Reference Meeting and Progress Report 3 | Mahlathini Development Foundation

Water Research Commission

Submitted to:

Dr Gerhard BackebergSylvester Mpandeli

Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture

Water Research Commission

Pretoria

Prepared By:

Project team led by Mahlathini Development Foundation.

2nd Progress Report:

2018-2019

3rd Reference Group

Meeting

Project Number: K5/2719/4

Project Title: Collaborative knowledge creation and mediation strategies for the dissemination of

Water and Soil Conservation practices and ClimateSmart Agriculture in smallholder farming systems.

Reference group Meeting: 3rd Progress and planning report

Date: May 2019

Submitted to:

Executive Manager: Water Utilisation in Agriculture

Water Research Commission

Pretoria

Project team:

Mahlathini Development Foundation

Erna Kruger

Mazwi Dlamini

Temakholo Mathebula

Samukhelisiwe Mkhize

Institute of Natural Resources NPC

Jon McCosh

Rural Integrated Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Christiaan Stymie

Rhodes University Environmental Learning Research Centre

Lawrence Sisitka

3
CONTENTS
FIGURES 4
TABLES 4
1Progress summary6
1.1 Project aims6
1.2 Deliverables6
1.3 Overview of activities7
2. CoPs and demonstration sites established9
3. CSA practices implemented10
3.1 KwaZulu Natal10
3.2 LImpopo12
3.3 Eastern Cape14
4. The Decision Support System15
4.1 How does the facilitator-farmer DSS work18
4.2 Refinement of the Individual DSS Model19
Practices recommended (Round 1) for 26 HH20
Refinement of the DSS model (Version 2)21
Ranking of suggested practices based on score provided by the facilitator24
Ranking of suggested practices based on score provided by the farmer25
5. Participatory impact assessment (PIA)26
5.1 PIA Workshop outline26
5.2 Participatory Impact assessment; Bergville, Ntabamhlophe (April 2019)29
Attendance 29
Climate change29
Climate change impacts on farming and livelihoods29
CSA practices31
Changes and benefits from CSA practices33
Expanding on CSA practices36
Evaluation of the workshop37
6. Resilience snapshots37
6.1 Resilience snapshot case study for KZN37
Learning and change37
Climate smart practices38
6.2 Resilience snapshot40
7. Quantitative measurements43
7.1 Water Productivity in Conservation Agriculture45
Water Productivity results and discussion; Method 148
7.2 Water productivity for gardening systems51
Cost-benefit analysis for the Gardening systems in Limpopo and KZN52
7.3 Visual /Qualitative  Assessments54
Piloting of the new VSA methodology.55
8. Work Plan57
9. Capacity building59
9.1Community level learning59
9.2Organisational capacity building59
9.3 Post graduate students59
Progress with theses: Field work and initial reporting60
Progress: Initial proposals and research methodology60
10. Publications and networking60
Publications 60

Cross visits60

Attendance 60

Presentations 61

Awards 61

FIGURES

Figure 1: The Small- Scale Farmer Decision Support System .................................................................................................16

Figure 2: The computer- based model for the smallholder DSS.............................................................................................17

Figure 3: Resources to manage and their associated management strategies......................................................................18

Figure 4: A systemic view of the Facilitator-Farmer DSS indicating associated activities and processes.............................19

Figure 5: Social learning, innovation and building agency is an iterative process that includes careful monitoring and

evaluation................................................................................................................................................................................19

Figure 6: Water productivity results using weather station data for dryland field cropping using CA.................................48

Figure 7: Biomass water productivity results using weather station data for dryland field cropping using CA...................50

TABLES

Table 1: Summary of activities related to deliverables and outputs......................................................................7

Table 2: CoPs’ established in three provinces (October 2018-January 2019)........................................................9

Table 3: CSA practices implemented in KZN 2017-2016.......................................................................................11

Table 4: CSA practices implemented in Limpopo 2017-2016...............................................................................12

Table 5: CSA practices implemented in the Eastern Cape 2017-2016..................................................................14

Table 6:Criteria to define the resources to manage and related strategies (version 1) ....................................20

Table 7: Criteria to define the resources to manage and related strategies (version 2)...................................21

Table 8: Basket/list of practices recommended for version 1 and 2 of the DSS ................................................22

Table 9: Ranking of suggested practices by ‘the facilitator’ for Phumelele Hlongwane (DSS version 2)..........25

Table 10: Analysis of CSA practices implemented in KZN (Bergville, Tabamhlophe) –2017-2019 ...................25

Table 11: Impacts of practices according to livelihoods resrources.....................................................................30

Table 12:CSA practices implemented in Bergville and Nthabamhlophe..............................................................32

Table 13:Impact indicators and assessment form the Bergville PIA, April 2019 ..................................................34

Table 14: CSA practices still to be tried out in Bergville:2019-2020.....................................................................36

Table 15: Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo..........................................44

Table 16: Measurements taken for the gardening trials....................................................................................44

Table 17: Measurements taken for the field cropping trials ..............................................................................44

Table 18: Table outlining rotations undertaken in Phumelele’s trial andcontrol plots over the last three

seasons, including an indication of installation of runoff plots.........................................................................46

Table 19: Maize yields per plot in Phumelele Hlongwane’s rotation system:2015-2017 ....................49

Table 20: Water productivity for gardening practices for two participants from Bergville; July-Aug 2018......51

Table 21: Water productivity for gardening practices for two participants from Limpopo (Sedawa); April -July

2018......................................................................................................................................................................51

Table 22: New redesigned VSA Indicator sheet for 2018....................................................................................54

Table 23: VSA scores using the new methodology for 5 participants in Stulwane, November 2018................56

Table 24: Work plan for 2019-2021......................................................................................................................57

ProgressReport(K5/2719/4)–May 2019

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT

Climate Smart Agriculture:

CSA ‘…contributes to the achievement of sustainable development goals. It integrates the three

dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) by jointly addressing

food security and climate challenges. It is composed of three main pillars:

1. Sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes,

2. Adapting and building resilience to climate change and

3. Reducing and/or removing greenhouse gases emissions, where possible. (FAO, 2013

)

Climate Change:

There is ample evidence of national and local changes in the temperature and rainfall climatology of

South Africa over at least the past five decadesand a high probability that this process may increase

in the coming decades:

•Mean annual temperatures have increased by more than1.5 times the observed global average

of 0.65°C,

•Maximum and minimum temperatures have been increasing annually and in almost all seasons,

•Hot and cold extremes have increased and decreased respectively in frequency, in most seasons

across the country, particularly in the western and northern interior,

•In almost all hydrological zones there has been a marginal reduction in rainfall for the autumn

months. Annual rainfall has not changed significantly, but an overall reduction in the number of

rain days implies a tendency towards an increase in the intensity of rainfall events and increased

dry spell duration and

•Extreme rainfall events show a tendency towards increasing in frequency annually, and especially

in spring and summer, with a reduction in extremes in autumn. (DEA, 2013

)

Climate variability:

This term is used when community members indicate that there have been changes in their weather

patterns, but where the trends are not necessarily clear. It includes and increased in extreme events

such as storms, wind, and in season dry spells. It also includes and increased in drought conditions and

variability in temperature, where temperatures are consideredhigher (orlower) then “normal”in a

given month or season.

Resilience:

FAO, 2013. Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations. 2013

DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2013. Long-Term AdaptationScenarios Flagship

Research Programme (LTAS) for South Africa. Summary for Policy-Makers. Pretoria, South Africa.

Resilience is the ability of a system to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from the effects of

an extreme climate event in a timely and efficient manner.

Contextual vulnerability is locally focussedand considers the presentas the departure point and

considers socio-economic dimensions of vulnerability as a basis for assessing future vulnerability. This

is largely a participatory process as opposed to modelling approaches that are applied at programme

and policy scales. Vulnerability and adaptation needs are contextualisedwith the local context and

will include factors that aren’t necessarily directly linked to climate change or CSA(FAO, 2013).

1Progress summary

1.1 Project aims

1. To evaluate and identify best practice options for CSA and Soil and Water Conservation

(SWC) in smallholder farming systems, in two bioclimatic regions in South Africa. (Output 1)

2. To amplify collaborative knowledge creation of CSA practices with smallholder farmers in

South Africa (Output 2)

3. To test and adapt existing CSA decision support systems (DSS) for the South African smallholder

context (Outputs 2,3)

4. To evaluate the impact of CSA interventions identified through the DSS by piloting interventions

in smallholder farmer systems, considering water productivity, social acceptability and farm-scale

resilience (Outputs 3,4)

5. Visual and proxy indicators appropriate for a Paymentfor Ecosystems based model are tested at

community level for local assessment of progress and tested against field and laboratory analysis

of soil physical and chemical properties, and water productivity (Output 5)

1.2 Deliverables

Deliverable

Description

Target date

FINANCIAL YEAR 2017/2018

Report: Desktop review of

CSA and WSC

Desktop review of current science, indigenous and traditional

knowledge, and best practice in relation to CSA and WSC in the

South African context

1 June 2017

COMPLETE

Report on stakeholder

engagement and case

study development and

site identification

Identifying and engaging with projects and stakeholders

implementing CSA and WSC processes and capturing case studies

applicable to prioritized bioclimatic regions

Identification of pilot research sites

1 September

2017

COMPLETE

Decision support system

for CSA in smallholder

farming developed

(Report)

Decision support system for prioritization of best bet CSA options in

a particular locality; initial database and models. Review existing

models, in conjunction with stakeholder discussions for initial

criteria

15 January

2018

COMPLETE

FINANCIAL YEAR: 2018/2019

CoPs and demonstration

sites established (report)

Establish communities of practice (CoP)s including stakeholders and

smallholder farmers in each bioclimatic region.5. With each CoP,

identify and select demonstration sites in each bioclimatic region

and pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range

of CSA and WSC strategies in homestead farming systems (gardens

and fields)

1 May 2018

COMPLETE

Interim report: Refined

decision support system

for CSA in smallholder

farming (report)

Refinement of criteria and practices, introduction of new ideas and

innovations, updating of decision support system

1 October

2018

COMPLETE

Interim report: Results of

pilots, season 1

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of

CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs in each site and the

decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,

31 January

2019

COMPLETE

manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and

implementation.

FINANCIAL YEAR 2019/2020

Report: Appropriate

quantitative measurement

procedures for verification

of the visual indicators.

Set up farmer and researcher level experimentation

1 May 2019

COMPLETE

Interim report:

Development of indicators,

proxies and benchmarks

and knowledge mediation

processes

Document and record appropriate visual indicators and proxies for

community level assessment, work with CoPs to implement and

refine indicators. Link proxies and benchmarks to quantitative

research to verify and formalise. Explore potential incentive

schemes and financing mechanisms.

Analysis of contemporary approaches to collaborative knowledge

creation within the agricultural sector. Conduct survey of present

knowledge mediation processes in community and smallholder

settings. Develop appropriate knowledge mediation processes for

each CoP. Develop CoP decision support systems

1 August

2019

Interim report: results of

pilots, season 2

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of

CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs in each site and the

decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,

manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and

implementation.

31 January

2020

FINANCIAL YEAR 2020/2021

Final report: Results of

pilots, season

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a range of

CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs in each site and the

decisions support system. Create knowledge mediation productions,

manuals, handouts and other resources necessary for learning and

implementation.

1 May 2020

Final Report: Consolidation

and finalisation of decision

support system

Finalisation of criteria and practices, introduction of new ideas and

innovations, updating of decision support system

3 July 2020

Final report - Summarise

and disseminate

recommendations for best

practice options.

