and eco-circles (Ned, Rashule, Nkau)

➢Soil fertility: Composting and liquid manures (Rashule, Nkau)

➢Tunnelinstallation and (Nkau, Ned, Rashule),

➢Drip kitconstruction (Nkau, Rashule)

➢Mixed cropping and Natural pest and disease control (Nkau, Rashule),

A focus on soiland water conservation is planned alongside the installation of the final 10 tunnels going into the winter

season.

The most recent village where the CCA process has been introduced is Nkasela – home to one of the eco -champs

(Phumla Nyembezi), who initiated a learning group there. Their observations of changes in climate and weather patterns can

be summarized as:

➢A change in onset of summer rainfall from September to November or sometimes even later. It is no longer

possible to plan when to plan – one just has to wait and see

➢Generally drier conditions in the environment have meant that most cropping fields have been abandoned

➢Dry periods alternating with high and intense rainfall has led to much increased erosion in the villages (roads and

houses washed away) and fields (gulleysin fields and grazing areas).

Tier climate change impacts mappingexercise is summarized in the table below.

Table 7: Climate change impacts and adaptive strategies for Nkasela village, Matatiele February 2022

Impacts

Description and linkages

Outcomes

Potential adaptive measure

Less rainfall

Grass will stop growing,

indigenous plants and crops

will die, nature is not

beautiful

Lack of grazing, livestock die,

loss of traditional medicines

Stop cutting trees and burning of organic matter

Flooding

Crops struggling to grow

No or less harvest

They don’t know how to solve flooding

problems, besides having diversionditches to

divert water out of the fields, which requires

more energy and most of them are old.

Soil

Lots of soil erosions and

dongaformation

Bad roads and low crop

production.

Leaving soil cover toavoid soil erosion and

fixing the roads.

Cropproduction

Yield decreases each year

and crop diseases increase

No yield or less yield

They use fertilizers which are expensive on half

of the fieldto have some yields.

Theft

Increase in livestock theft

Not having livestock as it will

be stolen

Having livestock will be waste of money due to

increase in livestock theft.

Pests

Thereare lots of pests on

crops

Less cropproduction

Buying pesticides and using of blue death for

pest control

This was followed by presentationand discussion of various CRA practices. The grouphave already visited Nkau to see

tunnel implementation. They felt this strategy would work well for frost and snow in winter, which reduces their ability to

cultivate vegetables in winter. They were also very interested in greywater management as well as the agroecological

gardening, which they felt resembled what their elders used to do, but which they have largely forgotten.

After prioritization of practices, which included tower gardens, tunnels, natural pest and disease control, soil and water

conservation practices, poultry production and seed

saving.Phumla introduced the trench beds concept and

showed the group how to lay out ad dig their trench beds

(Picture on the right).

Activities in Ned village were initiated after farmers saw

the CA and tunnels in Nkauand asked to be involved.

They went through the CCA introductoryprocess and

prioritized soil fertility practices, CA, poultry and plant

management practices.

Mr Sifiso Shozi started digging his trench beds by himself and thus a workshop in trench beds and soil fertility was

undertakenshortly thereafter at Ned. Here also the 4 eco-champs were involved, so that they could continue with trench bed

digging and packing with learning group participants from their own and neighbouring villages.

Figure 8: Left: The trench beds laid out for tunnel construction over the beds and dug by 4 participants of the Ned learning group.

Middle: Filling the trench beds with mixtures of manure, grass, cabbage, weeds, bones etc and Right: The filled trench bed

planted to a mixture of vegetable seedlings.

Natural pest and disease control workshops were held for the Nkau and Rashule learning groups. This includes an

exploration of the pests and diseases participants know and problems they experience. They discusstheir methods of

control. Generally, participants use generic poisons such as ‘Blue death’, ‘Bulala zonke’ and soap.

The learning sessions consists of going through a number of topics with participants,including “enemies and friends”, as not

all insects and life forms in gardens are in fact harmful to crops. Some insects are pest predators and assist the farmer in

control. A discussion on nature, natural balance and garden sanitation is also given as are the negative effects of using

generic poisons on insect pollinators which areessential in the garden. Some examples are also given of common diseases

on plants and crops. Farmers tend to not focus on diseases and do not provide for any control or management.

Management strategies are discussedincluding garden sanitation, pest and disease repellent plants,physical barriers and

control for pests and diseases, and then naturalbrews and remedies.

It is also discussed that healthy, vigorous plants are the best gardening strategy as they are less likely to be attacked by

pests or contract diseases. Prevention is an important strategy and includes for example

1.Garden sanitation- By removing infected plant material, the chance of disease spread is reduced.

2.Timing of Planting- It is also important to plant crops in the season that they prefer. Planting crops out of season

places them under stress andmakes them more susceptible to pest attacks and diseases.

3.Mixed cropping- Crops can be inter-cropped to gain advantagessuch as sharing ofnutrients through different

uptake by different crop types. Space above the ground- different crops have different growth habits, some growing

closer to the ground some growing taller and canshare space in this way. Space below the ground - different crops

havedifferent shapes and sizesof root systems and can thus easily share space underground. Sunlight - some

crops are shade tolerant and need cooler conditions than others and can be planted under the partial canopies of

larger crops.

4.Crop rotation- is the best method to control soil-borne diseases. Crop rotation will reduce the build-up of diseases

on a particular crop. Species with few or no pests in common should be chosen (for example, cropsfrom different

plantfamilies). This measure is of crucial importancefor the control of soil-borne diseases and pests, such as

nematodes. Rotations can improve soil fertility, as different families add and subtract different things in their growing

cycle. Legumes add nitrogen tothe soil, while potatoes break up the soil, and leave their fibrous roots behind,

opening up the soil structure.

5.Natural fertilizers - Composted plant wastes, animal manure, green manure and earthworms. One can use the

following as green manure; sunn-hemp,oats, mustard spinach, fodder radish, legumes and comfrey (which is a

good source of Potassium K).

6.Mulching- It is the process of covering the bare soil with organic matter, that are beneficial to plants as they maintain

uniformsoil temperature and keep moisture in the soil and it also add nutrients to the soil. With mulching in the

garden there’s less evaporation, goodweedcontrol,and good soil structurethrough soil organisms and less soil

erosion.

Liquid manures are then discussed, and a fortified liquid manure is produced as a practical. This foliar feed is made of dark

green leaves/ weeds, manure, bone meal, milk and sugar, to provide for high levels of nutrients (N, P and K) once the 10-14

day fermentation period is completed

Figure 9: Left:Chopping the dark green leafy weeds (blackjack and Amaranthus and mixing with water prior to pouring into the 200-litre

drum. Middle: Adding the sugar and bone meal to the drum and Right: Stirring the final liquid manurebrewprior to let it stand to ferment. It

can be diluted 1:4and used within 10 days.

Tunnelproduction has continued with a new batch of 12 tunnels early in 2022. Construction and use of drip kits has also

been demonstrated for most of the earning groups. Monitoring is done to ensure participants are trying out the natural

planting methods, mixed cropping, mulching and natural pest and disease control methods. Below are a few indicative

pictures.

Figure 10: Left: A workshop in Nkau to construct the drip irrigation system together with farmers. Middle: A participant from Rashule in her

tunnel, showinggood growth of a range of vegetables. Right: Installation of the drip irrigation system in a tunnel in Nkau – not the range of

vegetables – mustard spinach, swiss chard, cabbage, fennel and lettuce.

Figure 11: Left: Preparing the tower garden, filling of the bag after mixing the soil, manure and ash medium. Centre: Starting to make

small holes in the side of the tower for ‘planting’ of seedlings and Right; Mixture of seedlings to e planted and an eco-circle with a2litre

perforated bottle for irrigation.

Local marketing

The combined effect of SASSA withdrawal of village-basedpension points and the seasonality of vegetable production in

Bergville has meant that the initial successes in local market stalls have not been maintained. Around 3 participants sold

spinach mainly to shops in Bergville between October-December 2021. Recently MDF has forged a relationship with the

UEDA (uThukela Economic Development Agency), who have a mandate tosupport and develop marketing initiatives in the

district. We held our first joint local marketing day at Emmaus on the 2nd of March 2022. The day was reasonably successful

with 19 farmers making and income ofaround R1 310,00. UEDA provided a tent, chairs and meals for the day. They have

undertaken to assist in procuring a site in Bergville Town for the next marketing day towards the end of March.

In Ozwathini, themarketing group have continued to independently forge a local marketing process and have experimented

with a number of options. Mainly they have seen that they need to have a more ongoing presence, rather than just

appearing once a month. They have now undertaken weeklystalls in Bamshela and have garnered assistance from local

shop owners to store their produce and marketing equipment. They use local taxis to transport themselves and their

produce to the market. For the easter market, they will again advertise and makeup the combo-packs, as was done

successfully over the festive season.

The group said they are now used to setting up their stalls and keeping records and can manage mostly by themselves.

They appreciate the extra support provided by online and social media orders in Pietermaritzburg, which brought an extra

R1 000 for their January market. The difficulty is unreliability of the SASSA process as many shoppers need to get their

pensions prior to buying and sometimes the officials arrive very late – on occasion after 2pm in the afternoon.

The group has also thought about succession planting and continuity. Unfortunately, 2 large hailstorms all but decimated

someof their veggies for this round: notably cauliflowers, broccoli, spinach and cabbage.

Figure 12” Ozwathini Market December 2021. View of the Veggie box combos prepared for the festive season market; R25, R35, R45 and

mega (R185).

Figure 13: Ozwathini market January 2022. Left: Chopped mixed vegetalbes sold at the market.Centre: Eggs in trays or in smaller egg

boxes and Right: Potatoes sold in 10kg bags, or smaller packets.

The small table below providesa running total of sales from the market stalls between April 2021 and March 2022.

