Milestone 8 - Final report | Mahlathini Development Foundation

Climate Resilient Agriculture in mixed smallholder

farming systems

WWF- Green Trust: Final Report: Milestone 8

30 August 2022

Submitted by Mahlathini Development Foundation

By Erna Kruger, Mazwi Dlamini, Michael Malinga and Temakholo Mathebula with support from interns Lungelo Buthelezi,

Hlengiwe Hlongwane and Ayanda Madlala

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The two main outcomes for the project can be summarized as:

•Food and nutrition security at household level for poor, rural homesteads with enough farming income to

sustainably maintain farming activities in the short term and

•Development of social agency for community led local economic development and social safety nets and

improvement of the natural resource base.

Theseoutcomes have been achieved by working intensively with Climate Resilient Agriculture (CRA) learning groups in 18

villages across KwaZulu Natal (Bergville, Midlands and Southern KZN) and the Eastern Cape (Matatiele). Improvements have

been implemented and monitored for 378 participants.

In each CRA learning group participants undertook a climate change assessment, and prioritized adaptive measures and

practicesundertaken by each individual in the group. CRA practices have included for example Conservation Agriculture

(intercropping, crop rotation, inclusion of cover and fodder crops), livestockintegration (poultry micro businesses, fodder

production, winter fodder supplementation and calf rearing) and agroecological homestead vegetable production (micro

tunnels, trench beds, rainwater harvesting,mulching, grey water management, composting, mixed cropping, crop

diversification, liquid manures, natural pest and disease controland seedsaving).Seasonal reviews and joint learning

activities reinforced cyclical learning and adaptation.

The CRA learning groups also formed the basis for improvement of social agency and governance for joint discussion, analysis

and collaborative action, primarily around marketing and water access, but also in resource conservation activities. Eight(8)

of the groups have formed formal marketing committees and structures for local marketing, 3 have formed water committees

and undertaken community owned and managed water schemes in their villages,5 have set up farmers’ associations for calf

rearing and livestock management and 2 have undertaken resource conservation activities linked to youth employment in their

villages. For the remaining groups, collaboration has been strengthened in these areas, but not to the extent of initiating formal

structures and initiatives.

Throughexpansion and intensification of production andproductivity, participating smallholders have increased both

household food availability andincomes. The total value of production averages around R3 060/ per household per month.

This equates to a 68% increase inproduction and incomes as a result of this intervention. Around 80% of participantsstill

produce for household consumption first andsale of surplus. This has meant that farmgate sales and local marketing stalls

are the most appropriatemarketing strategies, as these can provide flexibility for sale of various quantities and types of

produce. Participants have increased theircrop diversity by roughly 10 crops per participant and each has also included

around 10 new CRA practices into their farming system.

Membership of the Village Savings andLoan Associations (VSLA)has increased to 510 participants, including the initiation

of 6 new VSLAs and on Bulk Loan Fund association. The overall annual value of these VSLAs is roughly R 1117 420, and

an individualised value of around R3 342 per annum. Participants use these savings and small loans for household

consumption smoothing, buying of household items, education, production inputs andsmall businesses.These VSLAs provide

a very strong element of financial sustainability to participants in a highly vulnerable environment.

Mahlathini staff have been involved in a range of multistakeholder platforms and networks in the 2 years of project

implementation. We have also been involved in participatory research activities, exchanges, conferences, webinars and

open days. The intention is always to shareour work as widely as possible, to learn from others and to provide some

influence towards broader implementation of community-based adaptation and innovative and responsible development

models for the rural poor of South Africa.

CONTENTS
Executive summary......................................................................................................................................................................2
Contents .......................................................................................................................................................................................3
Narrative report............................................................................................................................................................................4
1Outcomes per objective......................................................................................................................................................4
1.1Progress overview .........................................................................................................................................................5
Conservation Agriculture (2 cycles of implementation)............................................................................................6
2.1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................7
Intensive homestead food production: Gardens and small livestock.......................................................................8
Resilience snapshots................................................................................................................................................9
Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs)...................................................................................................18
Local incomes and marketing................................................................................................................................. 21
Strengthening of Innovation platforms and networks.............................................................................................23
3Gaps and constraints........................................................................................................................................................26
Publications............................................................................................................................................................24
2Comment on financial report.............................................................................................................................................25
Notes on expenditure............................................................................................................................................................25
3Financial report..................................................................................................................................................................27

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 incomesfor the rural poor in the 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

Manager’s name and

contact details

Erna Kruger

Cell:0828732289

Email: info@mahlathini.org

Project objectives

Increasedproductivity and resilience in the mixed smallholder farming system through

implementation of a basket of Climate Resilient Agriculture practices:

1. Work with existing CCA learning groups to scale upproductionin the short term within the

confines of the COVID-19 pandemic

2. Support a range of intensified food production activities; vegetable production, 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 farming activities in the short term

1.Activity1 -Learning group review and planningsessions to prioritize each participant’s most

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

COVID-19 pandemic 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

Outcome2 - Development of social agency for community led local economic development and

social safety net Improvement of the natural resource base

4.Activity 1- Build social and economic capital within eachof 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

1OUTCOMES PER OBJECTIVE

The final three months of this project have been focused on finalisation of the conservation agriculture process for this year

including yield measurements. The two local marketing processes in Bergville and Ozwathini have continued with monthly

markets. In Matatiele the gardening training and micro tunnel implementation process has been finalised and workshops

conducted on marketing explorations and a last round of support for layers and feed has been provided.

The main emphasis has been on the final evaluation process, which consists of in-depth individual interviews: the resilience

snapshots. Monitoring case studies have been compiled for a selection of participants.

Table 1: Progress against specific outcomes and activities for theperiod mid-June to end August 2022

Outcome

Activities

Progress (Milestone 8)

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, Nchodu

378 participants across 19 villages

2. Prioritized basketsof

appropriate practises

Gardening:Micro tunnels, drip irrigation, mixed cropping, natural pest and disease

control, trench beds and eco-circles, tower gardens and greywater management

Conservation Agriculture: Experimentation with close cropping, inter cropping crop

rotation, cover crops, perennial fodder 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 intensive veld grass baling

3. Learningand

implementation support

Conservation Agriculture:

✓Quantitative measurements for CA; yields, runoff, water productivity (KZN

-40 participants)

Livestock integration:

✓Finalisation of orders for micro poultry enterprises and setting up local

procurement arrangements

Gardening:

✓Tunnel construction training and finalisation in KZN and EC

✓Gardening learning and mentoring in bed design, greywater management,

organic soil fertility, natural pest and disease control

✓Drip kit construction learning workshops in KZN and EC

Social agency

for LED and

social safety

nets

1. VSLAs, business

development, farmer centres

✓Monthly farmers market stalls for Midlands and Bergville in KZN

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

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

KZN).

2. PM&Esystem and

monitoring

✓Local marketing income monitoring

✓CA yield monitoring

✓Resilience snapshots

3. Iterative PID approach for

improved adaptationand

innovation

✓Monitoring case studies

1.1PROGRESS OVERVIEW

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

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

Tunnels

Broilers

Layers

Fodder

supplementation

Total number of

participantsin CRA

learning groups

ProposedCA

Actual 2020/21

Actual 2021/22

Field cropping ha's

Proposed tunnels

Actual 2020/21

Actual2021/22

Drip kits

Gardening ha's

Proposed Broilers

Actual 2020/22

Proposed Layers

Actual 2020/22

ProposedFodder

supplementation

Actual 2020/21

Actual 2020/22

2021/22

378

135

172

155

19,1

18,6

0,46

100

2,9

100

2020/21

360

KZN

234

112

125

Bergville

Midlands

SKZN

144

Matatiele

Mzongwana

Rashule,

KwaNed

Nkau

Mechachaneng

Nkasele/

Nchodu

Note: For KZN cropping fields are on average 0,25ha/participant. For EC fields are on average 0,01ha or smaller.

Note: Gardens are small and average 0,025ha per participant.

The proposed number of participants for the programme is 135 per annum (55 from KZN and 80 from EC), thus 270 in total

over the 2 years of implementation. At the end of the project there were378 participants in the programme, 234 from KZN and

144from the EC. In KZN the learning groups are well developed while in the EC, the learning groups are new and in the

process of being introduced to the various aspectsof CRA and working in learning groups.

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

upinputs and have contributed to their own inputs thereafter. MDF assisted in procurement and delivery. Due to the combined

effects of COVID-19and the social unrest, many agricultural inputs arestill in short supply and are not easyto get hold of.

This includes day old chicks, point of lay hens, maize seed, fertilizer and seedlings. Prices have escalated dramatically.