Summarise and disseminate recommendations for best practice

options for knowledge mediation and CSA and SWC techniques for

prioritized bioclimatic regions

7 August

2020

Deliverables 5,6 and 7 were undertaken in this reporting period

1.3 Overview of activities

The design of the decision support system is seen as an ongoing process divided into three

distinct parts:

➢Practices: Collation, review, testing, and finalisation of those CSA practices to be

included. Allows for new ideas and local practices to be included over time. This

also includes linkages and reference to external sources of technical information

around climate change, soils, water management etc and how this will be done;

➢Process: Through which climate smart agricultural practices are implemented at

smallholder farmer level. This also includes the facilitation component,

communities of practice, communication strategies and capacity building and

➢Monitoring and evaluation: local and visual assessment protocols for assessing

implementation and impact of practices as well as processes used. This also

includes site selection and quantitative measurements undertaken to support the

visual assessment protocols and development of visual and proxy indicators for

future use in inactive based support schemes for smallholder farmers

The table below provides a summary of progress towards outputs

Table 1: Summary of activities related to deliverables and outputs

Deliverable 4

Deliverable 5

Deliverable 6

Deliverable 7

Practices

Output 1

CSA practices

summary updated

Agroforestry and

livestock

management

practices

included

1st round water

productivity (wp)

assessments:

gardening

1st round wp, soil

health run-off,

assessments; field

cropping (CA)

1st round

community level

resilience snapshots

Process

Outputs

2,3

-CCA workshop 1

(2 villages –EC,

KZN

-CCA workshop

1 (2 villages –

EC, KZN

-CCA workshop 1

(2 villages –EC,

KZN

-CCA workshop 1

(2 villages –EC,

KZN

-Collaborative

activities

-Collaborative

activities

-Collaborative

activities

-Collaborative

activities

-CCA workshop 2

(3 villages EC,

KZN)

CCA workshop 2

(1 village KZN, 2

villages

Limpopo, 3

villages EC)

CCA workshop 2 (2

villages KZN)

-CCA workshops

(1 village KZN, 1

village Limpopo)

-CCA workshops 3-

(3 villages EC, 2

villages KZN, 1

village Limpopo)

-CCA workshops 3-

5 (1 village KZN)

-Individual

experimentation

Individual

experimentation

Individual

experimentation

Individual

experimentation

CoPs established

and meeting

Food security learning

groups–4 (LimaRDF,

MDF)

CA learning groups-2

(MDF/AWARD)

CA networking

platforms KZN;

(GrainSA/MDF/

KwaNalu/ LMs)

Agroecology

networking;

AWARD/MDF

Continuation of

CoPs;

FS learning

groups x 7

CA networking

platforms

Agroecology

network

Amanzi 4 Food

Network

New CoPs –2 new learning groups SKZN

FS learning groups x9

CA learning groups x 5

CA networking platforms

Agroecology network

Amanzi 4 Food Network

DSS –1st iteration

Modelling process

1st iteration (version

Modelling process-

refined (version 2)

-Quantitative

measurement

-Quantitative measurement sites set up; CA, gardening

Monitoring

and

evaluation

Outputs

3,4

-CA indicators; -

-CA indicators; Soil fertility, soil health, run-off, infiltration,

water productivity

-Gardening

-Gardening indicators; irrigation demand, growth, yield, water

productivity

Impact indicators

Individual Impact

and resilience

questionnaires,

Participatory

impact assessment

methodology

2. CoPs and demonstration sites established

Community level CoPs have been set up in 9 villages across 3provinces. Stakeholder platforms have

been developed for :

-Agroecology Network in association with AWARD –Limpopo (Hoedpsruit) and

-Conservation Agriculture in association with GrainSA and LandCare –SKZN (Madzikane)

-Imvotho Buboni Learning Network in association with Fort Cox College, ERLC –Rhodes

University, MDF and farmers organisations –Eastern Cape (Alice)

3 Demonstration sites have been set up with the required instrumentation and sampling for

monitoring of both Conservation Agriculture and gardening implementation (one in each province)

Table 2: CoPs’ established in three provinces (October 2018-January 2019)

Province

Site/Area;

villages

Demonstration

sites

CoPs

Collaborative strategies

KZN

Ntabamhlophe

-CCA workshop 1

-CCA workshop 2

-CCA workshop 3

-CCA workshop 4

-CCA workshop 5

-Monitoring and PIA

-Farmers w NGO

support (Lima RDF)

-Tunnels and drip kits

-Individual experimentation with

basket of options

Ezibomvini/

, Eqeleni

-CCA workshop 1

-CCA workshop 2

-CCA workshop 3

-CCA workshop 4

(training)

-Water issues

workshops 1,2

-Water issues follow-

-CCA workshop 5

-Water issues

continuation

-Monitoring, PIA

-Fodder and

supplementation

learning process

-CA open days, cross

visits (LandCare,

DARD, ARC,

GrainSA), LM Agric

forums, ….

-Tunnels (Quantitative measurements

-CA farmer experimentation

(Quantitative measurements) –case

studies

-Individual experimentation with

basket of options; monitoring review

and re-planning

-Livestock integration learning group

and experimentation focus

Swayimane

-CCA workshop 1

-CA open days

-CA farmer experimentation

Details of these activities are outlined in the reports for Deliverables 5 (August 2018), 6

(January 2019) and 7 (May 2019). Brief summaries of progress with different aspects of the

process are provided below.

3. CSA practices implemented

Below a brief summary is provided for each province

3.1 KwaZulu Natal

The table below shows allpractices tried out in KZN. The grey highlights indicate practices that have

allo been recommended in the 1st version of the computer-based model and the brown highlights

indicate additional practices included in the 2nd version

-CCA workshops 2 and

-CCA workshop 4

-Monitoring, review

and replanning

-Umgungundlovu

DM agriculture

forum

-gardening level experimentation;

tunnel, trench beds drip kits etc.

Madzikane

-CCA workshop 1

-CCA workshops 2-4

-CA open days

-Madzikane

stakeholder forum

-CA farmer experimentation

-gardening level experimentation;

tunnel, trench beds drip kits etc

Limpopo

Mametja (Sedawa,

Turkey)

-CCA workshop 1

-CCA workshop 2

-CCA workshop 3

-CCA workshop 4

-Water issues

workshops 1-2

-Water issues follow-

-CCA workshop 5

-Poultry production

learning and mentoring

-CA learning and

mentoring

-Monitoring, review

and re-planning

-Agroecology

network

(AWARD/MDF)

-Maruleng DM

-Review of CSA implementation and

re-planning for next season

Tunnels (Quantitative measurements

-CA farmer experimentation

(Quantitative measurements) –case

studies

-Individual experimentation with

basket of options

-water committee, plan for agric water

provision

Lepelle

Water issues

workshops 1-2

-water committee, plan for agric water

provision

Tzaneen

(Sekororo-

Lourene)

-CCA workshop 1

-CCA workshop 2

-Assessment of farmer

experimentation

Farmers learning

group

-Tunnels and drip kits

Alice/Middledrift

area

-CCA workshop 1

-CCA workshop 2

-CCA workshop 3

-CCA workshop 4 and

-Monitoring, review

and re-planning

Imvotho Bubomi

Learning Network

(IBLN) -ERLC, Fort

Cox, Farmers, Agric

Extension services,

NGOs

-Monitoring and review of

implementation of CSA practices and

experimentation

-Training and mentoring _CA,

furrow irrigation, ….

-Planning for further implementation

and experimentation and quantitative

measurements

Table 3: CSA practices implemented in KZN 2017-2016

Soil

Water

Crop (garden and

field)

Livestock

Natural

Resources

People

Making

compost

Drip irrigation

Diversified crops

in gardens;

beetroot, Chinese

cabbage, carrots,

parsley, thyme,

Vaccinations

Savings

Use of

goat and

cattle

manure

Mulching

Shade cloth

tunnels

Dipping

Small

businesses

Canopy

cover and

legumes

(Lab-Lab)

Infiltration pits

Beds: raised beds,

trench beds, eco-

circles

Proper feed;

including

from fodder

produced

Farmer

centres

Diversified

crops to

hold soil

and

prevent

erosion

Garden layout with

shallow furrows for

water harvesting and

retention

Tower gardens –

fertility and

greywater

management

Addition of

supplements

Selling

chickens

Greywater

management

Conservation

agriculture;

including

management of

residues

Limiting

burning of

veld

Improved irrigation

practices

Inter cropping and

crop rotation

Planting

grass;

ungwengwe

and kikuyu

Rainwater storage in

JoJo tanks and drums

Diversified crops

in fields; different

varieties of maize,

sorghum, millet,

legumes (e.g.

cowpeas, beans,

Lab-lab), cover

crops

Spring protection

Use of Decis Forte

(Pyrethrins) for

pest control in

fields

Buying JoJo tanks –and

negotiating with water

trucks to fill these

Liquid manure

Mixed cropping in

gardens

The photographs below provide a visual indication of these practice

1: Tower garden; using greywater for irrigation, planted to kale, spinach and tomatoes

2: Eco-circle with a 2litre bottle (with holes) used for in situ irrigation and planted to a mixture of herbs

and vegetables

3: Bucket drip kits inside a shade cloth tunnel

4: raised bed with mixed cropping planted as a “normal practice control” when comparing with trench

beds

5: A Shade cloth tunnel with 3 5x1m trench - beds

6: Inspection of a locally protected spring

7: A shallow trench bed planted to a mixture of green peppers, chillies and marigolds

8: A deep trench bed planted to a mixture of kale, rape, mustard spinach and Chinese cabbage

9: A maize and cowpea intercropped conservation agriculture (CA) plot

10: A CA plot planted to summer cover crops; sunflower, millet and sunnhemp

11: A CA plot planted to Dolichos beans

12: Making bales of hay with a small manual baler

3.2 LImpopo

The table below shows all practices tried out in LImpopo.

Table 4: CSA practices implemented in Limpopo 2017-2016

Soil

Water

Crop (garden and

field)

Livestock

Natural

Resources

People

Making

compost

Drip irrigation

Diversified crops

in gardens;herbs

Planting

fodder

Homestead

nurseries

Water

committees;

(coriander,

parsley, basil,

rocket, time,

rosemary) and

vegetables; kale,

rape, mustard

spinach, leeks,

baby marrows,

crops;

ryegrass,

summer

cover crops,

Lucerne

for

installation

of boreholes

Use of goat

and cattle

manure

Mulching

Shade cloth

tunnels

Small

livestock

integration

and feed

production

Organic

mango

production

Organic

marketing

initiative for

sale of herbs

and

vegetables

Canopy cover

and legumes

(Lab-Lab)

Infiltration pits,

banana circles

Beds: raised

beds, trench

beds, eco-circles

Diversified

crops to hold

soil and

prevent

erosion

Garden layout

with shallow

furrows for water

harvesting and

retention

Tower gardens –

fertility and

greywater

management

Greywater

management

Conservation

agriculture;

including

management of

residues

Improved

irrigation

practices

Inter cropping

and crop rotation

Rainwater storage

in JoJo tanks and

drums

Diversified crops

in fields;

different

varieties of

maize, sorghum,

millet, legumes

(e.g. cowpeas,

beans), cover

crops

Underground

RWH tanks

Liquid manure

Mixed cropping

in gardens

The photographs below provide a visual indication of these practice

1: Tower garden for use of greywater for irrigation planted to spinach

2: Diversion ditch leading to large underground rainwater harvesting storage structure (24 000l)

3: Shade cloth tunnel

4: Mixed crop bed; with maize, rape, basil and cassava

5: Ryegrass planted for fodder, being grazed by a small goat

6: Bucket drip kit, irrigating a trench bed which is planted to a mixture of vegetables and mulched

7: A stone line

8: Three 5x1m deep trench beds planted to a mixture of vegetables

9: A CA plot planted to maize that has been mulched

10: A CA mixed crop plot with maize and sorghum (bird resistant variety)

3.3 Eastern Cape

The table below shows all practices tried out in the Eastern Cape

Table 5: CSA practices implemented in the Eastern Cape 2017-2016

Soil

Water

Crop (garden and field)

Livestock

Natural

Resources

People

Making compost

Drip

irrigation

Diversified crops in

gardens;

A4F

agroecology

network

Use of goat and

cattle manure

Mulching

Shade cloth tunnels

Diversified crops

to hold soil and

prevent erosion

Greywater

management

Beds: trench beds, eco-

circles

Improved

irrigation

practices

Tower gardens –

fertility and greywater

management

Furrow

irrigation

Conservation

agriculture; including

management of

residues

Underground

RWH tanks

Diversified crops in

fields; different

varieties of maize,

sorghum, millet,

legumes (e.g. cowpeas,

beans), cover crops

Mixed cropping in

gardens

The photographs below provide a visual indication of these practice

1: Tower garden for irrigation with greywater planted to spinach

2: Bucket drip kit installed, alongside a chameleon water sensor in a deep trench bed planted to

spinach

3: Onions seeding planted on furrows and ridges and mulched in the furrows

4: An Eco-circle bed with mulching planted to a mixture of vegetables

5: Mint and nasturtiums (multipurpose plants in a garden)

6: Spinach and cabbage planted n trench beds inside a shade cloth tunnel

6: Raised beds planted to a mixture of vegetables and mulched.