Table 8: Sales records for local market stalls in Ozwathini and Bergville. April 2021 to March 2022

Summary of market incomes for Market stalls: April 2021-March 2022

Date

No of

farmers

Village

Amount

Market

Produce; in order of sales

2021/04/10

R2 419,00

Emmaus

Pork meat, dry beans, traditional mats, vegetables, pumpkins,

processed chilli, green mazie, eggs

2021/05/09

R1 580,00

Emmaus

Vegetables, pork meat, dry beans, dry maize, sweet potatoes,

pumpkins, incema, broilers

2021/06/04

R11 527,50

Bamshela -

Ozwathini

Eggs, pork, sweet potato, mealie cake, broilers, beans,

vegetables

2021/06/09

R5 072,00

Emmaus,

Stulwane

Pork meat, broilers, vegetables, pinafores, dry beans, dry

maize, processed chilli, vegetables

2021/07/10

R3 415,00

Emmaus,

Stulwane

Pork meat, vegetables, broilers, processed chilli, dry beans

2021/08/04

R3 866,00

Bamshela -

Ozwathini

Pork, buns, slaughtered chickens, eggs, amadumbe,

potatoes, cabbage, swt potato, carrots, spinach, avocado,

pumpkins

2021/08/07

R2 379,00

Emmaus

Pork, broilers, sweet potatoes, amadumbe, eggs, spinach,

onion, cabbage, chillies, tomatoes, snacks

2021/09/09

R3 745,00

Emmaus

Broilers, traditional chickens, potato seed, spinach, mustard

spinach, cabbage, carrots, lettuce, eggs, processed chillies,

amadumbe.

2021/10/08

R845,00

Bergville fresh

produce

market

Spinach, mustard spinach, cabbage, beetroot, leeks, onions,

tomatoes

2021/09/03,06,0

R5 448,00

Bamshela -

Ozwathini

Eggs, spinach, chillies, green peppers, carrots, tomatoes

avocados, beans, pumpkins, bananas, lettuce, herbs, sweet

potato, amadumbe, potatoes, maize and potato seed

2021/10/05,06

R3 354,00

Bamshela -

Ozwathini (taxi

rank)

Eggs, slaughtered chickens, beans, cabbage, spinach,

beetroot, lettuce, amadumbe, green peppers, carrots, onions,,

tomatoes, avocados, amadumbe, lemons

2021/11/03,04

R2 964,00

Bamshela -

Ozwathini (taxi

rank)

Potatoes, pork, eggs, spinach, cabbage, dry beans, lettuce,

red cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, onions, green peppers,

chillies, herbs

2021/10/11

R19 800,00

Sale: Boxer

and Saverite in

Bgvl

Spinach

2022/03/02

R1 310,00

UEDA–

Emmaus Hall

Butternut, green pepper, spinach, pumpkins, potatoes, green

mealies, onions, cabbage

2021/12/02,03

R2 964,00

Bamshela -

Ozwathini (taxi

rank)

Lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, carrots, beetroot,

cabbage, potatoes, onions, pumpkin.

2021/12/03

R1 400,00

Ozwathini-

social media

Combopacks - via social media in Pietermaritzburg

2022/01/05,06

R2 610,00

Bamshela -

Ozwathini (taxi

rank)

Potatoes, carrots, eggs, chillies, onions, cabbage (half and

chopped), green beans, beetroot, avocado, brinjals, green

peppers, chopped mixed veg.

2022/02/05,12,1

R3 010,00

Bamshela -

Ozwathini (taxi

rank)

Eggs, chicken, potatoes, green mealies, green peppers,

brinjals, chillies, …

R77 708,50

A total of R77 708,50 has beenmade from local market stalls in the last 12 months, averaging around R2 988,79/ market

day. On average 12 participants havebeen part of each market, earning an average of R249,07 per market day.

For SKZN and Matatiele, the local politics and group dynamics have not been conducive to setting up these local market

stalls. Individuals sell informally from the farm gate. A few further options will still be explored with the groups.

Strengthening of Innovation platforms and networks

The table below summarizes stakeholder interactions for the period (December 2021-March 2022).

Table 9: Stakeholder interactions summary. December 2021-March 2022

Activity

Description

Dates

Okhahlamba Local Municipality

(OLM)

Fresh produce market, planting support and materials provision

Ongoing

KZNDARD

Farmers’ day in Vimbukhalo

2022/03/11

MDF and stakeholders

CA open day in Emmaus Bergville (195 participants) incl UKZN

students (45), OLM, UEDA, Landcare, National Dept of Agric,

Asset research, Zunckels Farms, FSG, Wildlands andaround 70

smallholder farmers

2022/03/02

Research of Climate Justice

Presentation at the Asset Research students’ symposium in

Stellenbosch (Temakholo Mathebula): “How can solidarity

networksundergird agroecology in promoting the resilience of

women in the face of climate change?’

2022/03/15

SAMC (South African

Mountains Conference –

Drakensberg)

Oral presentation by Erna Kruger “CbCCA in central Drakensberg

improves resilience in smallholder farmers”

2022/03/14

UCP partnership

Presentation at the 24th quarterly multi stakeholder session

“Update on CRA implementation in partnership with WWF (E

Kruger)

2022/02/25

ESS research - WRC

UKZN research in ecosystem services mapping supported by

MDF: water walks, focus group discussions planning, eco-champs

Ongoing

Figure 14: MDF CA Open day in Emmaus: Left: 190 participants in the Emmmaus hall. Centre; The UEDA local market held in the hall

grounds and Right: Field visit to Nothile Zondi in Stulwane to see baling and fodder supplementation activities.

2MID-TERM EVALUATION

(Report byMargaret Jack)

Margaret Jack conducted a day-long workshop with staff, and also conducted three site visits. In Bergville, she witnessed

members of the learning group in the area assisting Slindile Mpinga to plant her CA trial plot, visited Mama Msele’s farm with

Mr Denjwa Dlamini and Mama Buthelezi, and also visited the farmers’ centre in the area. In the Midlands, she visited Ma

Xulu and Ma Chamane in Ozwathini and visited the Bamshela market site. In Southern KZN (SKZN), she visited Mam

Sylvina Kheswa’s farm, Baba Leonard Gamede’s farm, and Baba Mandla Mkhize’s extensive plot in Ngongonini.

1.Results from monitoring data

Resultsso far have been very positive, with quantitative milestones reachedin many aspects. More participants have joined

the project (407 vs 270 expected) and this has implications for the support MDF can offer each farmer. Only 90 of the

expected100 tunnels have been constructed, but it is unlikely that more will be built due to the cost factor. More farmers

havestarted owning broilers and layers than expected, but far fewer have grown their own fodder, and all the fodder farmers

are in Bergville.

Results

Tunnels

Broilers

Layers

Fodder

Proposed

270

100

Actual 20/21

172

Actual 21/22

155

Hectares

31,25

1.75

In terms of conservation agriculture, monitoring data show that:

•There is much reduced run-off (50%);

•WP for maize grown in amulti-cropping rotation CA system is much higher than CA mono-cropped maize (by1.1kg/m3)

or conventionally tilled maize (by 1.5kg/m3);

•Averageyields: Bergville 6.7t/ha; Midlands 3.2t/ha; SKZN 3.5t/ha;

•Averagemonthly field cropping income is R1,585 for those participants producing enough to sell.

Of the 90 tunnels that have been built, approximately 53drip kits irrigation systems have also been installed, and farmers

have been trained in creating trench beds, mixed cropping, and inclusion of herbs and multipurpose plants.

Farmers were supported to set uphomestead-based poultry units (71 broilers, 51layers), and average monthly poultry

incomes from sales at pension points, marketdays, and farmgate sales are:

•R1,113 for broilers (min -R1,387 and max R9,185);

•R929 for eggs (min R105 and max R8,560).

There are 468 people in 29 voluntary savings andloans associations (VSLAs): 22 in Bergville; 1 in the Midlands; 3 in

Southern KZN; and 3 in the Matatiele. The total amount held by those VSLAs is R1,578,448 which is an average of R3,372

savings per person. There are bulk loan funds operating in Ngongonini and Bergville, which arebeing prototyped by MDF as

a way of allowing learning groups to access more capital than their VSLA provides.

2.Sites

In this mid-term evaluation, Margaret asked staff to conduct SWOT analyses for each of the four areas and have presented

the resultsand observations from field trips according to those areas. Each of the four sites is quite different, with different

water and topographical features, different cultures and politics, different distances from towns and markets. In addition,

each of the MDF field staff will behaveand respond differently to each other, a natural human trait, based on their own

preferencesand beliefs. All these differences create the conditions for development tohappen in different ways in different

places.

2.1. Bergville

In Bergville, many of the participants are farmers, have grown up as such, and they see that white commercial farmers are

sustained by it, so farming holds a lot oflegitimacy in the area. MDF has also been working in the areafor many years and

one of its staff members comes from there. It is a mountainous terrain with high rainfall, good for farming. But household

access to water is limited. However, it is far from the office, which means working there incursgreat costs in fuel, PDs, and

accommodation. And the team feel that resources are a limiting factor in their work – money, cars, tools – and that if one

person gets sick, the team is in trouble. It is an area with high crime and high unemployment, and people are seeing the

effects of climate change: it isa threat because it is unpredictable, eg, it was dry, so people had to wait to plant, then it

rainedand it was too wet.

But the team also reflected on the successes of the project: many farmers are engaging in CA, which is more resistant to

harsh weather and tunnels protect cropsfrom storms. The team reported that farmers have compared their results and seen

that CA methods work better, and that MDF farmers have become activists insharing CA practices with others. The team

feelsthat food security is close athand, if it has not already been reached. As one person said tome, “CA has changed

lives”. The farmers’ centre in the areabrings inputs closer, and there are 22 village savingsand loans (VSLA) groups, which

is money in farmers’ hands. There are business opportunities to change produce into money, there are local auctions, and

there are municipal and Department of Agriculture (DoA) networks available. There is only one other NGO active in the area,

and staff therefore feel MDF’s presence remains relevant, and is required to nudge the municipality into greater

collaboration with farmers. An example is that the municipality has a two-row planter now and does not plough any more.

Youth involvement has been limited, and in an effort to change that, MDF has partnered with Umgeni Water in an Eco

Champ initiative, where young people are planting with families and will do alien clearing. However, the MDF farming

methods are hard and not suitable for an ageing population.

The team also reported that the farmers are gaining in confidence of their own knowledge and needs. After the riots inJuly,

the pension point in town closed so themunicipality allocated the farmers a stall in a peripheral spot, and the farmers told

MDF that they were not interested in that. A new spot has been negotiated with the municipality. The farmers held markets

between April and September 2021, each market making between R3,000 and R4,000, which is an average of R332 per

farmer per market. In the later months, only farmers with tunnels had produce to send to market.

Monitoring data show that in Bergville, in 12 villages (n=75):

•70% have enough food for the year;

•30% food and sale of surplus;

•Incomes from sales are R1,000-R5,000 (with an average of R1,586);

•53% of participants are in savings groups;

•Average saving for farming inputs is R1,275.