Conservation Agriculture(2 cycles of implementation)

Implementation of conservation agriculture in the EC (Matatiele) has been disappointing, despite learning and input support

from the facilitation team. A combination of very bad soilconditions, extreme weather events and lack of financial and labour

support from participants in field cropping, conspired to produce very little implementationand improvement.

In KZN, CA implementation is a lot more advanced, in part due to support for a CA- innovation programmeby the Maize

Trust and in part due to a much more focused interest in field cropping by participants. Farmer level trials have focused n

experimentation with a number of aspects of the CA cropping system, including inter cropping with legumes, crop rotation,

use of different maize varieties, planting of cover crops and livestock fodder species and winter fodder supplementation.

In this participatory research process, there is a focus on both qualitative and quantitative measurement of a range of indicators

by the farmer and facilitator teams, to enable evidence based learning and adaptive management. Abrief summary of a

selection of these indicators is provided below.

Rainfall measurements

A selection of participants in KZN have rain gauges and keep records of their rainfall. This is compared with information from

weather stations through a collaboration with SAEON (South African Environmental Observation Network). A summary of

monthly average rainfall (from 3 weather stations around Bergville) is provided below as an indication.

Figure 1: Monthly rainfall averages for 2020-2022

The trend, which is similar in all implementation areas for this project is that early summer rains are delayed and low and

that late season rain is higher than expected. For the 2021-/22 season the late season rainfall was consistentlyvery high

and had a number of negative impacts on dryland field cropping; including overgrowth of weeds, delayed planting of late

season crops, excessive runoff, increased fungalinfection load and reduced yields. For both seasons the cumulative

seasonal rainfall was more than double the long-term Bergville average, which is around 650mm/annum.

OctNovDecJanFebMarApr Total

Rainfall 2020/21(mm)103.4 207 204.7 409.2 197.1 101.648 1271

Rainfall 2021/22 (mm)88.196.2229.4 349.9 211.3 256.4 266.11497.4

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

mm rainfall

Monthly rainfall averages 2020-2022

Runoff

This is measured for a small group of participants, where runoff pans are installed in their fields. Again, the farmers keep

these records. An example for Bergville is provided below.

Table 2: Runoff percentages across two seasons for CA trial and control plots.

rainfall (mm)

runoff CA plot (L)

runoff control plot (L)

Bergville (6 participants, 4 villages)

Sum

1277

76,7

146,1

% Rainfall conversion (2021)

11%

% Rainfall conversion (2022)

% Rainfall conversion (average)

These results indicate that the runoff in the CA trial plots for farmers is almost 50% lower than the runoff in the control plots,

although this percentage was lower for the 2021/22 season with the very high late season rains.

Figure 2: Installation of

runoff pans in control and

CA trial plots, respectively.

This translates to

around 55l/m2 of water

saved in the CA system

and provides a

volumetric water benefit

of 550000l/ha.

Water productivity (WP)

WP has beencalculated for maize, both in single and intercropped plots. The intention is to explore the WP of maize planted

under different cropping options for farmer participants who have been implementing CA for between 3 and 8 years.

The aim was to ascertain whether the different cropping options within the CA system provide for different water productivity

outcomes and to compare CA with conventional tillage in terms of mono-cropped maize.

For the 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons the WPwas calculated forthe different CA cropping options,as shownin the table

below, for 3 implementation areas in KZN.

Table 3: WP calculated for KZN for different CA cropping options 2020/21 (n=11) and 2021/22(n=8)

WP (kg/m3)

2020- 2022

Farmer name

M 21

M 22

M+B 21

M+B 22

M+CP

M+Pk

M-CA

Control 21

M-CA

control 22

M-Conv

Control

Bergville

B Hlatshwayo (strip)

2,74

0,96

Nelisiwe Msele

2,57

3,96

2,32

2,04

2,1

2,43

1,01

0,98

Ntombakhe Zikode (Strip)

1,91

3,34

3,55

0,72

2,07

Phumelele Hlongwane

4,65

5,37

4,45

6,42

4,31

4,1

1,16

2,19

Sibongile Mpulo

3,27

3,73

3,04

4,02

2,12

1,44

2,72

SKZN

Cosmos Xaba (strip)

1,87

1,22

1,47

1,19

0,49

Letta Ngubo

0,89

3,52

2,08

0,76

Mandla Mkhize

2,15

Thandiwe Hadebe

2,55

0,92

Midlands

Mrs Xulu

0,95

1,92

1,38

0,2

1,35

0,98

Nomusa Shandu

0,44

1,01

0,53

Babhekile Nene

1,87

2,35

0,85

2,84

0,63

0,79

Rita Ngobese

3,14

0,85

Overall averages

2,28

2,64

2,5

3,07

2,84

3,36

1,01

1,42

0,75

From the above table the following is evident:

-WP values for the 2021/22 cropping season are higher for all treatments than in the 2020/21 season.

-The same trends are seen for both seasons where:

oWP for CA plots are substantially higher than WP for conventionally tilled plots

oWP for theCA control plots, which have been repeatedly mono-cropped to maize are substantially

lower (1,01 and 1,42 kg/m3respectively for 2020/21 and 2021/22)than CA plots planted to mono-

cropped maize in a multi-crop rotation (2,28 and 2,64 kg/m3 respectively for 2020/21 and 2021/22)

oWP for inter-cropped CA plots (maize plus beans (M+B), or cowpeas (M+CP), or pumpkins (M+Pk)) is

substantially higher than mono-cropped CA plots

There are clearly very distinct water productivity benefits through CA implementation. This translates to a saving of 1 730l/kg

of maizeproduced under and intercropped CA system and allows for a volumetric water benefit of around 8 million l/ha

(assuming and average yield of 4,6 t/ha).

Dryland crop yields

Yield measurements were undertaken for maize and beans in the 3 implementation areas in KZN (Bergville, SKZN and

Midlands) for both seasons of implementation. The table below provides averaged data.

Table 4: Yield averages for dryland maize and beans for 2021 (n=152) and 2022(n=47) across KZN.

Maize and bean yields (CA trial plots)

Bergville

SKZN

Midlands

Season

2021

2022

2021

2022

2021

2022

No. of villages

No. of trial participants

Area planted (trials) (ha)

3,5

2,4

1,25

0,8

4,3

1,3

Average yield maize (t/ha)

6,3

4,6

3,4

1,29

2,6

3,7

Min. and max. maize yield (t/ha)

1,6-14,8

0,3-13,6

0,5-10,2

0,3-2,7

0,3-5,8

1,0-6,3

Average trial quantity of maize (kg)

390

143

110,5

160

184

Rand replacement value of maizemeal

R3 120

R1 516

R884

R593

R1 280

R1 652

Average yield of beans (t/ha)

0,88

0,44

1,16

0,37

1,1

0,38

The above table indicates a reduction in maize yields for Bergville and SKZN between 2021/22 and 2021/22 and an

increase for the Midlands. The heavy late season rainfall had obvious negative effects for two of the regionsand a positive

impact for the Midlands. The ranges of yield for the different participants are quite extreme from 0,3t/ha – 14,8t/ha. This is

not uncommon among smallholder farmers where quality of implementation is very varied and where specific soil conditions

for different individual’s fields can be extreme as well.

The bean yields for both seasons are quite low, but for 2021-22 are very low. Late season rains affected legume yields

substantially. Yields for the CA trials are generally substantially higher than the CA control and conventional control plots.

The small table below for 2021/22 is indicative.

Table 5: Average CA control and CA trial yields for KZn:2021-22

Area (2021/22

CA control (M), yield (t/ha)

CA trial (M) yield (t/ha)

Bergville

2,87

4,91

SKZN

0,86

1,26

Midlands

3,95

3,83

Intensive homestead food production: Gardens and small livestock

As with the field cropping these activities were a combination of learning, mentoring and implementation with an initial

subsidy for input support.

Learning workshops undertaken include:

➢CCA introduction (CC impacts, adaptive strategies,prioritization of a basket of CRA practices for each individual

and learning group

➢Greywater management and tower gardens

➢Bed design: trench beds and eco-circles

➢Soil fertility: Composting and liquid manures

➢Tunnel installation and drip kit construction

➢Mixed cropping and Natural pest and disease control

➢Poultry production and management and

➢Seasonal review and planning workshops.