4. The Decision Support System

Using a systemic approach and social learning from a socio-ecological perspective, the model consists

of a number of layers of input parameters or filters used to define a basket of best bet CSA options for

a specific smallholder farmer, using a combinationof participatory processes linked to technical

databases.

The process is designedto also support and assist the facilitator in their decision making, in support

of the smallholder farmers; meaning that the facilitator accesses information such as the basicclimate

change predictions for the area, the agroecological characteristics including rainfall, temperature, soil

texture etc) and an initial contextualised basket of CSA practices from which to negotiate prioritized

practices with farmers. Practices are thus chosen by both facilitators and farmers.

Figure 1: The Small- Scale Farmer Decision Support System

The model is designed primarily as a participatory and facilitated process at community level. In

support to this process a computer-based model can be used alongside this methodology to provide

further information and decision support to the facilitator. It is also possible for a farmer toaccess this

model independently to derive an initial basket of CSA practice options for themselves.

The computer model information flow is designed as shown in the figure below –and follows the same

basic steps as shown in Figure 1 above.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: Climate and

geographical parameters; GPS coordinates,

agroecological zones, soil texture, slope and soil

organic carbon content

PRACTICES: Database of CSA practices including; managing available

water, improving access to water, controlling soil movement,

improving soil health and fertility, crop management, integrated crop-

livestock management, veld management and veld rehabilitation

Figure 2: The computer- based model for the smallholder DSS

In our case the set of criteria (proxies used as indicators for the complex reality) that helps to make

informed decisions on management practices are:

➢The current farming systems;gardening, field cropping, livestock production and natural

resource management (NRM) (including trees),

➢The physical environment:agroecological zone, soil texture, slope and organicsoil carbon

and

➢The socio-economic background of the farmer;demographic information (gender HH head,

age, dependency ratio), level of education, sources of income (unemployment vs. external

employment, own business, grants, farm, etc.), total income, access to services,

infrastructure, technology (Electricity, water (tap, borehole, rainwater harvesting, etc.),

irrigation (buckets, standpipes, etc.), fencing and farming tools (hand vs traction/other),

social organisation, market access (formal vs. informal), farm size and farming purpose (food

vs. selling).

Besides this, the resources and related management strategies as well as a list of practices need to be

provided as input to the system. All information, except thephysicalenvironment; i.e. climate, soil

and topography, and the resources and management strategies, are derived through the use of a

range of participatory processes.Data on the physical environmental conditions have been taken from

datasets freely available online. This information can however be customised by the DSS user, in case

more appropriate information is available for the specific farmer concerned.

For the Facilitator-Farmer DSS the resources and related management strategies arediscussedand

negotiated in the participatory process. For the computer based or Individual Farmer DSS these are

provided as an input into the model using the following framework:

FARMING SYSTEMFARMER SOCIO-ECONOMIC

BACKGROUND

RESOURCES TO MANAGE

SUGGESTED PRACTICES

CONSTRAINED BY

TYPOLOGY, SYSTEM

AND ENVIRONMENT

RANKED PRACTICES

BASED ON FACILITATORRANKED PRACTICES

BASED ON FARMER

FARMER BASED

PRIORITIES

FACILITATOR

BASED PRIORITIES

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

DSS PROCESS FLOW

Figure 3: Resources to manage and their associated management strategies

The practices have been identified by both farmers and experts; the latter based on experience in the

South African context and desktop reviews.

4.1 How does the facilitator-farmer DSS work

In effect, the DSS discussed above is a way of providing and making sense of information. This

information is contextualised in a social learning system (a group of people learning and implementing

together) using the framework shown below.

Local good

practice

Farmer level

experimentation to

test practices (CCA

workshop 4)

CoPs and

innovation

platforms

Activities

and

processes

Best practise

options

Impacts of CC

(CCA

workshop 1)

Introduction of new

practices and ideas to

try (CCA workshop

Benchmarking for

visual indicators

Stakeholder

engagements

Adaptive

strategies (CCA

workshop 2)

Learning and

mentoring

Materials and

information

Appropriate

practices (CCA

workshop 3)

Assessment of

outcomes and

impacts

internet based

platform

Cyclical, iterative

learning and

implementation

Facilitator-Farmer Decision Support System

Figure 4: A systemic view of the Facilitator-Farmer DSS indicating associated activities and processes

The DSS thus incorporates the whole system of social learning and innovation, in an iterative process

that can lead to social change and agency in climate change adaptation, as depicted in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Social learning, innovation and building agency is an iterative process that includes careful monitoring and

evaluation

4.2 Refinement of the Individual DSS Model

All information, except the physical environment; i.e. climate, soil and topography, and the resources

and management strategies, were derived through the use of a range of participatory processes. Data

on the physical environmental conditions have been taken from datasets freely available online. This

information can however be customised by the DSS user, in case more appropriate information is

available for the specific farmer concerned.

The first round of modelling consisted of using the baseline information of 26 HH across KZN, EC and

Limpopo to assess the fit of the model. The output of the model is a list/basket of practices for each

farmer based on the physical environment, farming system and farmer typology.

Assumptions made

The justification for managing the different resources in our DSS is as follows:

Indicators; qualitative and

quantitative; process,

output, outcome and

impact indicators

Cyclical analysis, planning,

implementation and review

(monitoring and

evaluation)

•Semi-arid warm: in this environment water is limited and the temperatures can be hot. Water

and heat stress are the main limiting factors. Pests and diseases in plants and animals are

present.

•Sub-humid cool: in a more humid environment, weeds grow well and can create a competing

environment for nutrients. Plants and animals are also more prone to diseases.

•Sandy soils: those soils have poor structures, with low water and nutrient holding capacity.

They heat up fast. Certain practices are not suitable in sandy soils and more specifically sandy

soils in semi-arid regions, where rainfed crops and trees can be difficult to establish and

maintain.

•Clayey soils: high level of clay can increase the probability of erosion dueto crusting, in

particular undersemi-arid environment. Water and OC retention in clay soils are important

management principles.

•OC: soils with less than 1,5% OC are considered to be of low fertility. %OC in sandy soils is

inherently lower and more difficult to build up than in high clay soils.

•Slope: above 5% sloping, agricultural production becomes sub-optimal due to erosion and run-

off, in both semi-arid and sub-humid regions. Slope above 15%; agricultural production is not

suitable under all conditions, due to water and nutrient run-off.

Table 3 allows us to identify, for each farming HH, the resources to manage and the related strategies

within each farming system taking the environmental conditions into account. It thus combines the

proxies for the physical environment, farming systems and management strategies.

Table 6:Criteria to define the resources to manage and related strategies (version 1)

Note: * (solely in semi-arid zone)

Practices recommended (Round 1) for 26 HH

Based on the above assumptions and proxies a list of practices were recommended for the initial 26

household baseline.These lists have been “reality tested” against the facilitation team’sgeneral

experience in the areas. It was found that soil and water conservation practices were under

represented when using this version of the model. This outcome is summarised in the slide below (as

presented at the Agroecology Networking session in December 2018)

Refinement of the DSS model (Version 2)

Three changes have been made:

1. It has been assumed that water (harvesting, retention and use efficiency) is important for all

farmers (thus=1 for all)

2. It has been assumed that soil conservation is important for all farmers (thus=1 for all)

3. Certain restrictions for soil texture and slope have been removed. Water (harvesting,

retention and use efficiency) and soil conservation are no longer restricted to the semi-arid

zone only, as was the case in the first round.

Note:These three changes have been made based on the experience of the project team in the field

and in rural areas across South Africa. Lack of access to water is a very real and vey common constraint

among rural dwellers in KZN, Limpopo and Eastern Cape and although commonly known is in fact not

well documented in the literature. Attempts will be made in the next iteration of this model to provide

acceptable academic evidence for these changes.

The table 3above has thus been changed as shown in table 4 below. Basically the *s have been

removed

Table 7: Criteria to define the resources to manage and related strategies (version 2)

Minor changes were also made to some of the excel formulae used in the model.

These changes have broadened the practices recommended for most of the participants, as shown in

the examples below; one participant each from KZN, Limpopo and Eastern Cape. The practices

highlighted in brown are new practices included in version 2 of the model, a further 9 practices related

to soil and water conservation. This version is considered a better fit for conditions on the ground.

This is outlined in table 10 below.

Table 8: Basket/list of practices recommended for version 1 and 2 of the DSS

Province

KZN

Limpopo

Village

Ezibomvini

Sekororo

Mxumbu

Name and Surname

Phumelele

Hlongwane

Chenne Mailula

Xolisa Dwane

DSS versions

Version

Version 1

Version 2

Version

Drip irrigation

Bucket drip kits

Furrows and ridges/furrow

irrigation

Greywater management

Shade cloth tunnels

Mulching

Improved organic matter

(manure and crop residues)

Diversion ditches

Grass water ways

Infiltration pits / banana circles

Zai pits

Rain water harvesting storage

Tied ridges

Half moon basins

Small dams

Contours; ploughing and planting

Gabions

Stone bunds

Check dams

Cut off drains / swales

Terraces

Stone packs

Strip cropping

Pitting

Woodlots for soil reclamation

Targeted application of small

quantities of fertilizer, lime etc

Liquid manures

Woody hedgerows for browse,

mulch, green manure, soil

conservation

Conservation Agriculture

Planting legumes, manure, green

manures

Mixed cropping

Planting herbs and

multifunctional plants

Agroforestry (trees + agriculture)

Trench beds/ eco circles

push-pull technology

Natural pest and disease control

Integrated weed management

Breeding improved varieties

(early maturing, drought

tolerant, improved nutrients),

Seed production /saving /storing

Crop rotation

Stall feeding and haymaking

Creep feeding and

supplementation

Rotational grazing

De-bushing and over sowing

Rangeland reinforcement

Bioturbation

Tower garden

Keyhole beds

No of practices recommended

For the KZNparticipant, this means that around 88% of the overall list of practices(in the practices

database)have been recommended for her. She already had the largest number of recommendations

(in version1) being a farmer in Typology B (fewer restrictions) and engaging in gardening, cropping and

livestock production. Although this is quite high, it is understood that the farmer level ranking is still

to take place and these practices can then be prioritized and narrowed down further. For the Limpopo

and EC participants, around 1/3 of practices have been recommended in their basket of options.

A general analysis of practices for the 41 households shows that only 5 practices have been

recommended for all (opposed to 4 in version 1):

•Improved organic matter

•Integrated weed management

•Breeding improved varieties

•Seed production / saving / storing

•Rainwater harvesting storage

And a number of practices have been recommended for none of the 41 HH:

•Drip irrigation

•Bucket drip kits

•Furrows and ridges/ furrow irrigation

•Stone bunds

•Terraces

•Tied ridges

•Grassed waterways

•Stall feeding and haymaking

These practices are constrained by land size, typology and slope for the most part, but are not

considered inherently unsuitable for smallholder farmers. They could still be presented to learning

groups in special cases, where their applicability is considered suitable.

Ranking of suggested practices based on score provided by the facilitator

Based on scores provided by the facilitator (the generic score used in the DSS) the basket of practices

can be ordered by preference. In the table below, a ranking based on facilitator’s scores, is provided

for the farming HH ‘Phumelele Hlongwane’ located in Ezibomvini, KZN. According to the facilitator,

improving organic matter, pitting, Conservation Agriculture and Agroforestry arethe most appropriate

interventions (having the highest score). are the most appropriate practices suggested by theDSS for

this HH. This is followed by keyhole beds, tower gardens, woody hedgerows, Zai pits and infiltration

pits.