Margaret visited Slindile Mpinga’s farm. She is a young women, an Eco Champ, and the learning group were helping her to

plant to CA plot with beans, mealies, cover crops. Slindile is hoping to sell the beans and eat the rest. She joined MDF about

sixmonths ago when she attended ameeting, and she now has a tunnel. She ordered the seedlings for the tunnel from

MDF, but it is not clear that her familyare eating more than the spinach that was planted.

Slindile joined a VLSA in June 2021, and wants to use any payouts to start a business in layers and broilers, which she will

sellin town and at farmgate. I asked about her standing in the community, and she thinks that she is now seen as young

hard worker, and she seemed very pleased with that, suggesting some empowerment has been created by the project. I

asked her about other youth, and she replied that they are ‘lazy’, although she did say that money for seedlings is also a

limiting factor for them. Mama Msele, Mr Dlamini and Mama Buthelezi agreed that lack of youth involvement in farming is a

common problem. Ma Msele’s children call it “your thing”, but they believe it is changing a bit and a few young people are

getting involved.

MamaMsele has been a farmer since she wasborn, but her methods and understanding changed when she met MDF in

2014/15. Some examples of the changes are:

1.Ploughing puts fertile soil under the ground so now she usesminimum tillage;

2.With disturbed soil, the maize falls in the wind because the roots are not strong enough;

3.Soil can be tested and the results can help you understand how to feed the soil;

4.She didnot know there are micro-organisms in the soil that makes it alive;

5.There is now less erosion;

6.She knows that rotation is a good idea;

7.She used to plough big lands or use oxen and that needed a lot of people, but she can work on her own now;

8.She savesmoney on inputs with minimum tillage.

At her plot, Margaret saw her chickens, who stay inside all the time, and whom she feeds with greens from her garden. She

claims that she is planting a bigger variety of garden crops, although she admitted that she is not usingthe herbs in her

tunnel as she says the kids do notlike them. She is eating from her garden and reported that it is rare that she goes to the

shops now, and only buys oil and salt. She makes some sales, locallyand intown, and although the sales are small, it does

makea difference to her that she can give achild R10 to take to school.

When she visited, Margaret was accompanied by Mr Denjwa

Dlamini and Mama Nothile Buthelezi, and they all spoke

together once she had walked around the farm. All three are

in a VSLA (Mr Dlamini’s wife is the member), and they have

been in it since 2012 – an organisation called SaveAct helped

them start it. They have their monthly meetings in the very

room we sat in, and shesaw the shareout plates, waiting for

the next meeting.

Figure 15: VSLA shareout plates

She asked what they had learned from the VSLA, andthey were pleased to tell me that they have learned about shares,

interest, how to borrow. They use their payouts in different ways – one uses them for groceries and clothing, another bought

cattle. Goats have been bought using loans. A staff member pointed out to me that CA and VSLAs work well together

because these three farmers are now spending less money at the shops because they are eating from their gardens and

this frees up money that they canbuy shares with in the VSLA.

They are part of the same learning group that Slindile belongs to, and it meets every Julyto discuss the planting, gather

money to buy inputs fromtown, deal with any issues. They buy in bulk with the help of MDF. She broached this issue of

difficulties working with others, relying onthem, and possibility of bad group dynamics. They said that that had been an

issue once, but that the group as a wholeis learning to sit and talk, they understand better how to work together, they are

learning humility. This is an excellent by-product of MDF’s work. These three

farmerscorroborated what staff said about MDF methods spreading. Initially,

the community thought they were mad not toplough, but now they are starting

their own gardens! Their standing in the community has grown – they are seen

as honourable, and everyone watches them andtakes their lead: when they

plant, everyone plants. They mentioned thatthey have learned a lot from MDF,

particularly about livestock integration, and Mama Buthelezisaid that she did

not know that you can grow fodder for dry seasons. We visited her farm briefly,

and she has a pen with her hay bales in it.

Figure 16: Ma Buthelezi's fodder

MDF staff took herto the farmers’ centre, run by Phumelele Hlongwane. The

centre was MDF’s idea and it stocks fertilizer, chemicals, seeds, so that

farmerscan buy locally insteadof having to go to town. At first MDF subsidised

it, but now Phumelele has taken it over asa small business. She orders from

Winterton and repackages whatshe buys into small quantities that farmers can afford. It appears that one of the reasons

why this centre is successful is that Phumelele has also diversified her goods and runs a spaza shop too, so the centre gets

more foot traffic and she makes a bit of money.

Figure 17: Bergville farmers' centre

2.2.Midlands

In theMidlands, field staff believe that although many participants have been

farming for a long time, they have changed their farming methods in favour of

CRA. They plough less, use two row planters, have experienced increased

yields, and have engaged in group bulk buying. There was some existing

interest in raising calves, and MDF arranged for some training on that, and a

number of participants now have calves and bulk buy medicine together. There

is asense that the farmers have an independent mindset and are willing to put

somemoney into purchasing what they need, for example, a few are interested

in rabbits and have bought and bredsome. They do not expect free goods. The

groupsare cohesive and growing, which poses a dilemma for the organisation

as there is limited funding for more participants. Men are proactive and helpful even if they are not involved, which is

important for getting the hard labour done.

Both of the farms Margaret visited (Ma Xulu and Ma Chamane)

have CA trial plots that MDF provided the starter kit for, and which

they each paid for: maize, beans,ground cover, herbicide, and

fertilizer (which they use for micro-dosing only). Both store inputs

for their learning groups at their farms. Ma Xulu reported that she

started her layer and broiler business after MDF training, the calves

that she already had improved in health after MDF training, and that

now thatshe plants by hand, she saves money on hiring a tractor

and using large amounts of fertilizer. When her calves are big

enough, they can be sold for between R4,000 and R5,000 and she

has worked out her profit margin based on the cost of the calves,

the feed, and the medication they need. She will sell at a local

auction. She has pigs too – and each of the pens has a thick chain

hanging in it because she heard that they like to chew onit.

Figure 18: Ma Xulu's pigs

She works her farm with her two daughters, and on the day I went there was a young man digging and opening lines – he is

a farmer to and works for a day rate. However, Ma Xulu does all the planting herself.

Ma Chamane has been afarmer for 45 years and met MDF four years ago. When askedwhat changes she has made to her

farming methods, she said that notploughing is important because it makes thesoil more fertile, and it saves money

because of the cost of the tractor and fertilizer. Sheplanted her potatoes without ploughing, in open lines, and has got good

yields, so she is seeinga difference. The variety of things planted has not increased a lot but she does now plant cow peas

and cover crops. She saidthat her CA trial plot has been very useful for home eating and selling. She also started her

broilers and layers after MDF training –she did not know how to start before that – and has two calves. She has a tunnel

and reported that it gives her a longer growing season. She does most of the labour herself although she sometimes hires

her grandchildren, and she confirmed that young people are generally uninterested in farming. She joined a VSLA group in

2021 and used her payout for fencing.

She is the chair of her learning group, and attends a farmers’ association (FA) meeting once a month. This was started by

the community in an effort to get assistance from the Department of Agriculture (DoA) – advice, sprayingprogrammes,

seeds – but DoA does not always fulfil its promises. Members of the FA work together, share knowledge, and assist each

other if they face any challenges. She shares MDF ideas and methods with the FA, for example, intercropping.

In theMidlands, in nine villages (n=24), monitoring data show that 80% of participants have sold some of their maize,

madumbes, and sweet potatoes and actual incomes range from R120(400m3) to R39,550 (2,700m3). Farmers sell to bakkie

sellers and some have shifted their planting datesto later so that their goods are not in competition with commercial

farmers. MDF organised a marketstaff in Bamshela and assisted farmers with transport, record keeping, and sales.

However, in September noMDF staff attended and the community arranged transport and kept good records of sales, which

is asignal of independence fromthe organisation. However, MDF does print and put up posters advertising the stall, and

might consider how the farmers can do that themselves. Ma Xulu reported that one of the challenges she has is food rotting

in theground if it does not get sold, and themarket does help with that. Her pigsare fed old cabbages, and their manure

drainsinto her fields – so her whole system works well for growth and improved yields. The money from the market also

helps with expensive feed for her livestock. However, she has recently purchased land so that she can plantfodder for her

livestock. Ma Chamane also mentioned food rotting in the ground and the market assisting with this, and also feeding

vegetables to her cows. However, after the riots in July 2021, sales decreased as pension payouts were disrupted since

there wasno big supermarkets or ATMs, so people went to large towns to get their money and ended up buying their food

there.

There are a range of organisations working in the area giving the participants a wide network for information and resources.

However, itcan alsocreate challenges if the information is different or incompatible. One DoA personnel is very active in this

area, and actually introduced Ma Xulu to MDF. There are opportunities for VSLAs to grow as most only began in late 2021.

There are tensions in some groups, and limited commitment in one group inparticular. Farmers would like more support

from their municipality, particularly for market space. They feel there is too much bureaucracy involved in accessing a

market space. This is an ageing community of farmers, and MDF staff fear that efforts will be lost as these farmers age and

decline. There seems to be very limited interest in farming from the youth.

2.3.Southern KZN

Staff in SKZN reported that this area is quite different from other areas that MDF works in because many farmers in the area

were not born there, they are people who retired there. Most of the MDF participant farmers are formerly employed people:

nurses, police, teachers, miners. This has a number of implications. They have some money so can afford to buy farming

inputs or livestock or chickens. The elite are able to then buy more calves, more chickens etc than their poorer counterparts,

sell them, and make more money. It is not only farm produce, but they are also able to go to dairy farms to buy maas, or to

town to buy clothes, and sell these products locally There is a sense that there is an accelerated enriching of the rich and

that this is not pro-poor enough. However, the flip side is that these farmers are better educated than many other MDF

farmersand the team believes that thismakes them more interested in trying out new methods and expanding on what they

are doing.

The staff characterise this as an area where group politics may be impacting onits work. Traditionally in this area, co-

operatives are created with a focus on making money rather than working together, and this seems to be the ethic of some

MDF participants too. For example,some of the elite farmers wanted to start chickens and an experienced but fairly poor

woman was willing to share her experience and advice, but these elite men would not listen to her. Staff feel that women are

undermined and they drop out of the learning group. The learning group suffers from poor levels of team work: a 1,000m3

CA plot needs between 16 and 20people to plant it, but now everyone plants for themselves only. The elite argues with

MDF about minimum tillage, so it seems that they want MDF support and goods for free but are not always willing to engage

with the MDF processes. Staff reported the same about tunnels – people in the area wanttunnels but are not willing to join a

learning group.