Interventions n gardening took a number of forms includingimproved agroecological production practices, construction of

deep dug organic beds, tower gardens andmicro tunnels with drip irrigation. Atotal of 114 tunnels have been installed and

are now operational across 14villages. In Bergville and Matatiele participants have been themost enthusiastic in this

undertaking at 42 and 45 tunnels respectively. It relies on a large initial labour and resourceinput from farmers as they are

required to dig and pack their 3x5m2 trench beds before tunnels are constructed. These are also the two areas with the most

extreme weather conditions where this extra labouris well rewarded in production increases. Detailed reporting on tunnel

implementation and gardening has been providedin previous milestone reports

For the micro poultry production units, the team and farmers have needed to rely heavily on commercially available birds, feed

and medication. Improvementshave come primarilyfrom supplementing feed with greens, housing and sanitation and more

careful rationing of feed forthepoultry.Poultry production was very popular, being seen as aquick turn over activity for income

generation. Ninety-eight (98) small broiler units have been supported as well as 50 egg production units. Participants have

managed to make a reasonable, if not continuous income from these poultry units and the hopes for quick profits have not

been realized, as poultry production using commercial inputs is a very fine balancein terms of costs and outputs. Detailed

monitoring was provided in earlier milestone reports.

Figure 3: Above Left to Right: Examples of a tower garden (greywater management) a tunnel and a small broiler unit.

Resilience snapshots

Monitoring and evaluation for improvement of livelihoods and incomes through the CRA implementation has been undertaken.

This was the main activityfor the lasttwo months of this intervention, along with finalization of the last tunnels and poultry

orders.

An intensive impact survey was conducted with around 40% of participants form each of the areas (Bergville, Midlands, SKZN

and EC_Matatiele),using the Resilience Snapshot methodology, process and questionnaire developed for this purpose.

Indicators for these snapshots were carefully developed and pre-tested, to show changes and impact in a range of resilience

related criteria. Below the summary tables for the 2 areas (KZN and EC) are presented, with short discussions

KwaZuku Natal

In KZN participants were interviewed in the Bergville (n=21), Midlands (n=15 and SKZN (n=9) sites, proportionally according

to the number of participants in each site. Each site is in a significantly different agroecological region and interms of proximity

to large urban centres, which are the two main factors for differences in production and productivity between these sites. Local

production habits also play a part, as does attitudes towards change and new ideas. The table below summarizes the changes

across the three sites.

Table 6: Climate resilience snapshots for 45 participants from KZN: August 2022

Resilience

indicators

Average increase

Comment

Bergville (n=21)

Midlands

(n=15)

SKZN (n=9)

Increasein size of

farming activities

(Cropping areas

measured, no of

fruit trees and no of

livestock assessed)

Gardening: 93m²

- 234m² (253%)

Gardening: 1

217m² - 1664m²

(36%)

Gardening: 25m²

- 100m² (400%)

Sizes of gardens haveincreased, substantially inBergville and SKZN

where many participants were not gardening before. In the Midlands most

participants already have reasonably sized gardens

Fieldcropping:

2 460m² -6

175m² (251%)

Fieldcropping:

5 163m² -6

270m² (21%)

Fieldcropping:

1 666m² -1

044m² (-62)

Dryland cropping has increased substantially since introduction of CA and

includes fodder production and cover crops in Bergville. Fieldsizes range

from 500-28 0000m². Field cropping has however decreased in SKZN,

dueto adverse weather conditions and economic pressuresand have

increasedonly slightly in the Midlands where fields are already well

established and reasonably large

Fruit andother

trees:1-2

Fruit andother

trees: -

Fruit andother

trees: -

Some farmers bought a few more fruit trees. Around 40% of households

do not have any trees in their yards.

Livestock:

Cattle: 173-117

(-33%)

Livestock: >22

chickens/particip

ant (46%)

Livestock: >5

layers/participan

t (5%)

More poultry kept (broilers and layers) for marketing. Most families'

livestock have decreased substantially due to theft, the recent floods and

household use.

Increased farming

activities

A number of participants have re-initiated certain farming activities:

gardening and/or field cropping activities as well as poultry production

(broilers/eggs).

Increased season

Yes

For field cropping - autumn and winter options andgardening throughout

the year. This is a measure for improved continuity and production.

Increased crop

diversity

Crops: 24 new

crops ~ 7 per

participant

Crops: 20 new

crops ~ 9 per

participant

Crops: 19 new

crops ~ 6 per

participant

Number of new crops planted in each areaand per farmer: New crops

include coriander, basil, fennel, rosemary, lettuce, red lettuce, mustard

spinach, kale, carrots, beetroot, Chinese cabbage, spring onions, leeks,

onions, cabbage, red cabbage, butternuts, sorghum, sunflower, Sun

hemp, Lab-lab, Lespedeza, tall fescue, winter cover crops, turnips, beans

and cowpeas.

Practices: 24

new practices

(Ave 11 per

participant)

Practices: 21

new practices

(Ave 10 per

participant)

Practices: 15

new practices

(Ave 8 per

participant)

Number of new CRA practices implemented per farmer: These include

mulching, trench beds, liquid manure, raisedbeds, mixed cropping, inter-

cropping, crop rotation, tunnels, drip kits, eco-circles, greywater use and

management, Conservation Agriculture, cover crops, inclusion of

legumes, pruning of fruit trees, picking up dropped fruit, pest anddisease

control, feeding livestock on crops and stover, cutting and baling, fodder

supplementation, health and sanitation for poultry, brooding, JoJo tanks

and RWH drums.

Increased

productivity

Gardening >

73kg

/season/per

farmer

Gardening> 410

kg/season/per

farmer

Gardening> 17

/season/per

farmer

Increase in Kgs of vegetables produced per season: Based on increase

in yields, mainly from tunnels and trench beds for gardening, for a range

of vegetables and herbs.

Field cropping: >

450kg

/season/farmer

Field cropping: >

888 kg

/season/farmer

Field cropping: >

181 kg

/season/farmer

Increase in Kgs of field crops produced per season: Relates to switching

to CA and increase in field size, for a range of field crops - mainly maize,

beans and potatoes

Livestock:

>2/year/farmer

Livestock: >15

chickens/year/fa

rmer

Livestock: >21

chickens/year/fa

rmer

Increase number of livestock:For Bergville the number relates to cattle,

For Midlands both layers and broilers and for SKZN to layers.

Increased water use

efficiency

Access, RWH, water holding capacity and irrigation efficiency rated.

Scale:0= same or worse than before; 1= somewhat better than before, 2=

much better than before x 4 criteria (values of 0 to 8): The ratings indicate

good improvements in RWH, water holding and irrigation efficiency and

some improvement in access.

Increased income

R741

/month/farmer

Range: R240-

R2 000

R3641

/month/farmer

Range: R800-R7

320

R1021

/month/farmer

Rang: R200- R1

500

Increasein average monthly income(Rands): This is primarily through

local marketing and smallbusinesses. A number of participants have lost

employment andgrantincomes andreplaced these with farming. Around

10% of participants have not improved their incomes

Increased

household food

provisioning

Vegetables;

18kg/week

Vegetables;

27kg/week

Vegetables;

6kg/week

Food produced (overall Kgs per week) and consumed in the household:

For both Bergville andthe Midlands these figures indicate food secure

participants, while for SKZN the self-produced food is roughly 30% of that

required for a household

Dryland crops

(maize,

legumes, sweet

potatoes);

23kg/week

Dryland crops

(maize,

legumes, sweet

potatoes);16

kg/week

Dryland crops

(maize,

legumes, sweet

potatoes); 17

kg/week

Poultry:2-

3/month

Poultry:2-

3/month

Poultry:2kg

eggs/month

Increased food

security

Average:3 food

types/2x per

week

Average: 5 food

types/ 3x per

week

Average: 3 food

types/ 2x per

week

No of food types/ no of times/week: This is a measure of improved dietary

diversity and indicates both improved access and changes in food habits.

This largest diversity is found for the more peri-urban communities in the

Midlands

Increased livelihood

diversity options

Averageincrease in livelihoodsources:Social grants, remittances,

farming incomes, small business income, employment. Increase in no of

livelihoods options used. Primarily from farming and small business

income

Increased savings

Average:

R152/month/far

mer

Average:

R354/month/far

mer

Average:

R280/month/far

mer

Average increase in savings (Rands): Savings used for food, household

educationand production. In Bergvillethe increase is withinexisting

savings groups and for Midlands and SKZN new groups have been

established

Increased social

agency

(collaborative

actions)

Averagenumber of local organisations farmers belong to:Participants

generally belong to church groups and stokvels. New group

collaborations include learning groups, farmers' associations, village

savings and loan associations, marketing committees, farmer centres,

work teams and local water committees

Increased informed

decision making

Averagenumber of sources of information: Own experience, local

facilitators, other farmers/community members, facilitators, extension

officers, radio, extension officers.

Positive mindsets

A qualitative rating of wellbeing for each participant: SCALE:0=less

positive about the future; 1=the same; 2=more positive about the future;

3=much more positive. More to much more positive about the future:

Much improved household food security and food availability.