Table 9:Ranking of suggested practices by ‘the facilitator’ for Phumelele Hlongwane (DSS version 2)

Ranking of suggested practices based on score provided by the farmer

A participatory impact monitoring process for the KZN participants (Bergville and Tabamhlophe)

provided an assessment of practicesactually tried out and prioritized for impact on livelihoods. This

gives us an opportunity to compare the outcomes of the computer based DSS with a real case study.

The table below summarises the practices according to those recommended through the DSS, but not

yet tried, those not recommended but tried and practices tried out that are not in the DSS list of

practices.

Table 10: Analysis of CSA practices implemented in KZN (Bergville, Tabamhlophe) –2017-2019

Practices recommended not yet

tried

Practices tried, not

recommended

Not in recommendations

Field cropping

vegetatble

gardening

Livestock

Tree andother

nat.resources

Practices

0 0 0 0

Drip irrigation

0 0 0 0

Bucket drip kits

0 0 0 0

Furrows and ridges/ furrow irrigation

0 5 0 0

Greywater management

0 8 0 0

Shade cloth tunnels

0 9 0 0

Mulching

11 11011

Improved organic matter (manure and crop

residues)

9 9 0 9

Diversion ditches

0 0 0 0

Grass water ways

010 0 0

Infiltration pits / banana circles

10 100 0

Zai pits

9 9 9 9

Rain water harvesting storage

0 0 0 0

Tied ridges

0 0 0 0

Half moon basins

0 0 0 0

Small dams

0 0 0 0

Contours; ploughing and planting

0 0 0 0

Gabions

0 0 0 0

Stone bunds

0 0 0 0

Check dams

0000 Cut off drains / swales

0 0 0 0

Terraces

9 9 0 9

Stone packs

11 0 0 0

Strip cropping

11 011 11

Pitting

9 0 9 9

Woodlots for soil reclamation

8 0 0 0

Targeted application of small quantities of fertilizer,

lime etc

0 7 0 0

Liquid manures

10 010 10

Woody hedgerows for browse, mulch, green manure,

soil conservation

11 11 11 11

Conservation Agriculture

8 8 0 8

Planting legumes, manure, green manures

9 9 0 0

Mixed cropping

9 9 0 0

Planting herbs and multifunctional plants

11 11 11 11

Agroforestry (trees + agriculture)

0 9 0 0

Trench beds/ ecocircles

7 0 0 0

push-pull technology

7 7 0 7

Natural pest and disease control

7 7 0 7

Integrated weed management

7 7 7 7

Breeding improved varieties (early maturing,

drought tolerant, improved nutrients),

6 6 0 6

Seed production / saving / storing

9 9 0 0

Crop rotation

0 0 0 0

Stallfeeding and haymaking

0 0 7 0

Creep feeding and supplementation

0 0 9 0

Rotational grazing

0 0 9 0

Debushing and oversowing

0 0 9 0

Rangeland reinforcement

9 9 9 9

Bioturbation

010 0 0

Tower garden

010 0 0

Keyhole beds

E. Score provided by facilitator for suggested

practices that are not constrained

Zai pits

Bucket drip irrigation

Making compost

Contours; ploughing and planting

Improved irrigation practices

Stone packs

Spring protection

Strip cropping

Limited burning of veld

Pitting

Vaccinations and dipping

Agroforestry

Natural pest and disease control

Breeding improved varieties

Seed saving

Integrated weed management

Rotational grazing

De-bushing and over-sowing

Rangeland reinforcement

Keyhole beds

The facilitated DSS processis designed to be cyclical and seasonal, to allow smallholder farmers to

prioritize and experiment with a couple of prioritized practices at a time and to build on these, over

time. The results above indicate the work to date over 2seasons. Practices blocked in green are those

that have already been planned into the coming growing season. These include strip cropping, natural

pest and disease control, seed saving and keyhole beds.

The practices not recommended by tried out by farmers, are those that should still be included in the

DSS and will be considered in the 3rd and final version of this model

Overall there is a very good coherence in practices recommended by the computer- based model and

those recommended through the facilitated process.

5. Participatory impact assessment (PIA)

For this process the PIA framework has been used to outline the indicators used at community level

and provide for a qualitative assessment of increased resilience by community members. A group

process has been designed and tested, as has an individual survey instrument. Both will be reported

on here.

In PIAs there are three basic questions:

1. What changes have there been in the community since the start of the project/process

2. Which of these changes are attributable to the projects

3. What differences have these changes made to people’s lives

5.1 PIA Workshop outline

. Recap climate change impacts

➢Explore what people have noticed about impacts and make lists under headings: natural,

physical, economic, human and social

Group level brainstorming of ideas; written on cards under the headings given, with arrows for

increase or decrease

2. Recap adaptive strategies/ practices

➢What have people been doing to adapt to this, fix the problems, make things better?

➢What can be done? (first look at hat has been done and then any further ideas of what can be

done)

➢Elucidate adaptations for each category: natural, physical, economic human, social

Group level brainstorming; write on different cards (those done and those thought of) and

place next to the impact, indicate with a * which of these have been facilitated or introduced

(and by whom) – this can be other farmers, projects, extension officers….

3. Practices: Recap 5 fingers and list all practices under each category

➢Re-introduce the 5 fingers concept –and include a further category of the whole hand –which

is the social and personal

➢Which practices have been implemented (introduced and other)?

Go around in the circle and each person mentions what s/he has done (productive, economic,

social, personal actions) and what she would still like to try

➢Add these practices to the five fingers diagram

Make an A1 diagram of the five finger and then add practices on cards

➢Go through practices recommended through the DSS

Use cards with ranked practices from the DSS- describe and show the ones that people are not

familiar with.

➢Rank practices for next round of implementation

Rank the list of practices by a show of hands.

4. What have been the changes or benefits from each practice

➢What changes have there been?

Brainstorming changes –an interrogate to get to the more

➢How important are these changes to your lives? How do you decide? Which criteria would you

use to decide?

Do a matrix ranking: changes (in columns), criteria (in rows) –Use proportional piling, working

down each column by asking “how important is this practice for the criteria” and comparing

the practices with each other (to an extent) as you go down the list…. Exercise is done in small

groups of 5-8 participants

Below is an example of how this could look

food

income

Soil, water

Access, ease,

knowledge

Trench beds

Tunnels

Cover crops

Legumes

Other crops;

potatoes, sweet

potatoes

Savings

Subsidised inputs

Saving for inputs

Farmer centre

Small businesses

Learning group

Water committee

6. Expanding on practices

➢Introduce new practices for each of five fingers

➢Participants assess each practice (after deciding on criteria for how you decide this practice is

useful?)

Eventually the whole exercise can be summarised in the table below

Natural

Physical

Economic

Human

Social

CC impacts

Adaptive

strategies

Actions/

practices

Changes due

to practices

Importance of

these changes

to your

livelihood

5.2 Participatory Impact assessment; Bergville, Ntabamhlophe (April 2019)

Attendance

30 participants were invited; A selection of participants from

learning groups in 8 villages: Stulwane (8 participants), Thamela

(1 participant), Nthabamhlophe -Estcourt (2 participants),

Eqeleni (4 participants), Ezibomvini (10 participants),

Emazimbeni (3 participants) and Emabunzini (2 participants).

These participants represent those in the villages actively

pursuing and experimenting with some of the CSA practices

introduced and those most engaged in the mixed farming

systems typical in the area.

Right Above and Below: Bergville and Ntabamhlophe

participants in the PIA workshop

Facilitators; Lindelwa Ndaba (from Lima-RDF) joinedthe MDF

team with one of her local facilitators from Ntabamhlophe, to

learn about this process, for incorporation into her work in Food

Security in her organisation.

Climate change

Here participants summarised their observations as an

introduction into the process of assessing the impact of CSA

practices:

➢Less rainfall

➢Late rains

➢Greater intensity of storms and strong winds

➢Increased heat in spring, summer and autumn

Climate change impacts on farming and livelihoods

This exercise was repeated,partly to assess whether people’s perception of changes and impacts have

shifted, now that they are more aware to the issues at hand. It also provided an opportunity for

participants across villages and from different areas to engage with each other around their

understanding and perceptions. This exercise was conducted at the beginning of the process as well.

For this exercise the impacts were divided intothe 5 livelihood categories and is summarised inthe

table below.

Table 11: Impacts of practices according to livelihoods resrources

Natural

(environment and

farming

Physical

(infrastructure,

environment)

Economic

Human (Skills,

knowledge,

agency)

Social

(organisation,

cohesion)

Earthworms

disappear

Water shortages;

reduced flow in

streams and springs,

boreholes dry up

Food shortages

Increase in

diseases in

humans

No progress here

Degradationof veld

and reduced grazing

Severe erosion of

roads anddamage to

houses byheavy

rainfall

Water shortages at

household level

Farming is done

by older people;

the younger

people are lazy

People don’t

work together

Livestock break into

fields and eat crops

Dongas are increasing

in number and size

Farming inputs

and services are

very expensive

Water borne

diseases from

drinking dirty

water

Traditional

leadership is no

longer respected

More diseases in

cattle, requiring

purchase of

medication and

vaccines and more

deaths

Damage to wetlands

from people building

there, overgrazing

and other uses.

Other community

members steal

farmers’ produce

Contours in the fields,

that were made many

years ago have not

been maintained and

now there is erosion

in the fields

Severe erosion due to

denuding of land,

followed by heavy

rainfall

Learning groups;

some conflict in

some of the

learning groups

has reduced

participation.

More crop damage

from birds than before

SOME GENERAL ADAPTIVE MEASURES PROPOSED

- Savings

-Rotational group saving for buying and putting up fencing

-Small businesses

-Buying fencing

-Request support for fencing and ask Government support as well –although with the

latter participants are aware that Government support is unlikely.

COMMENTS ON PLANTING DATES

-People who planted in November-have struggled with lack of germination

-More germination for those who planted in December

-Spraying with Decis (pesticide against cutworms and stalk borer) helped with

germinationand growth (more pests were present) and reduced eating of seed by birds

-A few participants even planted in January –and this worked quite well in this last

season

-One participant in Thamela mulched her whole field and planted in November and

has had promising germination and growth from this

-Participants also notedthat beans did not grow at all, but the cowpeas have done

reasonably well, even under these difficult conditions.

It is difficult to make decisions about planting dates now that the climate is more

unpredictable.

The importance of crop residues to maintain soil moisture cannot be under-estimated

Dry soil

Seeds don’t

germinate

Extreme winds that

damage vegetation

and crops

More veld fires

More pests in crops

and new pests that

were not present in

the past

Fertilizer is

ineffective in hot, dry

conditions

Planting times for

crops are changing in

unpredictable ways

There are small water

sources in some

people’s homesteads,

which they refuse to

share with others

General comments about this discussion:

1. The participants’’ understanding of the

contribution of CC to the erosion issues in their

villages shows a good grasp of the process.

They have commented on the process of

denuding of the environment due to heat,

drought and grazing pressure, followed by

heavy storms and the increased damage caused

to the environment due to this. They are also

aware of the reduction in water from

boreholes, wetlands and springs and how the

climate variability, along with bad management

practices have exacerbated this process.

Right: An outline of CC impacts put together by the

participants

2. Participants discussed the fact that there are

only about 30% of community members in each

of the villages who are farming. The rest of the

inhabitants do not respect people’s efforts and

do not cooperate in terms of managing their livestock. They have even been known to take

their cattle to the fields to graze and to steal some of the crops. The traditional authorities

and Local Municipality are not focused on peoples’ problems and do not seem to care. They

do not assist. This has now led to an increased feeling for the need to fence their fields.

Round 23% of participants present, have already fenced their fields.

3. Fencing is expensive and people suggested joint savings and implementation options to

spread this burden. They would also like to request assistance, but know that they are

unlikely to find support in the short term. They do however believe that they can ask for

assistance form the department of Agriculture. A further suggestion is that they club

together to fence one large piece of land and then work there together –as this should be

cheaper than fencing each person’s field separately.