However, thelearning group has diversified its activities, and there is land and water available here, although some soil is

acidic. There is the possibility of value-adding activities, and there is a local abattoir where people can take their chickens for

slaughter. There is some knowledge sharing: one woman attended a poultry training and she teaching others and gives

tours of her set up and routine.

Margaret visited Mam Sylvino Kheswa’s farm. She has been with MDF for four years, has a CA trial plot, a tunnel, and is

part of the VSLA. Her CA plot has beans and maize, which she planted by hand. During the visited, Mazwi explained that

she could plant more in her tunnel,planting right to the edges. As with other tunnels, Margaret noticed that some of the food

is untouched, for example, rocket, which was going to seed. She does use some of the herbs though, although she does not

know what they are called. Water to her farm is erratic.

Figure 19: Mam Kheswa's tunnel

She eats from this tunnel every couple of days and shares with her

neighbours (who are family). She does not sell much at all because she

rarely has surplus and wants to use the food for her own family. This tunnel

may mark a greater food and nutrition security situation for this family as she

previously did not grow vegetablesat all. She joined MDF because growing

family food is her task, and she grew maize but not much daily food, and

then she heard the MDF yields aremuch better. She believes that MDF has

been useful. She knows that ploughing leads to erosion and that has

stopped, she does not use nearlyso much fertilizer, and MDF gives her

proper inputs – she used to buy seeds from street traders and sometimes

the seed was old. She has also diversified by acquiring three goats.

Mam Kheswa mentioned that farming is hard for the elderly, and Margaret

asked whether anyone younger helps her She said that her son lost his job

and is at home, and he has seen the increase in yields, and he planted the

CA plot, so he is becoming more interested. Baba Mkhize thinks that youth

may be more interested in poultry because it is less labour intensive. Margaret asked Mam Kheswa about her social

standing, and she believes it has improved. She sees the benefits of having a tunnel and the growth of the food in their, and

now people are asking her about her process andlooking up to her.

margaret also visited Baba Gamede’s farm, where most of what is planted in CA. He joined MDF in 2015 because he

wanted to try to get better yields. The advantages of being part of MDF have been in the maize yields, but also getting

access to resources he could not previously afford through bulk buying of seed, fertilizer, herbicide, and chicken feed. He

needsa better fence as goats manage to crawl in and in the previous week they are two rows of his control plot. He has a

small vegetable garden where he is staggering planting maize, potatoes, and madumbes. She asked him about the

difference between his control and CA plot, and he said that most people have deserted conventional agriculture for a

number of reasons. Bulk buyinghas allowed him to buy herbicide, which is cheaper than hiring a plough, andthe soil is

healthier. He knows that run-off is bad when the soil is ploughed, and the run-off takes with it both the seeds and the

fertilizer. He has noticed that hesoil is getting darker and he thinks that is healthy, and he has seen that intercropping leads

to reduced weeds.

He makes very little money from selling produce but he is making something, whereas previously he was eating all the food

he produced and that would run out too. This indicates that his yield is up andhis food security is improved. He also

mentioned that he is saving on tractor costs. He has goats and chickens too. However, he has very little variety of food

growing. In terms of his status in the community, Baba Gamede said that initially people did not want to engage with his

methods because they are too labour intensive but now that he is getting much better results, people are coming to see him.

The final visit was to Baba Mkhize’s vast farm. He is one of the elite, and MDF’s local facilitator. He has a large house with

numerous outbuildings and a couple of vehicles. He has 150 layers and sells eggs to community members– R45 for 30. He

used his VSLA loan to buy some cages, and got others from the municipality. He has a tunnel and the food is for eating and

selling: he had sold five bunches of spinach that week. He also does not use the herbs in the tunnel as he says his family is

not familiar with them. He constructed some tower gardens after he saw them elsewhere, and he has calves and goats too.

He has been with MDF since2010. He uses a two row planter for all his land, and has been introduced to cover crops,

intercropping, and growing fodder. He used to buy seed at any shop but now understand the importance of buyingspecific

seed from specific shops because of their yield, costs, and environmental impacts.

He doesmake money from his farm, and he won a procurement deal from themunicipality to provide produce for aschool

feeding scheme.

Mam Kheswa believes that her learning group is useful because Baba Mkhize is experienced in CA so she can ask him

questions and get fertilizer and seed from him. Baba Gamede echoed that and added that the learning group is a source of

labour.

In terms of the VLSA, the elite have more money, so they save more in the VSLAs, which increases their wealth, and they

are getting richer while the poor membersof the VSLA watch on withenvy. I asked Mam Kheswa about her VSLA. This is

her third year of involvement, and her only income is a pension. She can only afford to save R100 a month, but others in her

group save R400 or R500. Sheknows that the more she saves, the more interest she will make, but she simply cannot do

anything about it. Margaret asked her how she feels about that, and she said that she is scared to say anything, but that the

eliteare making more. Baba Gamede is happy with the VSLA because that is the mechanism though which bulk buying

happens, and the bulk goodsare stored at Baba Mkhize’s house. It seems that MDF picks up the bulk and delivers it to the

Mkhize’s house and this should be curtailed if possible. However, Baba Gamede hasused his payouts to pay for tertiary

fees for two children who arestudying in Durban, and for fencing and poles.

This VSLA has abulk loan fund, in which members put a lot of money in every month so that the VSLA can afford to provide

large loans. I found it very disturbing that Baba Mkhize wants to use that to bulk buy and sell Christmas grocery packs to

pensioners so that the expensive foreign spaza shops fail and they leave the area and money will stay here rather than go

to their families. This is wrong on a number of levels: it is xenophobic; VSLA funds should be used for positivity not

negativity; and unless Baba is prepared to run a spaza himself, hemay be doing more harm than good. We saw after the

riots in July, when spazas and large shops were destroyed, ordinary people suddenly could not access what they needed

close to home and had to travel far to getbasics like airtime.

2.4.Matatiele

The projectis not working very well in the Eastern Cape yet but in 2022, efforts will be re-doubled in this regard. There are a

number of reasons for this. Firstly, MDF can only spend limited time there, there is no local field staff there, and it is so far

from theoffice that staff can only travel there once or twice a month. Secondly, it is difficult to initiate projects in the Eastern

Cape due to local politics and traditions. MDF did introduce the project in the villages, explained the criteria for selection,

and how CRA works but it seems locals were suspicious of that. They said that were not interested in CA because it is too

muchhard work, so theyonly wanted tunnels and poultry. When MDF wanted to host a market day, they heard rumours that

it wouldbe boycotted because people said they did not know how MDF participants were selected, sothe market was

postponed indefinitely. Thirdly, there are very high input costs in Matatiele, for example R400 vs R262 in Pietermaritzburg

for a bag of layer mash, which means it costs too much for farmers to try out things. MDF buys in bulk in Pietermaritzburg

and transports to Matatiele, but that is expensive for MDF. Fourthly, the area is characterised by sandy soils, poor soils with

no organic matter, and people have tried CA for six years with nothing happening on those plots. There are erratic rains and

water scarcity.

The area is populated by families with strong ties so there is a good sense of communality. There is a good gender balance,

and people have money to buy stock because of the activities of the VSLAs. There is organic growth between participants,

and new opportunities for local markets and other income generating activities such as a bakery. There is a young and

vibrant local facilitator in the area who collects monthly data, sets up meetings, and is the contact point, and that is very

useful. However, the groups are ageing, and with digging and tunnels, it is more and more of a task, and there is a push

away from CA. MDF hasnoticed that there is poor record keeping on the part of farmers and has identified the need to work

on that.

3.Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

I believe that this project has been successful in its CRA efforts. Staff reported that their own mindsets have shifted: where

they used to have set ideas about what smallholderscan grow – vegetables or beans,or maize – they now see that through

mixed farming is possible and preferable and being adopted by farmers. But it is more than that, there are important social

aspects for the farmers such as trying different approaches, adaptingtheir behaviour, seeing different results, and getting

increased yields and reduced run-off. The project also means that locals can buy fresh food from local farmersinstead of

buying it in shops. All of the people I spoke to are eating the food from their gardens and this is food security. It is also a

saving as they are not spending money in shops on this. Some of them are also selling some produceand making small

amounts of money.

My understanding is that CA involves minimum soil disturbance, increasedyields, decreased erosion and run-off, and

diversifying efforts. Everyone I visited reported improved yields and production, and most indicated increased adaptive

practicesof growing vegetables, field cropping, and livestock integration. Most people mentioned minimum tillage, savings

on tractor hire, erosion, and soil health. In terms of soil coverage, I did not see any mulch anywhere. I also noticed that there

are blackjacks everywhere. People can eat the leaves but they should do that before the blackjacks seed. There is some

diversification of foodstuff grown, but I saw repeatedly that some plants are completely ignored in the tunnels – herbs,

rocket, chinese cabbage, etc. This is difficult as it is about taste and familiarity with how to prepare the food.

One aspect that has not been hugelysuccessful is the marketing. When markets were attended, some farmers earned a few

hundred rand, which is not enough. I am sure MDF costs for those markets were considerable, which is fine when an

organisation is trying toget something off the ground but is not sustainable in the long term. It was assumed thatnew

networksand relationship will formfor local food systems. This has happened but needs a bit of a push. This is linked to

marketing.

Youth were supposed to be a large part of this project, but it seems they are not really interested. There are complications in

involving youth that MDF has not nailed down properly. It was assumed that farmers will havethe time, labour, and

motivation or hope tomake the changes that MDF suggests. A recurring issueis that many MDF farmers are ageing and

there are fewer labourers.

It was assumed that farmers will learn financialliteracy and planning skills from VSLAs, and that they will use extra income

from farming to maintain farming activities. There is limited financial literacy in VSLAs, but many farmers do know about

budgeting, input costs, planning a market. Some are using loans for farming inputs like medication for calves.

In terms of the outcomes of the project, I believethat the availability of food has increased, food production has increased,

and there has been limited local marketing. The community level social security net has happened to some extent through

people learning together and saving together but it is not clear to what extentthat creates a net.