In Bergvilleparticipants doubledthe sizes oftheir gardens and field cropping areas and increased poultry and fruit production.

Livestock production decreased by around 33%, mainly due to substantially increased theft in the area, but also due to use

for Lobola, ceremonies and household consumption. Twenty-four (24) new crops have been introduced and are being grown

in the area, as well as 24 new CRA practices.Productivity has increased and farmers are producing on average 73kg more

of vegetables per season and around 450kg of field crops more. Their food security has been improved and their incomes by

an average of R741/month, from farmgate and market stallsales. Savings have increased by R152/month per participant.

Participants are now involved in at least 3 more social organisations including the learning groups, savings groups, farmers

associations and water and marketing committees. They have improved their decision making, now working with local

facilitators, DALRRD extension officers, and MDF staff. In summary their mindsets and outlook on their futures are much more

positive, with much improved household food security and food availability.

Figure 4: CRA marketing group with the market stall in Bergville in early August 2022, showing agood range of thecrops they are now

selling.

Figure 5:Above clockwise from left: A mixedcrop tunnel (NelisiweMsele), protected spring and poultry house for broilers, in Stulwane,

Bergville.

In the Midlands participants have increased their gardens and fields by around 30%, as manywere already active farmers.

This area is close tolarge urban centres andhas aforgiving climate that can accommodate both winter and summer crop

production. Those keeping poultry have increased their flock sizes by around 22 birds per participant. A sizeable group of

farmers involved in calfrearing (around 30members), where1week old calves are reared to yearlings before being sold locally.

Twenty (20) new crops have been introduced and are being grown in the area, as well as 21 new CRA practices. Productivity

has increased and farmers are producing on average 410kg more of vegetables per season and around 888kg of field crops

more. Their food security has been improved and their incomes by anaverage of R3 641/month, from farmgate and market

stall sales. Savings have increased by R354/month per participant. Participants are now involved in at least 3 more social

organisations including the learning groups, savings groups, farmers associations, calf rearing groups and marketing

committees. They have improved their decision making, now working with local facilitators, DALRRD extension officers, and

MDF staff. In summarytheir mindsets and outlook on their futures are muchmore positive, with much improved household

food security and food availability.

Here, in addition to the snapshots, an assessment of changes in practises and impact of these on their farming was undertaken

with a number of the participant smallholders. The advantages of a transition to a more agroecological system are evident.

Below a few examples are provided.

Table 7: Assessment of past and present farming practices for Bongiwe Shezi, Mayizekanye: August 2022

Bongiwe Shezi - Mayizekanye

Past Issue

Past practice

Present practice

Impact

Lessons

Bare soil (no soil

cover) resulting to

soil erosion

tractor

planting cover crops, minimal

tillage, mulching

improved soil health and

preventionof soil erosion

keeping the topsoil

Bare soil canhavehigh acidity and

remaining soil lacks nutrients and she

wouldbe required to use fertiliser.

Pests

use of chemical

pesticides

planting herbs and using

nonharmful chemicals

Soil health improved

Nature based practices are cheaper and

much healthier for peopleand the

environment

Poor quality of

crops

application of

fertiliser

crop rotation, intercropping,

weeding, minimal tillage

soil health and fertility resulting

to healthy plants

Bongiwe also provideda self-assessment of her level of improvement for the five fingers principles of agroecological

improvement in her farming. Inthe small table below, she has indicated which practices she has included under each of the

conservation practices. She has not focused on natural resource management or indigenous plants,

Five fingers conservation practices

Detailed description of what is there - list practices

Water management

Storing water (RWH), soil cover to prevent soil erosion, channelling water into the field,

run-off management

Control of soil movement

Minimal tillage, maintains soil cover, use of winter and summer cover crops, mulching,

use of kraal manure

Soil health

Soil testing, soil fertility (manure and compost), cover cropping, reduced soil erosion

Improved crop management

herbicide use, intercropping, mulching, ridging, spraying

Improved livestock management

vaccination, grower mash for the chickens

Looking after indigenous plants

Mr Philani Ngcobo from Ozwathini has experimented with a range of practices, including some new ideas introduced through

UKZN and DALRRD. He rated eachof his most successful CRA practices against a number of criteria that he considered

important, including for example, soil improvement, efficient wateruse, increased production, improved income and improved

ability to adapt to variable weather conditions. He rated the impact of these practices asfollows.

Name of

practice

Soil

Water

Productivity

Labour

Pest and

disease

control

Cost and

maintenance

Livelihoods

Adaptation

Scaleused; -

1=worse than

normal practice,

0=no change,

1=some positive

change,

2=medium

positive change,

Mulching

Tunnel

Cover

cropping

3=high positive

change

Worm

composting

Aquaculture

-1

Hydroponics

-1

Hay

harvesting

Figure 6: Left:The local market stall set up at the Bamshela Taxi rank for the Midlands marketing group. Note thepackaged, eggs, beans

andpotatoes, alongside cabbages, Chinese cabbage, carrots and spinach. This group manages their own market process, collection, set

up and sales. Right: An example of an online and printed poster produced for the veggie combos sold through social media in

Pietermaritzburg.

Figure 7: Above Left: Ntombizodwa Hlope’s layers and calves being hand reared by Martina Xulu (Ozwathini May 2022)

In SKZN, improvement in productivity has been hampered by relative isolation of the villages, due to broken hilly topography

of the area, lack of access to urban centres and high climate variability. Manyparticipants have started gardening again, albeit

on small patches between 25-100m2, their field cropping areas have contracted by62%, due to repeated weather-related crop

lossesand deteriorating soils and increase in livestock has been limited to an increase in the number of layers(~5 per

participant farmer). They have suffered losses in livestock numbers (cattle and goats) due to theft and flooding. Nineteen (19)

new crops have been introduced and are being grown in the area, as well as 15 new CRA practices. These are lower than in

the other two KZN sites and relates to a higher reticence to change in this area., Productivity has increased, and farmers are

producing on average 17kg more of vegetables per season and around 181kg of field crops more. Again, this is lower than

the other two sites and provides for a 30% increase in food security here, compared to around 90%. Incomes have increased

by an average of R1021/month, primarily from farmgate sales. It has not been possible toestablish joint local marketing

actions in this region. Savings have increased by R280/month per participant. Participants only have the CRA learning groups

as a new organisational structure in these villages. Despite these lower levels of success in this site participants’mindsets

and outlook on their futures are much more positive, with much improved household food security and food availability.

Figure 8: Above Left : Layers’ unit for Mr Mandal Mkhize in Ngongonini and Above Right: Letta Ngubo’s CA field with summer cover crops

and maize in Spring Valley, SKZN (February 2022)

Eastern Cape-Matatiele

Villages in thisregion are sprawled along the escarpment leading up into Lesotho and weather conditions are quite extreme

at the best of times. Winters are cold with severe frost and sometimes snow. Summers are cool to hot and rainfall is unreliable,

but often comes in the form of severe storms that include hail. In addition, soils in the region are poor with low levels of organic

matter, high levels of sand and high levels of compaction. Severe imitations in access to water persist in the area and water

for irrigation is virtually entirely lacking

Although there are vast areas of abandonedfields, intervening in dryland cropping would need a very focused and intensive

effort. Most smallholders in the area are a lot more focused on household food production including vegetables, fruit and small

livestock and thus much of thefocus for this project was there.

Figure 9: Above Left: A CA plot in Nkau, with reasonably typical patchy growth. Initial improvement through CA in the1st season, was not

enough to convince participants to continue. Above Right: The really hard and compacted soil low in organic matter, proved difficult to dig

out for trench beds in a number of the households.

Figure 10: Above Left and Eight; Household gardens in Nkau, Matatiele, showing extensive production of kale and rape, with more intensive

production of green in a tunnel with drip kits and atower garden. Participants appreciate the value of both practices to produce better quality

crops under extreme weather conditions, especially frost in winter.

In the Eastern Cape, 21 participants across three villages (Nkau, Rashule and Nchodu) were interviewed using the resilience

snapshot methodology to ascertain progress and changes. The results are summarized in the table below

Table 8” resilience snapshots for 21 participants from the Eastern Cape

Resilience indicators

Increasefor Matatiele(n=21)

August 2022

Comment

Increasein size of

farming activities

(Cropping areas

measured, no of fruit

trees and no of livestock

assessed)

Gardening: 363m² - 841m²

(231%)

Sizes of garden havedoubled on average, range from around 35-2000m²

Field cropping: ~3000m²

Field cropping areas have not expanded

Fruit andother trees:

No new fruit trees in implementation period

Livestock: 272-298 (8%)

Morepoultry kept (broilers and layers) for marketing. Some however lost substantial

number of birds due to ill health and cold.