4. There was a long discussion on the merits of soil cover from crop residues and how this can

assist with the problem of deciding on a planting date related to weather variability. One

person went a far as mulching her whole field- which has had very promising results for her-

given that her November planting of field crops was successful, whereas it was not for

others. This also links into the discussions held about production of fodder crops and fencing

of fields, as management of crop residues for soil cover will then become a possibility.

5. Participants do not believe that the lack of interest in farming is because of climate change,

but is a broader societal issue; where people and especially the youth have become lazy,

with high expectations of support and prefer not to be active at all, than to put in effort into

activities with low returns.

CSA practices

Here participants described practices they are using under thefive fingers (soil, water, cropping

(gardening and field cropping, livestock and natural resource management. We decided also to include

a further category - social agency, or what they described as people management

Table 12:CSA practices implemented in Bergville and Nthabamhlophe

Soil

Water

Crop (garden and field)

Livestock

Natural

Resources

People

Making compost

Drip irrigation

Diversified crops in

gardens; beetroot,

Chinese cabbage, carrots,

parsley, thyme,

Vaccinations

Savings

Use of goat and

cattle manure

Mulching

Shade cloth tunnels

Dipping

Small

businesses

Canopy cover and

legumes (Lab-

Lab)

Infiltration pits

Beds: raised beds, trench

beds, eco-circles

Proper feed;

including from

fodder produced

Farmer centres

Diversified crops

to hold soil and

prevent erosion

Garden layout

with shallow

furrows for

water

harvesting and

retention

Tower gardens –fertility

and greywater

management

Addition of

supplements

Selling

chickens

Greywater

management

Conservation agriculture;

including management of

residues

Limiting

burning of veld

Improved

irrigation

practices

Inter cropping and crop

rotation

Planting grass;

ungwengwe and

kikuyu

Rainwater

storage in JoJo

tanks and

drums

Diversified crops in

fields; different varieties

of maize, sorghum, millet,

legumes (e.g. cowpeas,

beans, Lab-lab), cover

crops

Spring

protection

Use of Decis Forte

(Pyrethrins) for pest

control in fields

Buying JoJo

tanks –and

negotiating

with water

trucks tofill

these

Liquid manure

Mixed cropping in

gardens

From this table it can be seen that

participants have implemented a wide

range of practices in cropping and

gardening and have also started to

focus on livestockproduction and

management. Theyhave given no

attention to natural resources

management, erosion control, or soil

and water conservationin grazing

management.

Right: An analysis of practices related

to the “five fingers’ concept

In addition, participants specifically

mentioned the benefits of trench beds:

➢These beds produce very high yields

➢They keep the soil fertile for a long time and

➢They hold a lot of water –saving on irrigation needs.

In addition, although agro-ecology is promoted and organic gardening demonstrated and promoted,

the use of pesticides such as Blue Death (Carbaryl) and Bulala Zonke (Malathion) in the gardens, is

common.

In addition, in the Conservation Agriculture experimentationprocess participants have been using

Decis Forte (pyrethrin) to control both cut worm and stalk borer. Contrary to expectationsthat the

need for this pesticide would reduce over time, participants feel that it is becoming more important

with the changing weather conditions as the stalk borer load in their fields has increased. They also

believe that spraying this pesticide reduces the incidence of birds feeding on their seed.

Changes and benefits from CSA practices

This exercise consisted of doing a matrix ranking of practices farmers have used in the past year;

incorporating gardening, field cropping, livestock management, soil and water conservation and water

issues (access, availability).

Impact indicators for this exercise were developed in 2 small groups by asking participants to outline

how they make decisions about which practices to use and what changes they would observe.

Below is a summary of the Matrix for each of the 2 small groups. A process of proportional piling was

used for the scoring of each practice and indicator –where 100 counterswere provided for each

indicator and the small group decided how these would be placed proportionally for each practice. In

this way participants can comment on; more or less, and how much more or less. The outcome of the

exercise is quantifiable in terms of gauging percentages.

The 3rd group conducted an exercise in comparing different water saving practices

Matrix 1

For this matrix the practices were conflated to encompass all specific practices within that category.

❖Conservation agriculture; minimal tillage, soil cover, crop diversification

❖Savings: Village saving and loan associations, rotational saving in small groups towards

specific infrastructural needs, personal savings

❖Livestock; fodder production, vaccinations, dipping, supplementation

❖Gardening; bed design (trench beds, eco-circles, raised beds, tower gardens, tunnels,

mulching, mixed cropping, crop diversification, inclusion of herbs, infiltration pits and water

conservation furrows.

❖Crop rotation; 3-4 crop rotations in field cropping

❖Intercropping: grain-legume and grain -cover crop intercropping options in field cropping

❖Small businesses; including agricultural and non- agricultural businesses; sale of snacks in

schools, sewing, baking, poultry production, maize milling etc.

The impact indicatorsdeveloped by this group areof particular interest as they aremulti-

dimensional talking at least two different aspects for each indicator Additionally, the exercise

was run so that each practice is compared with the other practices when considering one of

the indicators or criteria. This greatly increases the value and reliability of the scores provided

by the group.

Table 13:Impact indicators and assessment form the Bergville PIA, April 2019

Comments:

➢The overall impact on livelihoods (which is seen as the combination of the indicators chosen

by the group) is shown under the ‘total” column. From this, the participants clearly consider

the Conservation Agriculture (CA) process as the most significant, followed by gardening,

small businesses, savings and livestock –in decreasing order

➢The practices of crop rotation and intercropping fall under the ambit of CA. the comparison

of these two practices by community members has shown some very interesting learnings

and conceptions;

oCrop rotation is considered to be better at increasing soil health and soil fertility

than intercropping –showing an internalisation by the group of the positive effects

of rotation of the main grain crops with legumes and cover crop combinations, as

Soil;

health

and

fertility

Money;

income

and

savings

Productivity;

acceptance of

practice,

saving in

farming –

equipment,

labour

Knowledge;

increased

knowledge

and ability

to use

Food;

how much

produced

and how

healthy

Water;

use and

access

Social agency;

Support,

empowerment

Total

Conservation

Agriculture

156

Savings

Livestock

Gardening

107

Crop rotation

Intercropping

Small

businesses

well as an observation that this works better than intercropping by itself. This

observation is clearly supported by academic evidence.

oIncome, savings and productivity are considered to be somewhat higher for

intercropping; again, a very astute observation from the group. Generally,

participants prefer crop rotation over inter-cropping, but are able to appreciate the

increases in productivity and potential income due to intercropping options.

oWater use and access is considered by this group to be quite a bit better for crop

rotation, when compared to intercropping. They have noticed the potential of

intercropped grain and legume plots as well as grain and cover crop plots to show

signs of water stress and competition for water (and potentially nutrients) between

the crops. Although, academically this is not the case in well managed fields, it is

quite likely in more infertile plots.

oRegarding social agency; group participants are more easily able to relate to the

concept of crop rotation as they find crop management in the single cropped blocks

a lot easier (including weeding and harvesting) and do not have difficult decisions to

make in terms of choices of timing of harvesting and extended harvesting periods.

Matrix 2

Money

Food

Fertility

Saving water

Total

Mulching

CA; Maize and bean

intercrop

Pipes for channelling

water to households

Trench beds

Using animal traction

CA; crop rotation

Tower gardens

Matrix 3; water practices ranking

This group Ranked the practices, rather than the criteria and discussions revolved primarily around

water management in gardens.

Practice

Ranking

Criteria

JoJo tanks

Good healthy food, watersupply, safe clean water, increased moisture

holding, reduced conflict among neighbours, and reduced costs

Grey water

Infiltration

pits

Mulching

Comment: The JoJo tanks assist the most, but in winter, they need to be filled from water tankers supplied by the

Municipality, which can be expensive.

Comments:

➢JoJo tanks are considered a good investment for increased water security at household and

gardening level, much more so than any of the in- situ water conservation practices such as

infiltration pits and mulching.

➢Interestingly, participants from both Bergville and Estcourt mentioned that they have

persuaded the operators for the water tankers from the municipality to fill up their JoJo

tanks for a fee. This is a win-win situation for both the participants, who can now have

access to a lot more water than is usually supplied to them through the municipality and the

municipalities themselves, who can now offer water to selected households and feel that

they are “doing their work”.

➢At a systemic level however, this is an extremely alarming trend. The water tankers are meant

to be a back-up plan for municipalities where their water supply falls short in terms of servicing

people and for emergencies. It has however become the main way in which water is provided

and is unfortunately part and parcel of the broader defrauding of governmentcoffers and

state capture. It is possibly the most expensive way to supply water that was ever conceived

and allows certain interests tobenefit disproportionately-namely the companies providing

and maintaining these tankers, which predictably are linked to the government officials

themselves. One tanker is said to cost around R35 000/ day to run and maintain, but only

carries around 20 000l of water- and if used to fill up JoJo tanks, can only supply around 5-10

people in a day. The feespaid to the tanker operators are also bribes,rather than an official

process, making the entire procedure extremely questionable.

Expanding on CSA practices

Participants have suggested that theywill continue expanding the CSA practices and have outlined

strategies for each of the villages. What this shows is that there is substantial potential for horizontal

expansion and learning within the communities themselves and that if a careful, fully participatory

process is used for introduction and support of CSA practices, that quite complex processes can be

talked. The community members who are still engaged in farming have a “hunger for farming systems

that are more productive and that would better support their livelihoods and take on new ideas.”

It also indicated the clearly that farmers learning from other farmers is the most successful and the

most likely to build a sustainable framework of implementation that the participants can build on.

Table 14: CSA practices still to be tried out in Bergville:2019-2020

Village

New practices

COMMENTS

Stulwane

-Fencing of fields

-Grazing management

-Making hay bales

-Fodder production

-Supplementation with protein in winter

(licks, pre-mixes and liquids)

-Saving for shade netting tunnels

There is a lot of interest in the tunnels

and participants have agreed to save

towards buying shade netting and

putting up their own structures-as the

provision of further tunnel kits through

this process is not possible.

Interest in fodder production, making

of hay and supplementation for

livestock is high and interestingly also

something that a numberof women

have volunteered to become involved

in –especially in Ezibomvini and

Eqeleni.

Emazibeni and Emabunzini are areas

where participants have come across

thework done in other villages and

have asked to be brought on board.

Eqeleni

-Fodder production-Continue with planting

different fodder types

-Making of hay bales

-Supplementation

-Saving forshade netting tunnels

Ezibomvini

-Spring protection

-Making of hay bales

-Supplementation

-Saving for shade netting tunnels

Thamela

-Eco-circle

-Saving for shade netting tunnels

Emazimbeni

-Fencing of fields

-Tower gardens

-Planting pottoes in bags

-Saving for shade netting tunnels

They are learning about CSA from

these groups and individuals.

Emabunzini

-Trench beds

-Saving for shade netting tunnels

Evaluation of the workshop

Some significant comments made in closing by participants included:

➢We learnt a lot by bringing people from different areas together

➢We have been provided with information on how to implement different practices such as

different types of beds in the garden and water management

➢We have also seen the proof of these practices here in Phumelele’s garden

➢We are grateful that Mahlathini has not forgotten the farmers

6. Resilience snapshots

Individual impact assessment questionnaires have been designed and linked to a resilience snapshot

questionnaire. These have been tested for 6 participants per province. As a result, the impact

assessment questionnaire has been streamlined and can now be more widely use. The questionnaire

is presented in Attachment 4 to this report.

Below a case study for the 6 KZN participants is presented.

6.1 Resilience snapshot case study for KZN

Summaries of the responses to specific questions are summarised in bullet point and tables.

Learning and change

(a)What have you learnt about dealing with CC and climatic extremes?

➢I have learnt that practices such as trench beds and CA provide good growth and yields,

despite difficult weather conditions. Also, these practices are cheap. We get more food than

we did before and will now be able to continue farming

➢Adaptive practices like mulching help to deal with increased heat and water stress

➢Practices suchas trench beds, eco-circles, mulching and mixed croppingenables the soil to

hold moisture for longer and withstand the heat and dry spells.