Recommendations

The project only has another eight months to run and I strongly suggest that a targeted approach be set in each site,

although there are some general recommendations.

In the office:

1.Focusa bit more on planning and documentation. There is a suggestion for making six-month plans and reviewing

them every month.

2.This project is ending and you need to identify an exit strategy or new funding. Think about the legacy – what is the

mostimportant outcome MDF wants to achieve in each area and focus on that. Are there any local stakeholders that

you can begin to hand over some responsibility to, such as the municipality or DoA?

3.Develop a youth involvement strategy. This may include working with 10 eco champs, meeting with a youth

organisation, and involving youth in small working efforts eg tunnels or poultry.

4.Monitoring data show that fodder has been lesspopular than was proposed. Is this an acceptable result to MDF or is

thissomething thatyou want to work on? All the fodder farmers are in Bergville.

5.Is mulchsomething MDF wants to take up again? Blackjacks?

6.Are you happy with all the produce that is grown in tunnels? Would you change it? How can you get people touse all of

them? This speaks to diversity and nutrition security, and I think it needs to be boosted.

In the field:

7.Climate resilience snap shots need to be focused on, so that MDF is teaching CRA.

8.Consider how to scaffold the independent procurement processes in communities. They need to be able to source

inputs without MDF – so they can get the chicks etc without us – know who to go to and how much it costs – so we

need to take them

9.It seems that in town, the markets were not well supported, why is that? Why do customers not buy all their vegetables

at themarkets? Why don’t farmers sell more farm gate produce? This is something that you could talk about with

farmers, to try and find out whatmarket exists for vegetables, and how to access more of it. Empower them by tapping

their joint knowledge.

10.Encourage farmers to get a market stall again and allow them to organise it.

11.Water access systems and community strategies for that need to be clear. MDF does not have funding for that, but you

need to understand it. Perhaps you can draw PRA maps with learning groupsand ask farmers to think about who can

assist them with water.

12.Case studies – of what? Develop a strategy for what information you need and how you will collect it. One suggestion is

to use a case study to research what a community level social security net looks like, whatit needs to be able to do,

and instances in which it is needed.

SWOT analysis and planning per area

- Bergville SWOT analysis and plans

STRENGTHS

•Good comm bet MDF and locals, Madondo is a local

•DoingCA, more resistant to harsh weather, tunnels protect

crops from storms

•Bigger team in Bergville, team spirit is upand downbut

largely good – many years of experience

•They have grown up as working in agric –own or farmers’

•In farmingtowns – Winterton and Bergville, they know

about it, and that white commercial farmers are sustained

by that

•Mountainous terrain, high rainfall

•Farmers’ centre in our area – brings inputs closer

•We have a lot of savings groups– 22 – that is money in

farmers’ hands

WEAKNESSES

•Team depth, if onegets sick, we are in trouble

•Shortage of resources – money, cars, tools of work, if one

breaks messes everything up

•Distance to Berg– costs in PD, accom, petrol

•Documentation is not our strength – holes

OPPORTUNITIES

•Not sure if food sec and nutrition sec is an opp or we are

there yet

•Business opps – markets, changed produce into money,

money making (not income)

•Networks – local st/k, DoA, municipality (tractors)

•Auctions –opps to sell there, conservative as they are –

don’t want to sell a bull

•Youth involvement – this has been a challenge, howto

make it attractive to young people. Partnered with Umgeni

putting Eco champs, they are planting with families, and will

do alien clearing

THREATS/CHALLENGES

•Crime andunemployment is v high – more that 50% in

Berg, Savings being robbed and people killed

•Increasing fuel and food prices, so need to work harder to

prod fod

•Covid

•Staff turnover

•Funding streams are getting slimmer

•Poor network for people who work in the field, comm is bad

•Aging participants so our work needs energy and power

•Climate issues – threat because unpredictable, eg, it was

dry so people had to wait to plant, then rained and too wet

•Lack of water

PLANS FOR THE REST OF THE PROJECT

•Issue of skills transfer, team should bebigger, team around Ernato learn and get her skills

•Shortage of resources – more effort and time to source and diversity ito sources and partnerships withbigger organisations, eg

Lotto, Operation Jumpstart in KZN

•Aging participants: more vigorous on youth involvement, and youth-focus orgs

- Midlands SWOT analysis and plans

STRENGTHS

•Livestock integrationand expansion as part of CA, intro

fodder, but some were trying out calves, so arranged

expertise on that, took a life of its own,now raising and

selling, making money, unintended consequences

•Increased production ito CA plots, intro of two row planter

•Group cohesion – groups have expanded over time,

potential for division because over to municipalities,

respect,unity, transparency – v imp

•Independent mindset that farmers have, them willing toput

money into, a bit better off financially, eg interested in

rabbits, and could buy them. Do not expect things for free

all the time

•Have been farming for a long time, set on ploughing, and

were willing to do things diff and try

•Bulk buying –fertiliser, medication for calves

•High rainfall with deep well-drained soils

•Marketing – various outlets, bakkie traders, to PMB, mkting

was building on what was already there

•Men are proactive and want to be incl more – so men will

assist even if not involved directly.

•Groupexpansion over the years, now a dilemma because

we wanted to slowdown but more people want to join

WEAKNESSES

•Lack of follow up – because of diversity, some things fall off

andwe do not monitor on time, ltd number of people

•Lack of continuity because farmers change sites, in the

beginning they choose poor site for their CA trial plot, so

makes it diff to compare over the years

•Shortage of inputs, DoA ploughed and now no seeds

•Imbalance between field work and report writing – not

enough time for reports because of field work

•Grouppolitics in onearea – cause tension and hinder. Eg

we were told onefarmer had left the project but someone

told her that MDF was demoting people and not to come

•Limited commitment in one area – people not that interested

•Exposure to diff orgs – have bigger networks – DoA, us,

business owners, UKZN, diff sources of info

•Team experience: dreamer and practical

OPPORTUNITIES

•Opps for VSLA to grow, only started two months ago

•Start farmers’ centre and sell inputs locally

•Exposure to foodprocessing gives valueadd opps

•Increase market stalls toother areas and sell to other

villages – marketing across vills

•Livestock fodder production

•CA expansion– conventional agric deeply entrenched, and

we reach v few. Small group has shown us that when

expose to knowledge, people are willing to change

•Money made on green maize, madumbe, sweet potatoes

THREATS/CHALLENGES

•Clash of projects – diff orgs working and practices do not

agree

•Comms belong to 2 munics, rels are fragile because if

someone good happens to one side, the others feel wrong

•Covis – farmers got sick, passed one

•No munic support – farmers often raise this. Looking for a

market stall space but munic red tape and not being able to

deal with the same person

•Network –can’t get hold of farmers

•Farmers are agingand threatens continuity of what we are

doing, how long will they be sustainable for, next five or 10

years, eg people that died, no-one continued on that plot,

youthare not interested

•Varying levels of commitment

•Bad roads

PLANS FOR THE REST OF THE PROJECT

•More training workshops on fodder and livestock supplementation, set targets

•Better co-ordination of activities, alternative weeks between livestock and crops

•Two days in the office in last week of the month for reports

•Intensify CA monitoring – do not change sites

•Focus more on committed farmers (in one area in particular)

•Do a quarterly plan and review at the end of each month

•Focus on marketing initiatives [lots ofwork by MDF and is it worth it so near the end]

- Southern KZN SWOT analysis and plans

STRENGTHS

•Land is available and water too – Mzimkulu runs all year

round, slowly working those areas again

•Most we work withare retirees – nurses, police, teachers,

miners, so canafford stuff better – more middle class. This

also means they save a lot more every month

•Many have diversified – calves, broilers, layers, wanting to

try our more ito income generation. Also education helps in

them wanting to try more stuff

WEAKNESSES

•More affording are getting better while topoor areworse off

– buy calves, sell more heads, more eggs. Seems biased to

the richer and they take over the learning group, not pro-

poor enough

•Acidic soils

•Office and field are too distant

•Poor levels of team work, CMT, 1,000m needs about 16-20

people, every person for themselves when it comes to

planting

OPPORTUNITIES

•Value adding– sells thrashing, kids, sunflowers to feed

•Train others in the villages eg one women attended poultry

so teaching others, gives tours

•Local abattoir – place for people to take their chickens

•Affording muscle allows people to go to dairy farms, access

maas and clothes, and sell it locally.

THREATS/CHALLENGES

•Theft

•Diseases

•Hailstorm Nov 21

•Learning groups areaging, rest on chairs

PLANS FOR THE REST OF THE PROJECT

•Land is fenced by prob is water to those plots as rivers are running below fields – build st/h relations that could help putting water

to fields

•Categorising farmers accordingto commodities of interest eg financingwateraccess from nearby Umzimkhulu – elite and poorer

– give voice to the poor in their own group. Different groups different people

- Matatiele SWOT analysis and plans

STRENGTHS

•Fams so strong ties

•Goodgender balance so no-one excluded and good

division of labour

WEAKNESSES

•Limited time – no field staff there, so much travel once or

twice a month only, or someone there

•Young and vibrant local facilitator – collects monthly data,

sets up meetings

•Mostly penioners, goodbecause they are always at home,

so noto and frofor meeting dates

•Have money to buy the stock

•Most vulnerable group so do not have to go to town to buy

•Sandy soils, poor, no organic matter, tried CA for 6-7 years

andnothing happening on those plots

•Erratic rains and water scarcity

•Villages spread far apart, bad roads

OPPORTUNITIES

•Organic growthbetween participants

•Opps for local markets/sales, eggs, broilers, green

•Newopps outside of agric eg bakery

•Villages are one or more hours away from town, so buy bulk

in PMB and supply farmers there by decanting

THREATS/CHALLENGES

•Politics – did org intro in the vuillage, and when it came to

CA, people said no because hard work, tunnels and poultry,

people asked questions about who was getting, rumours of

boycott of our market day – postponed indef

•High input costs in Matat, R262 vs R400 for bags of layer

mash, costs too muchfor them to try out

•Theft

•Poor record keeping on the part of farmers – need to work

on that

•Groups are aging, withdigging and tunnels, moreand more

of atask, push away from CA

PLANS FOR THE REST OF THE PROJECT

•Presence of field staff, more team member or local FO for coherent process and see through of activities – activities are stand

alone, not an integrated livelihood strategy, and to monitor any changes. FO would provide support for local facilitator and be

available to everyone all the time

•Incentive scheme for sourcing and transporting inputs for local availability, farmer centres for inputs, knowledge, charged

assistance eg spraying – getting proper inputs and on time, this could be youth

MDF staff have already picked up on the following recommendations:

➢A greater presence and push in Matatiele – there are now 144 participants across 5 villages active mostly in

gardening and poultry production

➢Assisting marketing groups tobe more independent and transport their own produce

➢Local procurement options

➢Sourcing of new funding options

➢Greater andmore coherent linkages with institutional role players; LM, KZNDARD, Development Agencies and

➢Methodology development for the overall monitoring of project impacts using climate resiliencesnapshot

interviews

3GAPS AND CONSTRAINTS

Work has been hampered by highlevels of rainfall, which has caused flooding, made roads impassable and has slowed

down field work. This is obviously atemporary condition. Surprisingly little damage was done in the Conservation Agriculture

fields and tunnels.