Increased farming

activities

Yes (1 on ave)

A number of participants havere-initiated gardeningand/orfield croppingactivities as

well as poultry production (broilers/eggs)

Increased season

Yes

For field cropping - autumn and winter options and gardening throughout the year.

Increased cropdiversity

Crops: 31 new crops (ave 11

per participant)

New crops include: Brinjal, parsley, coriander, leeks, thyme, lettuce, beetroot, green

pepper, chilies, basil, greenbeans, rape kale, rosemary, carrots, Chinesecabbage,

mustard spinach, spring onions, tomatoes, rosemary, fennel , broccoli, turnips ,mustard

spinach, kale, Sun hemp, lucerne, fodder rye, peas, sunflower , cowpeas

Practices: 24 new practices

(ave 10per participant)

Practices include; Mulching, trenchbeds, tower gardens liquid manure, raised beds,

furrows and ridges, mixed cropping, inter-cropping, crop rotation, tunnels, drip kits, eco-

circles, greywater use and management, Conservation Agriculture, cover crops, inclusion

of legumes, pruningof fruit trees, picking updropped fruit, pest and disease control,

feeding livestock on crops and stover, health and sanitation for poultry, brooding, JoJo

tanks, RWH drums

Increased productivity

Gardening;>116kg/season/per

farmer

Based on increase in yields (mainly from tunnels and trench beds for gardening) - Overall

Kgs of a range of vegetables and herbs produced in a season

Fieldcropping: > -

218kg/season/farmer

CA for field cropping -Overall kgs of arange of field crops - mainly maize, beans,

cowpeas

Increased water use

efficiency

Average: 6

Access, RWH, water holding capacity and irrigationefficiency rated. Scale:0= same or

worse than before; 1= somewhat better thanbefore, 2= much better than before x 4

criteria (values of 0 to 8)

Increased income

Average: R1031/month/farmer

Range; R80-R3440

Based on average monthly incomes, mostly thoughmarketing of produce locally and

through the organic marketing system

Increased household

food provisioning

Vegetables; 23kg/week

Food produced (overall Kgs per week) and consumed in the household

Dryland crops (maize,

legumes, sweet potatoes);

10kg/week

Poultry:2-3/month

Increased food security

Average:4 food types/3x per

week

No of food types/ no of times/week

Increased livelihood

diversity options

Average: 1

Social grants, remittances, farming incomes, small business income, employment.

Increasein noof livelihoods options used. Primarily from farming and smallbusiness

income

Increased savings

Average: R322/month/farmer

Averageincrease in savings (Rands) Savings used for food, household education and

production

Increased social agency

(collaborative actions)

Participants generally belong to church groups and stokvels. New group collaborations

include Learning groups, farmers' associations, village savings and loan associations,

marketing committees.

Increased informed

decision making

Own experience, experimentation local facilitators,other farmers/community members,

facilitators, radio.

Positive mindsets

SCALE:0=less positive about the future; 1=the same; 2=more positive about the future;

3=much more positive. More to much more positive about the future: Much improved

household food security and food availability.

In Matatiele participants doubled the sizes of their gardens, while field cropping and fruit production has not changed much.

Livestock production, mainly poultry(layers andbroilers) increased marginally by 8%, which was a combination of substantial

increases for a few participants but decreases for most participants who found it impossible to manage small flocks of 10-20

birdsprofitably, given the sharp rise in transport and feed costs.Thirty-one(31) new crops have been introduced and are

being grown in the area, as well as 24 new CRA practices. In this area participants were enthusiastic about trying out new

crops, more specifically in their vegetable gardens and have now included a number of crops for localized sales including for

example mustard spinach, Chinese cabbage and leeks. Productivity has increased and farmers are producing on average

116kg more of vegetables per season, indicating the expansion of production for both consumption and sale. Field cropping

has reduced by around 220k per participant this season, indicatinga very bad dryland cropping season in the area. Their food

securityhas been improved and their incomes by an average of R1 031/month/ participant, primarilyfrom farmgate sales.

Savings have increased by R3222/month per participant. Participants are now involved in at least 3 more social organisations

including the learning groups, savings groups, and marketing groups. They have improved their decision making, now working

with local facilitators, and MDF staff. In summary their mindsets and outlook on their futures are more positive, with improved

household food security and food availability

Case Study : Matankiso Rajoale from Rashule (Matatiele)

Matankiso Rajoale is a 53-year-old smallholder farmer from Rhashule, who farms with her husband. They have2 children, 1

foster child and 4 grandchildren. She started farming in 2005 with the intention of making an income to help her husband to

take care of their family as he could only find temporary jobs. The challenge was water and not knowing how to farm. She was

planting common vegetables in the area like cabbage, turnips and

rape. She generally planted these vegetablesin winterand

potatoes insummer. She was struggling with water and low yields.

She also started a small tuck shop.

Figure 11:Matankiso Rajoalefrom Rashule inMatatiele, standing ina

bed planted to mustard spinach. In the foreground is a bed of peas.

She joined the CRA learning group in Rashule in 2020 and feels

that she has benefited greatly:

➢She has introduced new crops that do well and are

popular in the area. Examples are Mustard spinach,

carrots and green beans – Sales from these alone have

come to around R1 000/month.

➢Introduction of trenches, shallow trenches and eco-

circles have assisted her in improving her soils and

increasing water holding in her garden and beds.

➢The tunnel provides for very intensive production of high

yielding, high quality crops

➢She has learnt about the need to buy specific potato

seed and different varieties that do well in different

seasonsand also in planting and managing them better.

Yieldshave increased dramatically, and she also makes

around R1 000 from sales of potatoes.

➢On average she now makes around R2 000 fromher garden every month,

Figure 12: Above Left: Matankiso uses her tunnel primarily for seedling production and Above right: A view of her garden beds including

cabbages, turnips, kale and rape.

Matankiso also started having an interest in livestock for both business and integration with her crop farming, mostly touse

kraal manure to add to the soil and making liquid manure to use for soil fertility and pestcontrol. She started with 2 sheep and

2 cattle andnow has 41 sheep and 15 cattle.She sells them locally, at between R1500 to R1800per sheep. Cattle are sold

at the auctions. At the latest auction she attended, she sold 4 cows for R28 000. Locally she sells a cow at R7 500. She uses

the money to buy feed and medicine for her livestock and to assist with household needs or farming inputs. The challenges

she has faced with livestock is getting medicine, and feed and theft in their village. She also started poultry farming in 2020,

through the help of the learning group and sells eggs locally at R55 for a tray of 30 eggs. Originally, she was the only person

selling eggs in the village and had a buyer who took the eggs to town,so she was doing well. Now, she has a competitor and

selling is going quite slowly. She feels that due to COVID people in the village have less money to spend on food. In addition,

feed prices in Matatiele are much higher than the feed shebought, and which was transported by MDF all the way from

Pietermaritzburg, almost R150/bag. If she has to transport her own feed, it costs and extra R200 per trip. It reduces her profit

margin considerably.

Figure 13: Above Left: Matankiso’s layers house and Above right: Her kraal for her sheep.

She is very grateful for the support form SaveAct and Mahlathini, as they have helped her improve her farming and livelihood

considerably.

Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs)

Figure 14: Images of a VSLA share out meeting for the Senzokuhle VSLA in Madzikane (SKZN) in May 2022

Background of the VSLA programme

The vision of Mahlathini Development Foundation istoavail practical solutions that attract and sustain the interest of

smallholder farmers to embrace ClimateResilient Agriculture (CRA) in their continued food production and income

enhancement endeavours. However, there are at least three challenges that the programme should resolve.

Firstly, participating smallholder farmers draw their livelihoods from low and uncertain sources of incomes. This makes it very

hard forsmallholder farmers to invest substantialamounts of money into farming. Secondly, constrained accessto useful

financial services which is coupled with poor production infrastructure tends to frustrate their relationships with local markets.

Lastly, there are competing priorities between household consumption and production as well as enterprise development and

it is common, even forvulnerable households touse local and expensive debt instruments tofund theirconsumption appetites.

Facedwith low levels of production, MDF has been promoting VSLAs amongst smallholder farming communities. Besides

promoting smallholder farmers touse VSLAs astheir financial institutions, the main objective oftheVSLA programme has

been to encourage smallholder farmers to use drawings from their VSLAs for productive purposes. There is evidence on the

ground that some farmers are starting to use drawings from their VSLAs to finance their production operations. Further to this

innovation, Mahlathini Development Foundation is piloting a concept of farmer production fund which seeks to encourage

bulking of loan funds. This loan fund is referred to asa Bulk Loan Fund (BLF) and is currently piloted in Emmaus. In most

basic terms, BLF encourages members of operational VSLAs to make once-off bulk annual contributions to build a largerloan

fund.