(b)What is your experience regarding the impact of CC on your life?

➢This season we had drought; the beans did not grow and maize is stunted. I fear will not have

enough food

➢Cattle have been negatively impacted- more disease and deaths as grazing diminishes

➢The climate is changing; low rainfall during the planting season and high temperatures are

affecting farming activities

➢I have not experienced climate change –I do not have water issues (participant in Midlands

of KZN)

➢Climate change has destabilised our planting patterns and has created a lot of uncertainty

about planting dates for both summer and winter crops

(c)Do you share your knowledge and experiences with the learning group or community

members?

➢Yes, I talk to my neighbours about the gardening practices, so that they can also try and

revive their gardens

➢Yes, I have talked to neighbours, some come and visit to see the garden and experiments

and some have even taken pictures.

➢Yes, I talk to my neighbours and friends and invite them to the learninggroup sessions if

they are not members yet.

(d)How do you share the knowledge gained with other members of your community?

➢Discussions at savings meetings, at the springs when we collect water

➢When people visit, I show them my garden

(e)What helps you to learn more about new innovations and information?

(N=6)

Comments

Listening to other farmers

experiences and experiments

I get motivated by other farmers’ work, get new ideas such as

planting potatoes in bags

By doing and experimenting in own

garden

This helps me to know how good the practices area, have tried a

no of experiments and included my own ideas

Motivated by other farmers work

and experiences

Learnt about raised beds in Msinga

Learning workshops

I find themuseful because I always hear new information and

experiences form the facilitator and farmers

(f)What new things have you added into your practices? How has it worked?

➢I have not tried anything else new, outside of the practices we were taught; CA, trench beds,

mulching, mixed cropping, RWH, greywater management, seedling production

➢I have tried a u-shaped garden which helps to collect water, helping plants to grow better.

➢I have used some of the maize and sunflower seed I grew in the CA trials to feed my indigenous

chickens; this has helped for a better survival rate and even the ability to sell a few.

Climate smart practices

(g)Impacts and lessons learnt

Past issues

Past Practice

Present Practice

Impact and lessons

Livestock

Low

production

Bartered

indigenous

chickens

Selling indigenous

chickens locally

Feed too

expensive

to buy

Fed chickens’

scraps

Feed of sunflower and

crushed maizeseed

from own production

More chickens survive and grow

well making sales possible

Gardening

Low yield

and dry

beds

Raised beds

Trench beds and

raised beds

Better growth and yield,

increased water holding, beds

remain moist during hot periods,

beds holdwater for a long time

fewer pests and diseases,

Fetched water from

communal taps and

springs

Also RWH andgrey

water use (unfiltered)

Saves water and time in fetching

water to irrigate

Mulch (dry grass)

Mulch retains moisture, but can

encourage termites

Buy seedlings

Seedling production

Increased numberand types of

crops;

Standard veggies

New veggies and

herbs

There is demand in the village for

the new crops; kale,Chinese

cabbage, carrots, More and

different foodfor longer periods

in the year

Short season for

planting, or no

planting due to lack

of water

Winter planting

Grow crops in garden and in the

fields (sweet potatoes, potatoes)

Field

cropping

Increased water holding and less

run-off,increasedability to

withstand drought

Intercropping

Increased availability of more

types of food,

Legumes

Increased yields

Cover crops

Increased soil health, Feed

availability for livestock

(h)Assessment of impact for CSA practices tried out using local indicators

-1 = worse than normal practice

0=no change

1=some positive change

2=medium positive change

3= high positive change

Note: It has been decided subsequent to this initial piloting of this exercise to makethe scale more

symmetrical -3through to 3

Name of practice

Soil

Water

Productivity

Labour

Pest and

disease control

Cost and

maintenance

Livelihoods

Adaptation

Trench beds

-1

RWH

-1

Mulching

Tower garden

Planting basins

Raised beds, with mulch

eco-circle

-1

CA; w intercropping, legumes,

cover crops

Using goat manure (composted

in a kraal)

6.2 Resilience snapshot

A summary table of the results for all 6 participants is presented below, followed by the more in-depth

Resilience indicators

Rating for increase

Comment

Increase in size offarming

activities

Gardening–18%

Field cropping –63%

Livestock –31%

Croppingareas measured, no of livestock

assessed

Increased farming activities

Most participants involved in gardening, field

cropping and livestock management

Increased season

Yes

For field cropping and gardening-autumn and

winter options

Increased crop diversity

Crops: 12 new crops

Practices: 8 new practices

Management options include; drip irrigation,

tunnels, no-till planters, JoJotanks, RWH

drums,

Increased productivity

Gardening–72%

Field cropping –79%

Livestock –25%

Based on increase in yields

Increased water use

efficiency

25%

Access, RWH, water holding capacity and

irrigation efficiency rated

Increased income

13%

Based on average monthly incomes

Increased household food

provisioning

Maize- 20kg/week

Vegetables –7kg/week

Food produced and consumed in the household

Increased savings

R150/month

Average of savings now undertaken

Increased social agency

(collaborative actions)

Villages savings and loanassociations and

learning groups

Increased informed decision

making

Own experience, local facilitators, other

farmers, facilitators, extension officers

Positive mindsets

2-3

More tomuch more positive about the future:

Much improvedhousehold food security and

food availability

RESILIENCE SNAPSHOT

(6 participants)

Date

Feb-19

Province

KZN

Bergville, Midlands

Village

Ezibomvini, Eqeleni and Gobizembe

Increased in

farming (Size)

Before (Size

in sqm)

Now (Size

in sqm)

Comment: Percentage increase

Gardening

18%

Field

cropping

1400

3767

63%

Livestock

31%

Trees nat

resources

Increased

diversity in

farming

Y/N before

Y/N now

Comment:

Gardening

Most participants undertake activities in all

four farming categories

Field

cropping

Livestock

Trees, nat

resources

Increased

diversity (1)

Managemen

t and

practices

before

now

What has

changed;

new crops

What has

changed; new

practices

What has

changed; ,

new

manageme

Gardening

raised beds;

use ofash

and kraal

manure

Kale,

chinese

cabbage,

carrots,

mustard

spinach,

Coriander

mulching,

trenches, seedling

production, more

crops, tower

gardens, eco

circles, raised

beds, planting

basins,

RWH (Jojo

tanks and

drums),

greywater

and organic

gardening,

tunnel, drip

irrigation,

Field

cropping

traditional

planting of

maize

Maize,

beans,

cowpeas,

Lab-Lab,

sunflower,

sunnhemp,

millet,

potatoes,

sweet

potatoes

CA,

intercropping

,legumes, cover

crops, rotation

Livestock

extensive

foraging

sunflower,

maize

Feeding of

poultry -crushed

maize and

sunflower

Trees nat

resources

Types

BEFORE

: Quantity

(KG, No)

NOW:

Quantity

(KG,No)

Percenta

increase

Increased

productivity

Gardening

Spinach

7,8

15,3

49%

(Amount in

kgs/tonnes,

10,20,50kg

bags/containers, no

of meals (for a

family)

Cabbage

38%

Potatoes

50%

Carrots

100%

Green pepper

100%

Chinese

cabbage

8,5

100%

Chilli

29%

Onions

38%

Beetroot

4,3

11,3

62%

Kale

100%

Mustard

spinach

100%

Coriander

100%

Field

cropping

Maize

99,3

257,8

61%

Beans

16,8

76%

Cowpea

100%

Livestock

Chickens

25%

Trees nat

resources

Increas

Access

Inc

RWH

Inc water

holding

incr water

productivity

(irrigation)

SCALE

Increased water use

efficiency (incl RWH,

water holding, water

access, water

productivity)

0= same or worse than before;

1= somewhat better than before,

2= much better than before

Increased

livelihood security

(income)

Income before

(ave monthly in

Rands)

Income now (Ave

monthly in Rands)

Comments

1433

1650

Increased

livelihood security

(Household

provisioning and

food security)

Food types (staples, veg,

livestock, fruit)

Quantity/

week (kg)

No of

times/

week (1-7)

Sales/week

(in Rands)

Comments

maize

6 of 6

Veg (Spinach, chillies,

green pepper)

225

2 of 6

Veg(spinach,chinese

cabbage, tomato

6 of 6

Veg (beetroot, chilli)

6 of 6

Chicken

1 of 6

Pigs (kg of meat)

2500

1 of 6

Cattle (no sold/yr)

10000

1 of 6

Fruit

1 of 6

Increased

livelihood

diversity/optio

Income

options

Before

Income

options Now

Comment; name new

options e.g. which

crops, etc

Scale

1,4

1,3,4

Small incomes form

farming now possible

1=social grants; 2= remittances;

3=farming income;4= small

business

Amount per

month

Before

Amount per

month Now

Use of

savings

Scale

Savings (safety,

security,

achievement)

R150

2,3,4

1=food; 2=household use;

3=education; 4= production; 5=other

Increased

growing season

Yes/no

Before

Yes/no

Now

Comment

Gardening

Now grows crops inwinter in garden

and fields

Field cropping

Livestock

Trees nat

resources

Collaborative

actions/social

agency

Activities in groups Before-

name

Activities in

groups Now

E.g. savings, church, learning groups,

coops, farmers associations, work

teams, selling, inputs, farmers centres

water committees …

Stokvel

VSLA

Learning group

Informed

decision

making

Information used to

choose activities Before

Information used tochoose

activities Now

E.g. Other community

members, learning in groups,

written info, radio,

facilitators, extension officers,

etc

Own experience

Extension officer

Learning group members

Local facilitator

Facilitator

Positive

mindsets

Rate your

mindset

Before

Rate your

mindset now

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

2=more positive about the future; 3=much more positive

2-3

Much improved household food secuirty and food

availability.

7. Quantitative measurements

Initial site selection for the 2018-2019 period is shown below (as reported in Deliverable 3)

Province

Site 1

Site 2

KZN

Bergville: Eibomvini,Thamela

(Mahlathini, GrainSA)

Estcourt: Thabamhlophe (Lima,

Mahlathini)

Limpopo

Hoedspruit: Sedawa, Turkey (Mahlathini,

AWARD)

Tzaneen: Sekororo (Lima,

Mahlathini)

Fort Cox: Imvutho Buboni Learning

Network (Amanzi for Food, Mahlathini)

The table below outlines the sites selected for both dry land farming and vegetable gardening farmer

level experimentationin KZN and Limpopo.Conservation Agriculture (CA) plots in KZNwereplanted

in the last week of November while the ones in Limpopo were planted in early to mid-December 2017.

The results for the experimentation process in Limpopo were report on the in Deliverable 5

Table 15: Participants in quantitative measurements for trials; KZN and Limpopo

Province

Category

Name of participants

Name of village

Date of planting

Limpopo

Field

cropping

Koko Maphori

Sedawa

05/12/2017

Moruti Sekgobela

Mametja

06/12/2017

Mariam Malepe

Botshabelo

07/12/2017

Gardening

Christinah Tobetjane

Sedawa

April-Aug 2018

Norah Malepe

Mametja

April-Aug 2018

Mariam Malepe

Botshabelo

April -Aug 2018

KwaZulu-

Natal

Field

cropping

Ntombake Zikode

Eqeleni

20-24 Nov 2017

Phumelele Hlongwane

Ezimbomzini

20-24 Nov 2017

Phumzile Zimba

Mhlwazini

20-24 Nov 2017

Gardening

Smephi Hlatswayo

Eqeleni

June-Sept 2018

Phumelele Hlongwane

Ezibomvini

June-Sept 2018

Table 16: Measurements taken for the gardening trials

Parameter

Instruments

Dates

Evapotranspiration (Et0)

Davis weather station

ongoing

Soil moisture

Chameleon water sensors

On going

Amount of water applied

Measuring cylinder

On going

Rainfall

Rain gauge

On going

Weighing of the harvest

Weighing scale

On going

Rand value of the harvest

Local market price

At harvest

Table 17: Measurements taken for the field cropping trials

Parameter

Instruments

Dates

Evapotranspiration (Et0)

Davis weather station

ongoing

Soil moisture

Gravimetric soil water samples

4x in growing season

Bulk density

Sampling

Once towards the end of the

season

Soil fertility

Sampling for analysisat

CEDARA soil Lab

End of growing season

Soil health

Sampling for analysis by Soil

Health Solutions

End of growing seaosn

Rainfall

Rain gauges installed in 5 sites

On going

Infiltration

Single and double ring

infiltrometers

Once during the season

Run-off

Run-off plots installed in three

sites

On going

Weighing of the harvest

Weighing scale, including grain

and biomass (lab analysis)

At the end of the growing

season- for Mazie only

Rand value of the harvest

Local market price

At harvest

Data for a number of the quantitative measurements were rereported on in detail in Deliverables 5

(Limpopo) and 6 (KZN). In this report we will provide a focus on the water productivity results only.