4COMMENT ON FINANCIAL REPORT

NOTES ON EXPENDITURE

Expenditure has been compiled up until theend of February 2022

1.Staff cost: Staff costs are somewhat higher than the budgeted amount for this period. This was compensated for

by reducing the 3rd party and external evaluation fees for this period.

2.Operating expenses- Materials: This budget item is on target according to the budget.

3.Overall expenditure for the period of December 2021-Febraury 2022 has been 4% higher than the allocated funds.

Below is a summary of the Financial report.

5TWO COPIES OF ANY PUBLICATIONS

6FINANCIAL REPORT

The financial report excel sheet is attached as a separate document: WWF_Financial report_GT06177_ID315_CRA KZN-

EC_20220310. Documentation for explaining full expenditure summaries is available on request.

7SIGNIFICANT PLANNED ACTIONS FOR NEXT REPORTING PERIOD

Outcome

Activities

Planned actions (Milestone 7)

Livelihood

security at

household

level

1. Learning group

planning and seasonal

review sessions

✓KZN: Ezibomvini, Stulwane, Vimbukhalo, Eqeleni. Madzikane,

Gobizembe Mayizekanye, Ozwathini, Spring Valley, Ngongonini,

Plainhill

✓EC: Nkau, Rashule, Ned, Nkasele,Mechachaneng, Mngeni

2. Prioritized baskets of

appropriate practises

✓CA: Finalization of yield monitoring for 2nd round of CA

implementation.

✓Gardening: Finalization of installation of last 20 tunnels and 37

remaining drip kits. Tunnels, drip irrigation, mixed cropping, herbs

and multi-purpose crops

✓Poultry production: Continue process for 100 participants across

KZN and EC.

3. Learning and

implementation support

✓Drip irrigation and intensive homestead gardening, including

naturalpest and disease control.

✓Poultry production: sanitation and disease management, feed

rationing, marketing options

Social

agency for

LED and

1. VSLAs, business

development, farmer

centres

✓Marketing exploration workshops continuation and monthly

farmersmarket stalls

✓26VSLA’sin KZN; monthly mentoring

WWF: GT06177 Financial reportDate: 10 March 2022Milestone 6

Project BudgetFull Year 2nd

Oct 2020-

August 2022

Oct 2020-March

2022

A - OPENING BALANCER3 000 000,00R2 222 500,00R2 011 039,26R317 800,27R2 328 839,53-R106 339,53

Cash receivedR1 847 500,00

Otherincome (interest, FX

gains/loss)

n/a

B - TOTAL income + o/balanceR1 847 500,00R2 222 500,00R1 847 500,00R1 847 500,00R1 847 500,00R375 000,00

EXPENDITURE by code

1Staff costsR1 210 066,50R624 466,50R914 736,08R117 337,50R1 032 073,58R177 992,92

2Third party feesR458 919,00R237 219,00R184 121,32R29 305,00R213 426,32R245 492,68

3Travel and SubsistenceR446 809,50R230 959,50R267 626,86R65 667,42R333 294,28R113 515,22

4Capital Asset costsR0,00

5Operating expenses; materialsR755 865,00R181 523,00R625 947,50R66 962,85R692 910,35R62 954,65

6Meetings / Education / TrainingR0,00R0,00

Project Promotion/

Communication/Printing /

Publication

R37 260,00R19 260,00R4 500,00R8 000,00R12 500,00R24 760,00

8Project Evaluation by 3rd partyR91 080,00R47 080,00R14 107,50R30 527,50R44 635,00R46 445,00

C - TOTAL EXPENDITURER3 000 000,00R1 340 508,00R2 011 039,26R317 800,27R2 328 839,53R671 160,47

D – CLOSING BALANCER0,00R1 659 492,00R0,00R0,00R0,00-R777 500,00

ESTIMATES

ACTUALS

Code

Description

Previously

Reported YTD

Actuals

This quarter

Actuals

(September-

November 2021)

Year-to-Date

(YTD) Actuals

Forecast minus YTD

Actuals (=Variance)

social safety

nets

✓Continue monitoring of 2 bulk loan funds set up

2. PM&E system and

monitoring

✓Finalization of resilience impact methodology and survey forms

3. Iterative PID approach

for improved adaptation

and innovation

✓Climate resilience snapshot individual interviews (min 30

participants)

✓Participatory impact assessments x 3

8.LIST OF ANNEXURES

Complementary information, including photographs.

ANNEXURES

1.Farmingfor Climate Justice: Individual survey and focus group discussion report

F4CJ: CASE STUDY 1: MAHLATHINI DEVELOPMENT

FOUNDATION

❖BACKGROUND: MAHLATHINI DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Mahlathini Development Foundation is anon-profit organisation that specializes in participatory learning and action in

smallholder farming systems. The organisation has worked directly with more than 1000 farmers across three provinces

mainly KZN, Limpopo and the Eastern Cape under the Maize Trust Smallholder Farmer Innovation program (MT-SFIP). The

primary aim of the program is to promote conservation agriculture and its principles, i.e. minimum soil disturbance,

permanent soil cover andcrop diversification in order to increase productivity, improve soil health and increase the

sustainability of these farming systems. Beyond the CA program MDF has also worked on a number of climate resilient

agriculture (CSA) programs which also focus on working in harmony with nature instead of against it. One suchproject is the

WRC CSA project where the organisation developed a Decision Support System (DSS) as atool for farmers to use when

deciding what to plant, when and how, depending on climatic and environmental factors. In addition, the organisation

supports more than 23 villageloan and savings associations (VLSA) in KZN and 7 in Limpopo to save money for agricultural

inputs and enterprises, although most of thegroups support a wide range of household needs and onlya small percentage

goes back to agricultural initiatives. MDF also works with a number of stakeholders, both from government and non-

governmental organisations in implementing and supporting farmer led experiments and initiatives that help mitigate the

effects of climate change and increase household food security.

❖RESEARCH CONTEXT

The field work was conducted in the NatalMidlands situated between 40 and 90 km outside Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu

Natal, South Africa. It covered three sub areas namely Mayizekanye, Gobizembe and Ozwathini. These areas fall under

uMshwathi Municipality and are all farming communities that practice mixed farming. The farmers cultivate a wide range of

cropsincluding maize, beans, amadumbe, sweet potatoes, sugar cane, potatoes, butternuts, cabbages and others. In

addition, there are also fruit trees namely guava, mangoes and peaches. It is atemperate area with deep well drained soils

which are mostly reddish brown in colour. The yearly rainfall is above 750 mm per annum with Ozwathini having occasional

mistin summer. Some farmers own livestock and the men focus more on cattle, sheep and goats while the women farm

traditional chickens, broilers and layers. All three areas are situated on communal land. Gobizembe and Mayizekanye fall

under Chief Gcumisa and Ozwathini falls under Chief Mthuli. There are local indunas in the areas who are the chiefs’ ears

on theground and are responsible for resolving conflict and ensuring that there is peace and harmony in the communities. A

total of 30 farmers volunteered to be part of this research who are between the ages of 40 and 75 years old, of which 95 %

are women. All of them are unemployed and dependon social grants, remittances and farming in order to survive.

❖RESEARCH METHODS

A Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach was used for this research. From the introductory stages of the research

farmers were given an option to volunteer to take part and thereafter there were individual interviews and a workshop.

❑Introduction of research in Midlands

The field work commenced with a series of introductory meetings in all three areas where the project was formally

introduced and explained to the farmers. Thereafter, they were requested to volunteer themselves to take part, where the

limit was set at 10 farmers per area. The names of the farmers who were interested in being part of the research were then

recorded.

❑Individual Interviews

A total of 15 individual interviews were conducted across the three areas, with 5 completed in each area. These interviews

were doneduring planting and were conducted by Tema, Nkanyiso and Nontokozo from Mahlathini over a period of two

days.

❑Workshop: Focus Group Discussion on local Solidarity Networks

Subsequent to the completion of theindividual interviews there was a focus group workshop with all farmers to share some

findings from desktop research and individual interviews,as well as gain insight into local context, what solidarity networks

are there? How do these function? What are the challenges? PRA tools were used tofacilitate the discussions and record

information as a way to encourage equal participation between farmers and researchers. The workshop framework was as

follows:

1.Introduction to the research and findings from literature review

2.Introduction to solidarity networks and Identification of existing networks (break away groups); feedback session

3.Prioritization of networks according to impact (matrix ranking), breakaway groups

4.Plenarydiscussion: Challenges experienced in networks

4.1.Resources neededfor farming/agro-ecology

4.2.Links between agro ecology and networks

5.Discussion on savings groups/stokvels, link to agro ecology

6.Plenarysession: SWOT analysis to understand what inhibits and enables these groups.

❖RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

The aim of the interviews was to explorethe solidarity networks and economies of care that individual farmers are part of

and how these impact their farming, and also toshed more light on how solidarity networks can be used to strengthen agro-

ecology initiatives.

Existing Solidarity Networks

The individual interviews brought to light that there are existing solidarity networks within the community which were formed

for various reasons, including food production, saving money and market access. These networks serve as a knowledge

bank and platform for sharing experiences and include both formal and informal groups. Thegroups include local farmers’

association, savings groups and stokvels, livestock groups amongst others. The main purposes of the groups is to provide

knowledge, access to resources, networking and sharing. Majority of the farmers were reluctant to share the challenges

associated with working in a group.