Performance of VSLAs

There are 29 VLSAs including the 4 newly established VSLAs (2 in Ozwathini and 2 in Madzikane).

Membership stands at 510participants, with a total contribution of R844 700 (USD $52 793) but excluding R24 000

(USD $1 500) contributed by the BLF (with 12 members). If the BLF is included, the total contribution is R868 700

(USD $54 293)made by 522 members in 30 groups. However,the analysis below is done from510 participants in

29 VSLAs. This data has been extracted from August 2022 records. US Dollar rate of R16.00 has been used to

calculate the conversion.

Table 9: VSLA performance summarized for August 2022

An annualised interest earned of 32.3% is noted. Coincidentally, interest earned is the same as money remaining

in the money box.

An analysis of average group performance is provided below.

Table 10: Average VSLA group performance: August 2022

What is quite interesting is the following:

▪Average savings per month per group of R4 897.59.

▪The total amount contributed per group in a meeting is therefore R4 897.59 plus R4 700.21 (loan repayments)

= R9 597.80, which is the average amount of cash put into circulation.

An analysis of average individual performance in VLSA groups is provided below.

Table 11: Average individual performance in VSLAs: August 2022

What is noted above is the average total monthly amount contributed by an individual participant of R545.76, which is made

of share purchase and loan repayment. The totalnet worth of each participant points towards opportunities for migrating

participants towards BLF.

For most of the VSLA groups, it has been difficult to get members to disclose use of loans on a regular basis and this aspect

of monitoring has thus lagged. Some reasons are the use of loansfor non-productive purposes and as a form of insurance

and ‘revolving credit facility”. These trends are understandable given the increased pressureon poor householdsto survive,

RAW DATASA RandUSD ($)

Total number of VSLAs:29

Total number of participants:510

Total number of shares bought last month:1393

Rand value of shares bought last month:R142030,008 876,88$

Cumulativesharesbought:8394

CumulativeRand value of shares bought:R844700,0052 793,75$

Loan amount repaid last month:R136306,008 519,13$

New loans taken out last month:R197750,0012 359,38$

Bank balance/money in the box last month:R272720,0017 045,00$

Interest earned:R272720,00

Annualised interest earned:32,3%

Current wealth last month (new balance)R1 117 420,0069 838,75$

ANALYSIS (GROUP PERFORMANCE)SA RandUSD ($)

Average shares bought by aVSLA per month:48,03

Average Rand value of shares bought by a VSLA per month:R4 897,59306,10$

Capacity to repay loan per VSLA per month:R4 700,21293,76$

Average loan amount taken by VSLA per month:R6 818,97426,19$

Average net worth per VSLA to-date:R38 531,722408,23$

Interest earned:R9 404,14587,76$

ANALYSIS (PARTICIPANT PERFORMANCE)SA RandUSD ($)

Average sharesbought by a participant per month:2,7

Average Rand value of shares bought by a participant per month:

R278,4917,41$

Capacity to repay loan per participant per month:R267,2716,70$

Average spent by participant per month (shares + loan repayments):R545,7634,11$

Average loan amount taken by participant per month:R387,7524,23$

Net worth per participant to-date:R2 191,02136,94$

with steep price increases for food and transport. It also suggests a focus on micro-insurance, so whether any savings can be

made at household level in this regard, to ease up limited cash.

Bulk Loan Funds (BLF)

There is only 1 BLF that was formed in eStulwane in December 2021. It was established by 12 members, each contributing a

once-off share of R2 000 totalling R24 000. The loanbooks now stands at R27 800.

The main goal of a BLF is to facilitate bulking of loans. These loans should be used mainly for productive purposes.

The profile of BLF is as follows:

All members of the BLF come from the existing VLSA. This has been the principle and non-negotiable rule for the BLF group

establishment. The profile of the members of the BLF is as follows:

Table 12: Summary of BLF information: August 2022

Age of members:

Older than 35 but less than 55 years of age

Income sources:

Mainly state grants remittances -and re-investing some into

enterprise development

Average Savings Per Month:

R300

Lowest Share-out Amount Received Last Year:

R4 000

Highest Share-out Amount Received Last Year:

R9 000

Lowest Loan Amount Taken Out:

R2000

Highest Loan Amount Taken Out:

R6000

Enterprise Development Activities:

Seasonal farming (vegetables and grains), broilers, eggs,

trading, crafting, microloan enterprises

Household Consumption Priorities:

Buying of:

▪Groceries, food items

▪Appliances especially TV, fridges

▪Furniture

▪Building and/or renovating houses

▪Education

As well as making monthly contributions to a burial society and

grocery stokvels

Future Training Requests:

▪Developing and using legally binding loan agreements

▪Manufacturing broiler and egg layer feeds/mash

▪Learning to drive a car

▪Operating a successful microloan enterprise

▪Growing BLF

Key observations

There are somebenefits that have been observed over time and that support the CRA programme.Firstly, VSLAs act as glue

and promoter of co-operation and social cohesion amongst the smallholder farmers and VSLA participants that are not

members of farmer learning groups. Secondly, VSLAs present multiple opportunities for participants to learn (and transfer

learning) specifically in terms of personal financial education. Participants learn to budget, manage debts and learn new ways

of improving household incomes. Lastly, VSLAs are the main platform to advance enterprise development objectives.

Just over half of borrowers in the BLF are using loans for income generation. In the last report, it was highlighted that at least

51.7% of BLF loans were used for enterprise development, 31.7% was used for non-productive consumption and 16.7% was

used to settle debts outside the BLF. For the VSLAs, most participants use loans for household consumption, with only around

18% ofloans being used for productive purposes.

One thing that is very obvious is that a lot of cash is circulating in these communities.At present around R716 800 worth of

shares/cash is held amongst the 24 groups, which is capital that is available for local enterprises and consumption smoothing.

It would be important to investigate in more detail the psychology ofthe members, with regards to the use of their financial

drawings (micro-loans and share-outs).

Local incomes and marketing

Income summaries

Most of the sales for smallholder farmers occur under the following circumstances:

•Food first, income from surplus (80% of participants)

•Expansion of existing cropping areas and types and number of crops grown (10-15%)

•Production specifically for sale (1-5%)

The following avenues have been explored:

•Farmgate (within villages); small local potential with low income ceilings

•Local market stalls (combined across villages); much larger range of products and income potential, also

now focus on labelling, branding, pricing, value adding and processing

•Bakkie traders, stores in local towns (individuals andgroups within villages); generally, commodity focused, and

farmersare price takers – good for larger quantities but no competitive advantage

•Sale to local retailers and supermarkets (individuals); requires transport, intermittent, price takers, little stability,

competitive –overall potential low

The local market stallshave provided the best option for marketing in the two yearsof implementation and show a large

potential for expansion, both in number and size. Farmgate sales have been the most common for field crops,poultry (eggs

and broilers) andlivestock. The following table provides a summary of average incomes for each of these ‘commodities’ across

the two seasons of implementation.

Table 13: Average incomes for commodities supported in the CRA learning groups: per participant.

Commodity

Average monthly income per participant

Annual income potential

Broilers

R1 024,50

R12294,00

Layers (eggs)

R641,00

R7 692,00

Field crops:

Maize

Beans

R209,41

R237,50

R3 713,00

R2 850,00

Vegetables

R247,00

R2 964,00

Average monthly value of food per participant

All commodities: This is an estimate only

(further corroborated in resilience

snapshots)*

R700,00

R8 400,00

Commodity for a selection of participants

only

Average monthly income per participant

Annual income potential

Green Maize

R1 300,00

R15600,00 (up to R24 000)

Stall fed calves

R750,00

R9 000,00 (up to R50 000)

Total value of production (incl all

commodities but excl the selection)

R3 059,41

R36 712,92

*NOTE 1: Rand value for food was calculated from the resilience snapshots, which elucidated detailed information of the produce consumed at a

household level in Kgs for vegetables, field crops and poultry. A Rand value of R5.00 was ascribed to each kg of produce as an estimate.

NOTE 2: From the resilience snapshots undertaken the value of R3 060 resonates well with actual incomes outlined by participants, which were

between R750 and R3650 on average across the sites.

Valuesfor the table have been averaged across all participantswho were monitored, and we assumed that a particular

participant is involved in the production of all commodities supported in this process (poultry, dryland crops and vegetables).

It thus provides a reasonable estimate of average potential incomes (profits –after subtraction of input cost) for participants

in this programme. This is asubstantial livelihoodimprovement and is often more than participants receive from other sources,

such as grants.