7.1 Water Productivity in Conservation Agriculture

Due to crop failure in Limpopo (for both seasons 2017 and 2018), water productivity was calculated

for the Bergville (KZN) sites only.

Data collection in this season provided a few challenges:

•Inexperience with working with weather stations meant the ET0values were not

automatically recorded as could have been the case, but had to be manually calculated using

surrogate data obtained from SA Weather Services weather stations close to the project site

(Bergville).

•Rainfall was not measured very accurately by the households with rain gauges- some

participants were a lot more meticulous than others.

As a result, the data collected in this season was not adequate to run a model to allow us to compare

simulated and observed values of evapotranspiration (ET) and water productivity (WP). The results

presented in this section were observed values and were computed manually following the equations

presented in the methodology section.Detail of the data and equatiosn used are provided in

Deliverable 6 of this project.

Our assumption for this farmer level experiment, or the hypothesis, is that water productivity of an

intercropping system will be better than that of a monocropping system under CA.

Enough data was collected for two of the three sites and participants; Phumelele Hlongwane from

Ezibomvini (PH) and Ntombakhe Zikode from Eqeleni (NZ).

Note: These participants have provided express permission to the research team to use their trial

information in reporting and in publications. This is in lieu of a formal academic ethical clearance,

which is still pending from UKZN and UWC. Both submissions were made almost two years ago, but

expediting of these clearances have not been possible to date, despite numerous attempts.

Trial and Control layouts and parameters

Phumelele Hlongwane (Ezibomvini- Bergville)

Experimentation

Phumelele’s trials were continued in this season. The layout of herplots is shown below for the

2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 planting seasons. She is practisingpracticingcrop rotationas well as

intercropping and planting of summer and winter cover crop mixes.

(10)

M + B

(5)

(8)

M + B

(6)

M +LL

(3) M +

SCC +WCC

Contr

ol plot

(9)

M + CP

(7)

M + CP

(4)

M + B

(2)

Sunhemp,

millet and

sunflower

(1)

M + B

The table below provides a summary of the rotations employed across her trial plots.

Table 18: Table outlining rotations undertaken in Phumelele’s trial and control plots over the last three seasons, including

an indication of installation of runoff plots.

Plot no

2015/16

2016/17

2017/18

Run off plots

M+B

M +WCC

Grey squares indicate run-off plots

SCC

M+B

(10)

M + B

(5)

Control plot

(8)

M + CP

(6)

sunhemp,

millet and

sunflower

(3)

M + B

Contro

l plot

(9)

M + B

(7)

(4)

(2) M +

runoff

plot

(1)

Trial layout 2016/17 Legend: M –Maize; B –Beans; CP –Cowpea; LL –Lab lab

(10)

(5)

Control plot

(8)

(6)

M +CP

(3)

Contro

l plot

(9)

SCC

(7)

M + CP

(4)

(2)

M + B

(1)

Trial layout 2017/18 Legend: M –Maize; B –Beans; CP –Cowpea; LL –Lab Lab

Right: A view of Phumelele’s maize

and cowpea intercropped plot and

Far Right: A view of Phumelele’s

Lab-Lab plot in the 2017-2018

season. She rotates these plots in

her intercropping and rotation

system. Behind the visitors is a plot

of inter cropped maize and

sunflower.

Ntombakhe Zikode (Eqeleni)

Experimentation

In Eqeleni, the 1000 m2 farmer level trials are divided into 5 plots (20 m*10 m). The last crop rotation

plot is split into two to allow for 2x (10 m* 10 m) plots, planted to sole Maize crop and summer cover

crop mix of sunflower, sunnhemp and millet respectively.

Right: Ntombakhe’s trial plot, early stages of the

summer cover crops in the foreground. Behind that

and to the right are her inter cropped plots and on

the left at the back her mono-cropped maize plots.

M+SCC+WCC

M+B

Rotations have been doneattempting

to ensure a different crop/crop mix on

each plot in each consecutive year.

A further refinement of the schedule to

be a 3-year rotationof; single crop –

intercrop-cover crop, will be adhered

to into the future

M+B

M+LL

SCC

M+CP

M+B

M+CP

M+B

SCC

M+B

Control: M

(CA)

Control: M+B

(CA)

M+B+WCC

M+C

M+B

SCC

Water Productivity results and discussion; Method 1

The results for calculating the WP using method 1 (weather station data) for both Phumelele

Hlongwane and Ntombakhe Zikode are shown below.

Figure 6: Water productivity results using weather station data for dryland field cropping using CA

Water productivity here has been calculated using the maize grain only.

From the above diagram the following observations can be made:

•Phumelele’s water productivity for all her plots is substantially higher than Ntombakhe’s.

This is expected, as her soil fertility and soil health results are also substantially higher. This

means that her soil has a much higher nutrient and water holding capacity, despite the fact

that both participants have bene practising CA for 4-5 years. It points also to the fact that

her management practices within the CA system are improving her soils more substantially

than those that Ntombakhe have been using. Crop rotation by itself improves soil health

and water holding capacity much more slowly than a combination of rotation and

intercropping. Larger crop diversity is also important.

•For both participants the water productivity for their maize and bean intercropped plots is

higher than for the maize only and the maize and cowpea plots. This trend has been noted

also in the soil health test results and is interesting as it does not hold with the assumptions

made by the implantation team that the maize and cowpea intercropped plots would out-

perform the maize and bean intercrops.

•For both participants the water productivity of the mono-cropped maize plots is higher than

that of their maize and cowpea intercropped plots. This points to a certain level of

competition from the cowpeas intercropped with the maize

•For Phumelele, water productivity for her CA control mono-cropped maize is quite a bit

higher than her CA trial mono-cropped maize. Her management practices for the two plots

are very similar (using the same procedures, fertilizers and maize varieties), pointing to

different water productivity potentials in her plots. This variability has been noted also in

measurements of soil characteristics, water holding capacity and yields.

WP (kg/m3)21.8154 35.2557731.7444344.0499410.3916711.4949 13.250578.588552

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

Water Productivty (kg/m3)

WP (kg/m3)

The yields across the plots within a trial can vary considerably. The expectation is that after a number

of years, the mixture of intercropping and crop rotation would mean that the soil builds up across the

plots and that the yields would even out as they increase. This is as yet not happening.

A more in-depthlook at the actual rotations and yields for Phumelele Hlongwane, are presented in

the table below.

Table 19: Maize yields per plot in Phumelele Hlongwane’s rotation system:2015-2017

Phumelele Hlongwane: Comparison of maize yields per plot:2015-2017

Plots

2015/2016 season

2016/2017 Season

2017/2018 Season

Crops Planted

Yields

(t/ha)

Crops planted

Yields

(t/ha)

Crops planted

Yields

(t/ha)

Change

in yield

(t/ha)

Plot 10

Maize +Beans

8,3

Maize + Beans

8,8

Maize

11,5

2,8

Plot 9

Maize +Cowpea

8,7

Maize + Beans

8,9

SCC

Plot 8

Maize + Beans

10,4

Maize + Cowpea

7,7

Beans

Plot 7

Maize +Cowpea

6,9

Maize

6,5

Maize + Beans

16,3

9,8

Plot 6

Maize +Lab-lab

3,4

SCC

Maize +

Cowpea

12,4

Plot 5

Lab-Lab

Maize

8,8

Lab-Lab

Plot 4

Maize+ Beans

8,7

Lab-lab

Maize

10,3

Plot 3

M +SCC+WCC

8,7

Maize + Beans

10,1

Maize

11,0

0,9

Plot 2

SCC

Maize

10,0

Maize + Beans

14,2

4,2

Plot 1

Maize +Beans

6,9

Maize

6,2

Maize

8,9

2,7

This season (2017-2018) has seen a remarkable increase in yield across all the plots where maize has

been grown, with yields that seem to be almost unheard of. These calculations and yields have been

checked and re-checked giventhis nearimpossibleoutcome and appear to be correct as far as the

team can tell. The variety of maize planted was PAN6479.

Rainfall as recorded by the farmers has averaged around 563mm this season as compared to an

average of around 527mm for last season. These amounts are considered similar enough to not have

a major influence on yield differences noticed.

The difference in maize yield from one plot to another does notappearto be directly related to the

previous rotations, although in general those that include legumes and summer cover crops in a three-

year rotation prior to planting a monocrop of maize, are higher than the plots where maize has

followed on maize.

Biomass water productivity results

These have been calculated for maize plants only. The graph below provides the dry mass of the whole

above ground plant, for those plants selected also to measure the grain yiled for the WP results shown

above

Figure 7: Biomass water productivity results using weather station data for dryland field cropping using CA

From the graph above the following comments can be made:

•Phumelele’s biomass results for all her plots is substantially higher than Ntombakhe’s.

•Biomass results for the mono-cropped trial maize plots are higher than the maize and bean

and maize and cowpea intercropped plots for both participants. This shows that even

though the grain production for maize is increased in the maize and bean intercropped plots,

the biomass yield of maize is reduced in the intercropping situation. This does however not

include the added grain and biomass yields of the legumes themselves.

•Biomass results for the maize and bean intercropped plots are higher than the maize and

cowpea intercropped plots for both participants. For the maize and cowpea intercropped

plots both the grain and biomass yields for maize are reduced and do not hold with the

assumption that intercropping with cowpeas can improve growth of the maize plants.

•For Phumelele, the biomass results for her maize mono-crop trial plots are substantially

higher than her maize monocrop CA control plot. Here the value of the rotation and

intercropping becomes more visible, given that the CA control plot is planted to maize every

year but the maize CA trial plot is rotated within her trial. The latter provides for a

substantial increase in biomass production and also water productivity.

In summary the WP results indicate the following:

•Water productivity for mono cropped maize is substantially improved in a crop rotation

system under CA (3- year rotation that includes legumes and a mix of cover crops)

•Water productivity for maize and bean intercrops (grain and biomass yield) is higher than

maize produced in a mono-crop under CA

•Water productivity for maize and cowpea intercrops (grain and biomass) is lower than both

maize produced in a mono-crop and maize and bean intercrops.

86.86667 42.8 63.57333 82.9333333.820.7219.44 17.408

100

Biomass kg/m3

Biomass data(kg/m3)

7.2 Water productivity for gardening systems

Both Phumelele Hlongwane of Ezibomvini village and Ntombakhe Zikode of Eqeleni village in Bergville

established experiments to investigate water productivity in their household vegetable gardening

systems. Their experiment consisted of:

•Trench bed under tunnel, with mulching (shading) and

•trench bed without shading with mulching and

•Normal bed (this is the control bed, planted in the “normal” way that these participants

have been preparing vegetable production beds- mostly dug over, with some manure added

in the planting holes.)

They both planted spinach for this experiment which ran from 2nd of July November 2018. In both

cases chameleon watersensors wereinstalled inall three beds for participants to explore their

irrigation scheduling and participants also recorded amount of irrigation and harvests.

In the end, only the crops in the two trench beds (inside and outside the tunnel) were compared, as

both participantsabandoned their normally plantedbeds mid-season due to lack of growthand

difficulties with access to water for irrigation.

The tablebelow outlines WP determined using both the weather station data and the simpler version

of water applied that farmers prefer.