Access to Knowledge

Two maingroups were mentioned as playing apivotal role in providing knowledge on farming and these are the farmers’

associations andthe conservation agriculture learning groups. Through the farmers’ association, the farmers mentioned that

they were trained on grain crop production andhave run trials on maize, beans and potatoes. The second learning network

is the conservation agriculture group, where they learned about best practices for improved farm productivity. Some of the

practiceslearned through the CA group include no-till and reduced use of synthetic fertilisers, crop diversification through

the incorporation of cover crops as well as intercropping andcrop rotation. The groups have also learnt about intensive

homestead garden, where they learnt about importance of incorporating organic matter and water conservation. These

groupshave influenced their farming in that before becoming a part of them, they had no organised way of farming but

simply sowed seed and hopedfor the best. These groups have brought some structure and organisation in their lives and

serveas a platform where they can voice their concerns, ask questions, reflect and improve on what they arecurrently

doing. Stokvels and savings groups werementioned as important in supplementing household income, saving money

towards inputs, helping oneanother towards burials and providing support during ceremonies.

Access to resources

This is probably the most important reason why many farmers create networksor join existing ones;to make it easier to

access resources. The interviews revealed that farmers access resources through the various networks in the following

ways:

❑Bulk buying under the farmers’ association where they all contribute an equal amount towards,seed, fertiliser and

chemicals.

❑Subsidised Inputs: In theCA learning groups, the inputs are provided by Mahlathini where farmers pay a small

percentage towards the total cost, although in previous years they have received the inputs for free.

❑Free Inputs from the Department of Agriculture

❑Stokvels: buying groceries as a group around December works out cheaper than buying individually. Stokvels come in

different forms; rotating money stokvel,blanket, meat, grocery stokvels

❑Easy access to credit, through savings groups which is used for various household needs. Shareout once a year, i.e.

pool of money for procuring inputs and fulfilling household obligations.

Current Practices

The individual interviews also revealed that farming practices are largely informed by what the farmers have been taughtat

trainings and by their own experiences. Through the support of DARD, manypractice a monoculture model of mechanized

agriculture, particularly when it comes to maize, beans and potatoes. Through the CA learning groups, they have received

training CSA practices such as intensive garden production where they apply more organic methods. Through conservation

agriculture they have learnt about planting different crop varieties, livestock integration, water conservation and financial

management through savings groups.

What is necessary to strengthen agro ecology?

Although their current farming practices do have elements of agro ecology, more stillneeds to be done to incorporate agro

ecology principles into their farming systems. Some of the responses regarding ways to strengthen agro ecology in their

currentsystem wereas follows:

❑Greater exposure to agro ecology through the CA learning network

❑More research on agro ecology principles and practices

❑A paradigm shift on agro ecology and what it entails

❑More access to organic inputs

❑Greater control of predators that damage crops sucha monkeys

❑Employingmore sustainable practices that work in partnership with nature rather than against it.

How can existing platforms be used to strengthen agro ecology?

A few farmers gave thefollowing responses regarding the role networks can play to strengthen agro-ecology?

❑Existing networks can train the youth on agro ecology in order to ensure continuity

❑Department of Agriculture can help more in supporting agro ecology

❑Networks can run a joint training on agro ecology principles and practices

❑ More cross visit, farmer field days that focus on agro ecology

❑Networks can provide farming tools

The tableson the following pagegive a summary of the findings from the individualinterviews.

Table 2: Mayizekanye Individual Interviews

Table 3: Ozwathini Individual Interviews

Name and

Surname

M/F

Age

Education

Head/HH

Income Sources

Income level

Current Activities

Solidarity

Networks

What is necessary to

strengthen agro-

ecology?

How can existing

platforms be used to

strengthen agro-

ecology?

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS: MAYIZEKANYE

Bongiwe

Shezi

Grade4

Pension,

disability, HIV and

social grant

R5 000,00

amadumbe, maize,

beans and spinach

CA Learning

Group,

More exposure to agro-

ecology principles

through learning network

Unclear

Ntombi

Shandu

Grade4

Yes

Remittances,

social grant

R1 000,00

amadumbe, maize,

beans, vegetables,

broilers

Savings Group,

CA Learning

Group

No Answer

Mavis Shezi

Grade6

Pension and

farming

R3 000,00

maize, beans,

amadumbe, potatoes

CA Learning

Group,

Unclear

They can train

younger people on

agro-ecology

principles to ensure

continuity

Fikelephi

Maphumulo

Grade3

Social grants,

remittance

R2 500,00

Dryland croppingof

grain crops, potatoes,

amadumbe

CA Learning

Group, savings

group

No Answer

Dumazile

Nxusa

Grade5

Yes

Social grants,

pension and

farming

R3 800,00

potatoes, beans,

amadumbe, sweet

potatoes, vegetables

Estezi Farmers

Association, CA

Learning Group,

Zethembeni

Stokvel

More research support

on agro-ecology

principles (e.g. wants to

learn how to grow

organic potatoes)

Dpt of Agriculture can

help them learn more

about agro-ecology

Table 4: Gobizembe Individual Interviews

Name and

Surname

M/F

Age

Education

Head/HH

Income

Sources

Income level

Current Activities

S/Networks

What is necessary to

strengthen agro-

ecology?

How can existing

platforms be used

to strengthen agro-

ecology?

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS : OZWATHINI

Philani

Ngcobo

Tertiary

Yes

Employment,

farming, grant

R10000,00

maize, beans, strawberries,

tomatoes, scc, chickens,

calves, pigs, rabbits

Mathulini Farmers'

Association, CA

Learning Group,

Livestock Grp

Need for a paradigm

shift in farmers through

greater exposureto

agro-ecology

Unclear

Martina Xulu

Grade5

Pension, social

grant

R3 500,00

amadumbe, maize,beans,

vegetables, broilers, layers,

rabbits calves

Mathulini Farmers'

Association, CA

Learning Group,

Livestock Grp, Savings

Group

No Answer

Nokuthula

Dube

Grade4

social grant,

unemployment

grant,

remittance

R0,00

maize, beans, amadumbe,

potatoes, calves, broilers

Mathulini Farmers'

Association, CA

Learning Group,

Livestock Grp, Savings

Group, stokvel

More access to organic

inputs

Networks can run a

joint trainingon agro-

ecology and promote

agro-ecology

initiatives

Doris

Chamane

ABET

Yes

Pension grant,

farming

R2 600,00

Dryland croppingof grain

crops, potatoes,

amadumbe, broilers,

layers, calves

Mathulini Farmers'

Association, CA

Learning Group,

Livestock Grp, Savings

Group

They can help set up

experiments

comparing agro-

ecological practice to

conventional practice

Ntombi

Hlophe

Grade8

Yes

Social grants,

pension and

farming

R2 000,00

Beans, potatoes,

vegetables, calves, maize,

cover crops

Mathulini Farmers'

Association, CA

Learning Group,

Livestock Group,

Savings Group, Coded

Cooperative, blanket

stokvel

No Answer

Name and Surname

M/F

Age

Education

Head/HH

Income

Sources

Income level

Current

Activities

S/Networks

What is necessary to

strengthen agro-

ecology?

How can existing

networks beused to

strengthen agro-

ecology?

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS: GOBIZEMBE

Rejoice Bhengu

Grade10

Remittances,

social grant

R2 000,00

maize, beans,

vegetables

CA Learning Group,

Burial scheme

Building stronger

relationships among

members, more

workshops on agro-

ecology

More cross visits, farmer

field days andworkshops

that focus more on agro-

ecology principles

Thokozile Mahlaba

Grade11

Remittances,

social grant

R1 900,00

maize, beans,

layers

CA Learning Group,

bulk buying group,

stokvel

No Answer

Mariam Ngubane

Grade5

Pension

R1 800,00

maize, beans,

CA Learning Group,

Assistance with

controlling predators

such as monkeys

They can provide farming

tools

Rita Ngobese

Grade4

Social grants

R4 000,00

maize beans,

amadumbe,

vegetables

CA Learning Group,

stokvel

Making compost,

planting multipurpose

crops such as legumes,

i.e. employingbetter

practices

Networks can focus more

on increasing knowledge

access to agro-ecology

Khombisile Mncanyana

Grade5

Yes

Social grants

R2 000,00

potatoes, beans,

amadumbe,

sweetpotatoes,

vegetables,

traditional

chickens

CA Learning Group,

Informal support

network

Making compost,

increasing better

practices, e.g.

intercropping

More training on agro-

ecology practices

❖RESULTS: FOCUS GROUP WORKSHOP

Background

The focus group workshop was conducted on the 17th of February at Gobizembe community hall in Swayimane,

KwaZulu Natal Province, South Africa. It was attended by 26 out of the 30 farmers who volunteered to be part of

the research. Out of the 26 farmers in attendance, there were 23 females and three males. Those who did not

makeit sent in their apologies prior to the workshop. The initial idea was to have the F4CJ solidarity team take part

in the workshop through Zoom, however due to poor network coverage in the area this did not materialise. It was

agreed that Dr George Mudimu would pre-record a short video introducing the team and project to farmers and

sharesome of feedback from the interviews. The video was played at the beginning of the workshop.

Reflections from the Workshop

A.Identifying Local Solidarity Networks

The process of identifying local solidarity networksand their roles started with adefinition of these networks and

the reasons why they are formed. Thereafter there was a discussion around how farmers organise themselves so

as tocarry out their various activities after which they were divided into three groups. Thethree sub areas were

asked to each stay in their respective areas as the workshop provided a platform for them to not only discover their

respective networks but to also get to know each other as a larger group. From the group discussions, each group

nominated someone to present the findings and below is a general list of the solidarity networks that were

identified across the three areas. For a detailed list with the function of each group please refer to Table 4.

1.CA Learning Groups

2.DARD Farmers’Associations

3.Stokvels

4.Savings Groups

5.Livestock Groups

6.Mushroom Group

7.Sewing Group

8.Church Groups

9.Burial Schemes

10.Networks that look after orphans

Figure 20: First Breakaway Session: Identifying and describing local solidarity networks

Table 5: Existing Solidarity Networks and their Purpose

AREA

GOBIZEMBE

MAYIZEKANYE

OZWATHINI

Group/Network Name

Y/N

Purpose

Y/N

Purpose

Y/N

Purpose

Dlalanathi Orphan Group

Bring together orphans to comfort and provide

counselling. To encourage them to reach out to

other community members without fear or

shame

Mushroom Production Group

Mainly to encourage each other to be

independent in business. Formed with

assistance from DARD, mushroomssourced

from china, each womanhas a nursery, market

the mushrooms independently.