Local market stalls

This strategy of aggregating all produce across a selection of villages and selling monthly at a market stall based at a central

point such as a grant pay point or taxi rank, has been the main intervention for this project. It has includedworking with

participants on pricing, produce quality, labelling and branding of produce and the stall. It appears to be the most appropriate

strategy at present, that can accommodate for small quantities of a range of products as wellas inconsistency ofsupply. It

also ensures that farmers can charge reasonable prices for their produce.

The l table below provides a running total of sales from the market stalls between April 2021 and August 2022, for the two

areas where these stalls have been successfully set up: Bergville and Ozwathini (Midlands).

Table 11: Sales records for local market stalls in Bergville and Ozwathini: April 2021-August 2022

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

Date

No farmers

Villages

Amount

Market

Produce

2021/04/10

R2 419,00

Emmaus

VEGETABLES: Broccoli, cauliflower,

cabbage, kale, chinesecabbage, mustard

spinach,leeks, onions, lettuce, carrots,

beetroot, green peppers, chilies, brinjals,

green maize, green beans, tomatoes,

HERBS: coriander, parsley, fennel,

FIELD CROPS: Maize, dry beans, sweet

potatoes, amadumbe, pumpkins, butternut

FRUIT:Bananas, avocadoes, naartjies,

lemons

MEAT: Pork, broilers, chicken pieces, eggs

PROCESSED FOOD: Bottled chilies, mealie

bread vetkooek

OTHER: incema, seed potatoes,pinafores,

grass brooms , mats, beads, art work

Combopacks - via social media in

Pietermaritbrug: Potatoes, carrots, eggs,

chillies, onions, cabbage (half and chopped),

green beans, beetroot, avocado, brinjals,

green peppers, chopped mixed veg.

Aveincomeper participant: R382 per

market day (R100-R1,600)

2021/05/09

R1 580,00

Emmaus

2021/06/09

R5 072,00

Emmaus, Stulwane

2021/07/10

R3 415,00

Emmaus, Stulwane

2021/08/07

R2 379,00

Emmaus

2021/09/09

R3 745,00

Emmaus

2021/10/08

R845,00

Bergville market

2021/06/04

R11 527,50

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2021/08/04

R3 866,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2021/09/03,06,07

R5 448,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2021/10/05,06

R3 354,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2021/11/03,04

R2 964,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2021/10/11

R19 800,00

Sale to shops in Bergville: Boxer

and Saverite

2022/03/02

R1 310,00

UEDA– Emmaus Hall

2021/12/02,03

R2 964,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2021/12/03

R1 400,00

Ozwathini- social media

2022/01/05,06

R2 610,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2022/02/05,12,19

R3 010,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2022/03/11

R1 216,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2022/05/03,04

R2 565,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2022/06/02,03,04

R4 782,00

Bamshela - Ozwathini

2022/07/05

R2 500,00

Bergville town market stall

2022/08/03

R4823,00

Bergvilletownmarket stall with

FSG farmers

2022/08/04,05,06

R4248,00

Bamshela-Ozwathini

R96 626,50

INCOME:~ R6 901

800/month

Figure 15:Images of the latest markets in Bergville and Ozwathini: August 2022. Note the range of products, including dry beans as well as

unusual vegetables such as Chinese cabbage, kale and cauliflower.

For both marketing groups, the participants now managesthewhole process of marketing independently, and MDF only

supports on rare occasions when transport shortages are unavoidable. They also keep their own records and provide copies

for MDF for reporting purposes.Farmers have learnt whichproduce has high demand at the market stalland can now estimate

the quantities needed for each market reasonably accurately. They still sell out, however, but no longer have large quantities

of unsold produce to takehome again. They have also builta reputation among buyers, as they have been carefulto be there

regularly. They provide social support to each other and if individuals havefamily emergencies, othersin the groupwill take

their produce to the market and do the sales for them.

Preparation for market days entails quite a lot of planning and logistics as groups need to come together to list their produce

availability and quantities, prepare produce and price tags, arrange transport, theirmarket stall equipment and who will be

sellingon the day. They also manage the record keeping of sales and distribution of monies between farmers involved. For

Ozwathini, as they have decided to sell for 3 consecutive days each month, they have arranged for storage space in Bamshela,

close to where they have their stall. For this group a social media platform for sale of produce to a number of individual buyers

in Pietermaritzburg has alsobeen set up. This platform (WhatsApp and Facebook) is managed by the MDF facilitators, as is

transport and delivery.

There are some challenges in the process:

●The number of farmers that participate in the market has decreased, compared to when they all started. This hasa knock-

on effect on the produce (volumes and varieties) available to sell.

●Some of the commodities that farmers produce, are the same i.e. cabbages, spinach, eggs. The impact is the creation

of competition among them.

●Some farmers continue to prioritize buyer-seller relationships developed locally and as a result bring smaller volumes of

produce to the market. This is a cautious decision made as the market is a “once-in-a-month-event”.

●Farmersare not familiar with using social media platforms, especially to advertise and sell their produce. Despite them

taking ownership of the market in terms of planning, coordinating and execution, they are still largely dependent on MDF

staff to support with online advertising

The highlights of these market stalls include:

●Farmers are managing to plan their production to coincide with the once monthly marketing process and have managed

to have a range of high-quality crops available.

●Sales have been picking up again, after the unrest a year ago and is now becoming a “real income” for them

●Farmershave added meat (pork and chicken) and processed (bottled chilies, mealie bread) products to the market which

attracts more costumers.

●Every farmer that participates in the market makes some money.

In conclusion, around a year after the initiation of the markets, they show a level of consistency that is sustainable, despite

irregularities in sales, volumes, varieties and availability of commodities and farmers have and continue to learn from the

process how to adapt to change as and when it arises.

Strengthening of Innovation platforms and networks

Mahlathini staff have been involved in a range of multistakeholder platforms and networks in the 2years during project

implementation. We have also been involved in participatory research activities, exchanges, conferences, webinars and open

days. Theintention is always to share our workas widely as possible, to learn from others and to provide some influence

towards broader implementation of community-based adaptation and innovative and responsible development models for the

rural poor of South Africa. The table below provides a few significant examples.

Table 12: Stakeholder interactions summary: August 2022

Activity

Description

Okhahlamba Local Municipality (OLM)

Fresh produce market, planting support, materials provision. Linkages to

uThukela Economic Development Agency and uThukela Water. And

interaction with local councillors

F4CJ (Farming for Climate Justice)

Joint participatory research process with Zingela Ulwazi in Mpumalanga and

Coventry University in the UK. It included surveys, focus group discussion,

crossvisits, farmers’ days and a webinar presentation at Asset Research at

Stellenbosch University. Farmers open day and cross visit from farmer in

Mpumalanga

Ecosystems Services research –Water

Research Commission

Joint partnership with the Centre for Water resource Research at UKZN for

research in ecosystem services mapping and development of improved

governance systems in the Northern Drakensberg. This has included a small

budget for spring protection work in Stulwane village.

Asset Research – Maize Trust

Quantitative experimentation with conservation agriculture in smallholder

farming systems including awareness raising; farmers open days, popular

articles, webinars, videos. Presentation at the national CA forum

Adaptation Network

Part of Capacity building and learning working group, for co-implementation of

Flemish funded promotion and strengthening of Community based Adaptation

as well as exploration of vulnerability assessments with Bread for the World

and provision of webinars on nature-based solutions and climateresilient

agriculture

South African Mountains Conference

Presentationof a paper entitled: Community based climate change adaptation

in the central-Drakensberg improves resilience of smallholder farmers

Agroecology network: Food governance

CoP

Panel member for Agroecological Transitions and Local Governance webinar

and process

WWF- Water Source Area focus

WWF team visit to the Bergville area, with subsequent joint funding proposal

development in volumetric water benefit accounting

SANBI- Living Catchment Programme

Co convenors of the NorthernDrakensberg multistakeholder water forum, in

conjunction with the Institute of Natural Resources. Participants of the SANBI

uThukela catchment indaba

WWF- Nedbank Green Trust

Webinar presentation on agroecology transitions

UCP partnership

Presentation at the 24th quarterly multi stakeholder session “Update on CRA

implementation in partnership with WWF and further involvement in

subsequent quarterly planning sessions. Training for eco champs in the region

in CRA

Livestock auctions cross visit

With Association for Rural Advancement, farmers crossvisits to two livestock

auctionsin Ladysmith and Lions River to talk to farmers and the AAM

auctioneers

Publications

Presentations and publications undertaken during the project period are listed below

Desiree P. Manicom and ErnaKruger. January 2021. The Impact of COVID-19 ‘Hard’ Lockdown Disaster Management

Regulations on Small-scale Farmers: The Case of Central and Southern KZN Small-scale Farmers Employing Climate

Resilient Agriculture Production. Alternation Special Edition 32, 2020. Print ISSN1023-1757; Electronic ISSN 2519-5476.