DARD Farmer Group

To learn about nature, farming and selling

To learn about different ways to grow

food and obtain inputs through bulk

buying

To learn about growing grain crops

and vegetables andor bulk buying.

Burial/ Ceremony Savings

Scheme

Savings group mainly for funeral and

ceremonies such as weddings, traditional

functions/rituals

To support bereaved group members

Stokvel Group

Rotatingstokvel where each member gets a

fixed lump sum every month

Rotatingstokvel where each

member gets a fixed lump sum

everymonth/ also grocery, meat

stokvels

Savings Group

Meet to save monthly, and take out loans.

Interest charged at 30% per month share out

once a year

Meet and save R5/week, share out at

the end of the year

Supported by MDF, Meet to save

monthly, take out loans at an

interest of 10% per month, share

out once a yea

AREA

GOBIZEMBE

MAYIZEKANYE

OZWATHINI

Sewing Group

Group of women who sew church and school

uniforms as well as pinafores

Poultry Group

Women’s group for traditional chickens and

layers

Mainly farm layers and broilers

through support from MDF

CA Learning Group

Learning about planting without disturbing soil

and planting different types of crops

To learn to farm while savingmoney

and protecting the soil

No-till planting in order to save

money and to learn about cover

crops, poultry and livestock farming.

Regular meetings and report back

on CA, assist each other with

planting

Church Group

Different denominations meet

Thursdays/Saturday/Sunday to pray

against COVID, family crises,

societal challenges. Encourage one

another

Calf Group

Rear calves together from a week

old and sell them after 6 to 8

months

B.Prioritization of these Networks

Matrix Ranking was used to gain insight into which networks are most

significant to farmers. The functions ofthese networks were summed up and

used as criteria to identify which ones were most significant and why? The

function of these networks as identified by the farmers are as follows:

1.Access toknowledge

2.Conservation of soil and water

3.Savingmoney

4.Increase resilience to climate change

5.Cultural Preservation

6.Solidarity

A score of 0 to 2 was used to rank each group, with 0=bad/no impact, 1=okay,

2=good and the final scores were added up in the end. The following was

brought to light by the matrix ranking exercise:

❑Agriculture production groups ranked the highest when compared to

other social groups. This shows that food production is a crucial

component of survival in the rural villages covered in this study

❑CA learning groups were ranked no 1across the three areas, in Ozwathini they tied with the calf group and in

Mayizekanye they tied with the DARD farmers’ association which further proves the aforementioned point

❑Stokvels, burial schemes, savingsgroups and church groups played a more significant role in saving money,

preservation of cultural values and solidarity.

❑All of the identified groups had were ranked high in terms of access to knowledge across thethree areas

❑All thegroups excepthe stokvel group and DARD group in Gobizembe were ranked high in terms of promoting

solidarity.

Below are the Matrix Ranking Diagrams for each area

Gobizembe

CA learning

group

DARD

Farmers

Association

Sewing

Group

Money

Stokvel

Grocery

Stokvel

Mushroom

Group

Access to Knowledge

Soil and water conservation

Saving money

Increased resilience to climate

change

Preservation of culture

Solidarity

Total

FINAL RANK

Mayizekanye

learning

group

DARD

Farmers

Association

Savings

Group

Burial

scheme

Stokvel

Harvesting

Group

Access to Knowledge

Soil and water conservation

Saving money

Increased resilience to climate change

Preservation of culture

Solidarity

Total

FINAL RANK

Ozwathini

learning

group

DARD

Farmers

Association

Calf

Group

Savings

Group

Burial

Scheme

Church Group

Access to Knowledge

Links between Existing Networks and Agro-Ecology

Following the matrix ranking exercise there was a discussion about the links between solidarity networks and agro ecology.

The focus of this discussion was the savings groups and the conservation agriculture learning groups.

Savings Groups and Agro-ecology

During the plenary session, the group was asked whether they see any links between their savings groups and agro

ecology. Their immediate response was that they saw no link but later they retracted and said their income from farming

normally goes towards monthly contributions in savings groups, and loans that they take out from savings go towards buying

production inputs and feed for their livestock. However, the money that is shared out at the end of the savings cycles

seemed to have different uses. Stokvels were said to have no link to farming, as they are formed for very specific reasons,

i.e. to “pay” each other on a rotationalbasis for household needs, to save up for groceries at the end of the year, buy

blanket, meat, soaps and other goods. This nevertheless raises a question over the possibilityof forming a stokvel

dedicated to agro ecology initiatives? Although the farmers did not specifically say that savings are linked to agro ecology in

particular, they did concede that they definitely play an important role in their farming activities as summed up in their words,

“without farming they wouldbe no savings groups, and without savings groups we would not progress in their farming

activities.”

Soil and water conservation

Saving money

Increased resilience to climate change

Preservation of culture

Solidarity

TOTAL

FINAL RANK

Conservation Agriculture Learning Network and Agro-Ecology

The farmers were also asked to discuss why they gave the conservation agriculture learning groups aperfect score across

all the five categories and their responses were summarized as follows:

A.Access to knowledge

❑According to the farmers, the CA learning network provides a variety of platforms for learning and sharing through

farmersdays, workshops, cross vists and field demos

❑They now have a greater understanding of the destructive effects ofmechanical ploughing and excessive use of

synthetic fertilisers

❑Individual experimentation has allowed them to see the effects of CA first hand and draw their own conclusions

B.Soil and Water Conservation

❑The farmers have seen that CA reduces runoff and soil erosion through the planting of cover crops and

intercropping maize and legumes

❑Diversification has played a role in improving texture of the soil

C.Increased Resilience to Climate Change

❑Introduction of a multifunctional farming system of planting cover crops that can be used as fodder and manure

from animals in turn being used to add organic matter to the soil

❑Reduced soil erosion means greater nutrient and water retention and increased sustainability of production.

❑One of the farmers shared how the hail storm on the 23rdof December wiped out a lot of people’s crops but hers

surviveddespite her field being on the steep slope, the summer cover cropsand maize had little damage butthe

beansin between the maize were wiped out.

D.Saving Money

❑Saving of moneyfor tractor hire

❑Reduced use of synthetic inputs, means lessis required

❑Savings group help tomake better decisions about money

E.Preservation of Culture and Solidarity

•Green mealies

•Amadumbe

•Cabbages

•Sweet potatoes

•Calves

•eggs

•broilers Income from sales to

bakkie traders,

neighbours, localmarket

•Monthlysavings

•Taking out small loans

Savings Groups•Productioninputs (seed,

fertiliser, chemicals)

•Livestock feed

•Seedlings

•Bonemeal, compost

Production

❑The CA learning group encourages crop diversification which is something they used to do before switching to

mechanization.

❑Strengthened community relations through planting together

❑Assisting each other with planting, significant for older women who can no longer do high amounts ofphysical

labour

Challenges Experienced within Solidarity Networks

Issue of gate Keepers

Though the farmers sang praises about the different networks of which they form part, they also shared that being part of a

group has its setbacks even if you have a common vision. One of the challenges is that some of the gate keepers in the

groupsend up being a hindrance between the group and information about new technologies/innovations, either through the

hogging of resources or by systematically excluding those who oppose their views from the group.

Intergroup Dynamics

Jealousy was also identified as a major challenge of which the consequences are often quick and sudden. When people are

jealous of an individual/group’s success they simply withdraw their support or try to sabotage them. Varying levels of

commitment by some members was also raised as a point of concern as there are people who come when things go well

and step back when challenges arise. There are also members within the group who simply refuse to pull their weight.

Others are often quick to complain about being excluded from activities but when given the platform, fail to takefull

advantage of it.

Effects of COVID-19

The pandemic also had an impacton how the networks operate and the way farmers relate with one another. Firstly, many

farmerslost their produce after failing to secure a market due to the lockdown, although a few ofthem doubled their income

during the same period. In addition, organisations who came to purchase produce from to distribute to families in need faced

a dilemma as to who tosupport because everyone was desperate for a market. It was not uncommon for those whose

produce was not bought to be left feeling unjustly treated even though they knew it was impossible to purchasefrom

everyone. The rotting of produce in the field, death of loved ones, personal COVID infections, disrupted routines and

uncertainty about the future alltook their toll and some farmers stopped being actively involved in the networks. The

situation is however, starting to improve.

Unpredictable Weather Patterns

Climate Change has brought with it a myriad of challenges and farmers have never been under this much pressure to find

innovative ways to effectively grow food. Even those who insist on continuing with mechanical ploughing have started to feel

the brunt of harsh and erratic climatic conditions. Case in point, there were two major hailstorms in KZN in December that

ravaged through fields, damaged houses and even killed some livestock. These harsh weather conditions coupled with a

sharp rise in input costs have resulted insome becoming discouraged and either downscaling or not planting altogether.

SWOT Analysis

At the end of the workshop, a swot analysis was done to try and highlight what enables solidarity networks to function well,

what inhibits them from effectivelybringing about change, the opportunities that exist for strengthening their roles and the

threatsthat place their sustainability under question. Below is a diagram of a SWOT showing what came out during the

discussion.

What enables networks to function well?

What inhibits networks from performing well?

Conclusion

The workshop brought a lot of issues to thesurface and afforded farmers and the field workersan opportunity to critically

reflect and identify factors that influence the effectiveness of their collaboration. From the workshop, it is clear that solidarity

networksare central to developing thesocial agency needed to cement new ideas and innovations in rural communities.

There is great potential to support and strengthen agroecology within the CA learning groups, DARD farmers associations

and savings groups.

Working together with a common goal

Gaining of knew knowledge and skills on good

agricultural practice

Love for farming

Able to grow food for our families

Physical exercise

Helping the needy

Eat food from our own garden/field

Assist each other with market

Bulk buying

Lackof sufficienttraining on usage of chemicals

Poor coordination

Differingviews

Not attending meetings/demos and expecting to piggy

backon others

Gossiping

Lackof trust

Poor record keeping

What are the opportunities for growth?

What could threaten the future of local networks?

Build stronger relationships

Plant new types of crops and due toCC

To grow more food due to increase in demand for

local produce

Buying produce from one another

Unpredictable weather patterns

Old age

Rise in input costs

Competition with commercialfarmers

High mortality dueto COVID and other diseases

WWF_GT06177_ID315_CRA in mixed smallholder farming systems in KZN and EC. March 2022