Pges 145-172.

8WCCA: Bern Switzerland 21-23 June2021.SESSSION: Experiences and Investments in Conservation Agriculture and

Sustainable Mechanization for Smallholders in Africa (23rd June). Case study II: Conservation Agriculture Innovation Systems

Build Climate Resilience for Smallholder Farmers in South Africa. Erna Kruger, Mahlathini Development Foundation.

Presentationof a paper: CbCCA in centralDrakensberg improves resilience ofsmallholder farmers. (E Kruger, M Toucher

and R Henriksson) at the Southern African Mountain Conference 14–17 March 2022. A formal paper is in process, to be

submitted by 30September 2022

A number of less formal presentations have also been provided on online platforms and webinars including for example:

•Natura based Solutions- Adaptation Network

•Vulnerability assessments for CCA- Adaptation Network and bread for the World

•Agroecology Transitions – Agroecology Network

•CRA implementation- Umzimvubu catchment Partnership and

•Agroecology principles and practice – WWF and Nedbank Green Trust.

2COMMENT ON FINANCIAL REPORT

NOTES ON EXPENDITURE

Expenditure has been compiled up until the end of August 2022

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

reducing the external evaluation fees for the project

2.Operating expenses- Materials: A slight over-expenditure on this budget item has been internalized by MDF

3.Overall expenditure was on track with no large variances within specific budget items.

Below is a summary of the financial report.

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

EC_20220830. Documentation for explaining full expenditure summaries is available on request.

For all implementation activties, except the fodder supplementation, namely Conservation agriculture (CA, tunnels and

gardneing and small livestock (broilers and layers), the actual number of beneficiaries uspported with both learning and limited

inputsupport werequite a bit higherthan proposed. Despitethis increase, the deamnd for coherent support has faroutstripped

the capacity of this process.

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

Table 13: Summary of expenditure on CRA activities: August 2022

Cost breakdown

Aug-22

Remainder

Budget (2021 and 2022)

Poultry

R205 826,17

-R42 768,67

R80 000,00

Tunnels

R432 849,20

-R2 199,20

R430 650,00

Seedlings, marketing, consumables

R25 490,14

R69 009,86

R94 500,00

CA (2 seasons)

R130 068,82

-R2 353,82

R127 715,00

Fodder supplementation

R7 708,31

R15 291,69

R23 000,00

R801 942,64

-R41 997,64

R755 865,00

WWF: GT06177 Financial reportDate:30 August 2022Milestone 8

Project BudgetFull Year 2nd

Oct 2020-

August 2022

Oct 2020-June

2022

A - OPENING BALANCER3 000 000,00R2 700 000,00R2 746 655,78R253 344,22R3 000 000,00-R300 000,00

Cash receivedR2 700 000,00

Otherincome(interest, FX

gains/loss)

n/a

B - TOTALincome + o/balanceR2 700 000,00R2 700 000,00R2 222 500,00R2 700 000,00R2 700 000,00R300 000,00

EXPENDITURE by code

1Staff costsR1 210 066,50R624 466,50R1 199 300,58R128 315,68R1 327 616,26-R117 549,76

2Third party feesR458 919,00R237 219,00R330 603,32R57 210,92R387 814,24R71 104,76

3Travel and SubsistenceR446 809,50R230 959,50R426 812,71R19 996,79R446 809,50R0,00

4Capital Asset costsR0,00

5Operating expenses; materialsR755 865,00R181 523,00R720 804,17R35 060,83R755 865,00R0,00

6Meetings / Education / TrainingR0,00R0,00

Project Promotion/

Communication/Printing /

Publication

R37 260,00R19 260,00R24 500,00R12 760,00R37 260,00R0,00

8Project Evaluation by 3rdpartyR91 080,00R47 080,00R44 635,00R44 635,00R46 445,00

C - TOTALEXPENDITURER3 000 000,00R1 340 508,00R2 746 655,78R253 344,22R3 000 000,00R0,00

D – CLOSING BALANCER0,00R1 659 492,00R0,00R0,00R0,00-R300 000,00

ESTIMATES

ACTUALS

Code

Description

Previously

Reported YTD

Actuals

This quarter

Actuals (June-

August 2022)

Year-to-Date

(YTD) Actuals

Forecast minusYTD

Actuals (=Variance)

As can be seen from the breakdown above, expenditure on materials and support exceeded the budgeted allocation of

R755 865by ~R42 000. Allocations within each activity area differed somewhat from budgeted amounts, with some over

expenditure for poultry, tunnels and CA and under expenditure on marketing and fodder supplementation. This over-

expenditure has been internalized into MDF operational budgets.

3CONCLUSIONS

Changes now and expected changes

4LESSONS LEARNED

Work has been hampered by ongoing climate variability, initially drought, high winds and late onset of summer rains and more

recently late season flooding in KZN. The adaptive capacity of the climate resilient agriculture practices have not been able to

buffer farmers against all these shocks. The methodology allows farmers themselves to prioritize which practices they

implement. Some of the more conservative or risk averse farmers then do not changetheir systems significantly enough to

cope. An example here is farmers who have not managed to build a mulch of stover in the CA fields, through allowing livestock

to fullygraze this resource. High levels of rainfall this season saw a lot of erosion in these fields with seed and crops being

washed away. Others did not mark out and plant on contour, with a similarresult. Ways to re-enforce the learning that a

coherent suite of practices are required, will be considered into further implementation cycles. Localized cross visits between

farmersat appropriate times as well as more in-depth review and learningsharing events are some suggested interventions.

Both COVID-19 andthe July 2021 riots have had a significant impact on smallholder communities, severely taxing their social

safety nets and reducingtheir subsequent ability to recover. Unforeseen consequences have mainly been in the ongoing

unavailability of farming inputs and supplies andthe rather dramatic increases in fuel and food prices. For some of the farming

practices, the increase in prices is making implementation untenable forquite a large proportion of the participants. This relates

mainly to field cropping and broiler production and more specifically in the more isolated villages and areas. Although activities

such as savings groups, local production of feed, and bulk buying of inputs have been initiated in some of the villages, these

are not robust enough to deal with the sharp spikes in costs. Further financial smoothing mechanisms are needed.

The deepening poverty and vulnerability has led to increased volatility in the villages. There is a marked increase in livestock

theft, theft from small businesses and harassmentof women. All of theserequire coherent interventions. Newvulnerable

groupings have come to the fore; young single mother withchildren andwhat we call the missing middle,which are households

where the parents are between the ages of roughly 45-65 and where no grants are received but no-one in the household is

employed. These groupings will need to be targetedurgently.

The CRA learning groups and associated activities have provided a lifeboat forfarmers and has managed a significant

improvement in their food security and livelihoods as well as coherent social organisations. There are however still significant

governance issues in the communal tenure areas, more specifically around natural resources, water and grazing

management. So, for example, livestock invasions of fields and gardens are common, with little to no consequences for the

livestock owners. Uncontrolled grazing of stover in fields and uncontrolled burning of veld leads to degradation of soil health

and grazing capacity. A requirement of bringing Traditional Authorities closer to communities and allowing more civil society

organisation and mandated intervention is seen as important, as is integrating as much as possible the role of the Tas and

the local councillors and municipalities.

Incomes have increased and so has food security. Nutrition diversity in most instanceshowever remains quite low with only

2-5 different food types being consumed on a regular basis. It meansthat the dietary problems in these areas, in the forms

mainly of micronutrient deficiencies in young children and obesity and non-communicable diseases such as hypertension and

diabetes are still very common. A nutrition focus needs to be combined with the CRAimplementation to being to alleviate

these social and health pressures.

A common difficulty in farmgate sales, is that demand and prices drop the more people in a village produce the same crop or

commodity. Income ceilings arealso quitelow as the only clientele are neighbouring households. Although this is agood

strategy for participants to start selling odd surpluses in production, itis not a sustainable strategy in the longer term. More

effort needs to be put into brining these people into the joint marketing initiatives being promoted in the villages.

Any additional and complementary information to support the FINAL report (including photographs) should be attached

as annexures to the report.

List of annexures you attached (if any).

Assets status: List the Assets purchased with the Project Value, stating in each case the age and condition.

Review by WWF-SA Senior Manager: Senior Manager Name: ____________________________

Review by WWF-SA Impact Lead: Mkhululi Silandela

Review by Green Trust Manager: Augustine Morkel

Great Outcome

Good Outcome

Not as expected