Table 20: Water productivity for gardening practices for two participants from Bergville; July-Aug 2018

*Note; irrigation records for NZ were not very reliable and from inspection show more water applied in her tunnel than is likely the case.

Thus the difference in WP for farmers’ method for NZ do not follow the trend.

From the table, the WP results (scientific) indicate that the WP for the trench beds inside the tunnel

is around double that of the WP outside the tunnel for the trench beds. For three of the four results

(excluding NZ’s tunnel inside her tunnel due to unreliable records for water applied) the WP calculated

using the scientific and simpler methods correlate well; indicating little effect from evaporation or

deep percolation –which is to be expected for the winter season in KZN.

The effect of micro climate control (shade cloth tunnel) on crop production ismuch more pronounced

than would have been expected for KZN.

If the results of this experiment is compared to the same process that was conducted with participants

in Limpopo (See the table below for reference –from Deliverable 5), the WP in Limpopo, at least for

one of the two participants is substantially higher.

Table 21: Water productivity for gardening practices for two participants from Limpopo (Sedawa); April -July 2018

Bgvl June-Sept 2018

Simple scientific method (ET)

Farmers' method (Water applied)

Name of famer

water use

(m3)

Total weight

(kg)

(kg/m3)

water use

(m3)

Total weight

(kg)

(kg/m3)

Phumelele Hlongwane (PH);

trench bed inside tunnel

1,65

21,06

12,76

1,85

21,06

11,38

Phumelele Hlongwane; trench

bed outside tunnel

0,83

5,32

6,45

1,75

5,32

3,04

Ntombakhe Zikode (NZ); trench

bed inside tunnel

1,65

17,71

10,73

2,37

17,71

7,47

Ntombakhe Zikode; trench bed

outside tunnel

0,50

3,35

6,76

0,53

3,35

6,33

Simple scientific method (ET)

Farmers' method (Water applied)

Name of famer

water

use

(m3)

Total

weight (kg)

(kg/m3)

water

use (m3)

Total weight

(kg)

WP (kg/m3)

Christina Thobejane (Tunnel;

trench beds, with mulch)

0,8

48,9

1,10

48,9

56,7

Christina Thobejane (Furrows and

ridges with mulch)

0,5

24,5

46,4

3,91

24,5

Christina trench outside

0,8

14,7

18,4

2,93

14,7

11,3

Nora Mahlako (Tunnel;trench

beds without mulch)

0,8

19,6

9,47

19,6

One of the reasons for this trend could be that the participants in Bergville were in fact over-irrigating

their beds initially, an assumption corroborated by the Chameleon water sensor data presented

below. The Bergville participants kept more to the suggested practice of using the drip kits and then

added water by hand if they thought that their beds looked dry. They did not water according the

chameleon sensor readings. It would appear that the suggested practice of one bucket (20l) per day

for the dripping system in fact led to overwatering. This could also be due to the fact that these crops

were grown during the winter and that water demand in this period is lower.

Cost-benefit analysis for the Gardening systems in Limpopo and KZN

Bergville cost-benefit

A cost-benefit analysis for the trench beds in and outside tunnels for the Bergville area is shown in the

table below. The calculation was done by comparing the cost of the water applied with income earned

from sales.

Water

applied

Cost

(R/m2)

Yield/ m2

Sales

(Rands / m2)

Profit (R/m2)

Trench inside tunnel (PH)

1650

R0,00

2,6

R26

R26,00

Trench inside tunnel (NZ)

1650

R13,12

2,6

R26

R12,80

Trench outside tunnel (PH)

830

R0,00

1,6

R16

R16,00

Trench outside tunnel (NZ)

830

R6,64

1,6

R16

R9,36

This indicatesthe income potential for these smalltunnels to be around R400 for a 3month period,

growing spinach and assuming water does not need to be paid for. Note that in some cases

participants are paying R300/2500l to have their Jo-Jo tanks filled up. In this case the profitability

reduces dramatically to around R12,8/m2(assume 15m2of planting inside and outside the tunnel)

The participants also visually compared the growth of the spinach crop throughout the season

The photos below are indicative.

Right: Spinach growing in

Phumelele’s Tunnel Far Right:

Spinach growing outside the

tunnel

Right: Spinach harvested from

trench bed insidetunnel and Far

Right: spinah harvested from

outside the tunnels

From observations, the

quality of the spinach in

the tunnel is better than

that of the spinach ouside

the tunnel, spinach leaves

outside the tunnel are

darker and shorter

compared to those inside

the tunnel.

Sedawa Cost benefit

AA rough estimate of cost nad benefit for Christinah thobejane in Limpopo is shown below. This small

table assumes payment for water, as this has been the case in Limpopo.

Water

Cost

(R/m2)

Yield

Sales

(Rands/ m2)

Profit

(R/m2)

Trench inside tunnel

1100

R18,70

6 bundles/m2

R60

R41,30

Trench outside tunnel

2926

R48,80

4,2 bundles/m2

R42

-R6,80

Furrows and ridges

3913

R130,40

2,4 bundles/m2

R24

-R106,40

From a water use efficiency point of view, planting in a trench bed without shading (microclimate

management) requires 2.9 times the amount of water required in a deep trench under shade cloth.

The quantities of spinach produced in the tunnel are much higher than those produced outside the

tunnel. The cost-benefit analysis above indicates, that if water needs to be bought, it would only be

profitable to plant inside the tunnel. The profit is however not very high in this context (~R620/tunnel

fully planted(15m2)), for a season. Obviously, if cheaper water can be accessed, this would be a lot

more.

7.3 Visual /Qualitative Assessments

This methodology has been tried each year in the Bergville area, as a potential peer review system for

assessing soil quality. Below is the scoring sheetthat has beendesigned for this assessment. This

assessment has been altered slightly in terms of indicators used when compared to similar processes

employed

, to accommodate for tests that are seen to be very similar in the original forms. An

example is surface ponding and infiltration, which in our version has been changed to infiltration only.

For the 2018-2019 a revised VSA has been conducted taking the learnings from the previous seasons

into account.

Some of the indicatorshave been removedas their visual assessment by team members in the field

was either too subjective or could not be done in a way that real differences between fields and

participants could be assessed. These include: soil colour, soil porosity,soil mottles and run-off. Soil

cover is still being assessed, but through a different monitoring process.

It also included some newtechniques, mostly ones from a visual scoring

index for soil compaction developed by Prof. Dr Thomas Weyer from

Westphalia University in Germany

. These are soil surface texture, root

growth, soil colour, bulk density and Coarse pore content.

The implementation team was re-trained in this new methodology in the

field on 22-23 October 2018. Then a piloting exercise for thisnew

methodology was conducted in one village (Stulwane) in Bergville late in

November

Right; Sylvester Selala demonstrates the use of a quadrant to more reliably assess

percentage soil cover.

An updatedVSA manual(see Attachment 2)with the revised indicator

sheet shown below has been produced.

Table 22: New redesigned VSA Indicator sheet for 2018

Visual indicator of Soil Quality

Visual Score (VS)

Weight

Comments

Soil Structure (clods, aggregates)

0 = Poor

conditions;

1 = Moderate

conditions;

4

Shatter test

Soil porosity (macro pores, clods)

5

Coarse pore content

Soil colour (dark, average, light and

uniformity (mottles)

3

Incl mottles and organic matter

Sheperd G. 2010. Visual Soil Assessment Field Guide: Part 1: Maize. FAO, Rome

Sheperd G, Bailey J, Johnson P. 2012. Visual Soil Assessment. SMI and Vaderstad. New Zealand.

Ministry of Climate Protection, Environment, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. May 2016.Preventing Soil

Compaction. Preserving and restoring soil fertility. Including the classification key for detection and evaluation of Harmful Soil

Compaction in the Field. Authors T Weyer and SR.S. Boeddinghaus, Westphalia University, Dusseldorf, Germany.

Soil surface (crusting, siltation, runoff)

2 = Good

conditions

x 3

Assessment of soil surface texture

Earthworm counts

2

Soil cover (0-15%;15-30%; >30%)

3

Revised scale, using quadrant

Soil depth (penetrationresistance to rod

into soil)

2

Bulk density

2

Using knife tip penetration in a

small pit.

Root growth and development

2

New scale

Ranking Score (sum of VS rankings) Max =52

Piloting of the new VSA methodology.

This exercise was conducted by members of the implementation in conjunction with Palesa Motaung,

An M. Agric studentform the University of Pretoria, being supportedin her fieldwork through this

research process.

The assessments were done for 5participants in Stulwane, who have been participating in the CA

programme for 4-5 years: Thulani Dlamini, Khulekani Dladla, Makhethi Dladla, Cuphile Buthelezi and

Mtholeni Buthelezi

Below are a few photographs indicative of the VS assessment and sampling process

Above Left-Right: Doing the bulk density test using a knife blade. A clod ofearth showing good aggregation, organic

matter and fine root system. A soil sausage showing the high clay content of the soil.

Above left to right: Examples of the shatter test for soil structure –showing good soil structure; with porous loos soil

with irregular aggregates of a dark colour indicate of higher organic matter –an intermediate or moderate soil structure

–With a larger proportion of clods that break up into unaggregated soil, but also larger clods staying intact and Poor

Soil structure with a large clod showing very little root penetration and few macro pores.

The small table below summarises the new VSA methodology results for the five participants. This

approach appears to be a lot more promising and will be further explored during this growing season.

An important consideration, not taken into account previously is that the soils have to be moist when

these tests are conducted. Dry soils andespecially those in higher clay soils will show “signs” of

compaction under dry conditions, regardless of the condition of the soil.

Table 23: VSA scores using the new methodology for 5 participants in Stulwane, November 2018.

The veld samples are considered to be high benchmarks tocompare the croppingplots against.

Sampled plots (from the CA trial plots) were two maize only plots and two maize and beans plots for

each participant. From the table above the following observations can be made:

The score ranges are:

VSA Score

Name and Surname

CA Maize

CA Maize + Beans

Veld

Mthuleni Dlamini

24,5

Khulekani Ddladla

34,5

31,5

Makhethi Dladla

Cuphile Buthelezi

Thulani Dlamini

26,5

Visual Soil Quality Assessment

Ranking score

Poor

0-20

Moderate

21-35

Good

36-52

•For the veld samples, even though they are meant to be high benchmarks only 3 of the 5

samples can be considered good under the VS assessment. This means that soil conditions

generally in the Bergville area tend towards compaction, lack of soil aggregation and low to

medium organic matter, even in undisturbed soils.

•The farmer who has been the most successful in changing his soils for the better through his

CA implementation is Kulekani Dladla, where the results for both his CA Maize only and CA

maize and bean intercropped plots are higher than the veld benchmark, although the overall

rating is still considered as moderate. In real terms this is a significant outcome- being able

to improve soils’ health and structure above that of the surrounding veld.

•For three of the five farmers their VS assessment is higher for their CA maize plots than their

CA Maize and Bean intercropped plots.

•Soil characteristics that gave similar scores across the different farmers and plots are soil

surface texture and soil depth. This points towards the general compaction of soils in the

area and slow build -up of organic matter, even in the CA plots.

•Soil characteristics that differed between farmers and their different trial plots include soil

structure (aggregates), soil porosity and bulk density. This indicates that these soil

characteristics are being affected positively through the CA cropping practices.

•There were zero earthworm counts throughout the whole system, including the veld plots.

The re-orientedVSA process is much more able to provide a qualitative assessment of individual’s

fields and the effect of their cropping practices on their soil characteristics.

8. Work Plan

Deliverables Still to to be completed in the forthcoming years (2019-2021) are summarised below

Table 24: Work plan for 2019-2021

FINANCIAL YEAR 2019/2020

Report: Appropriate

quantitative

measurement

procedures for

verification of the

visual indicators.

Set up farmer and researcher level experimentation. Link

proxies and benchmarks to quantitative research to verify

and formalise. Explore potential incentive schemes and

financing mechanisms.Conduct survey of present

knowledge mediation processes in community and

smallholder settings???

1 August

2019

Interim report: results

of pilots, season 2

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a

range of CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs

in each site and the decisions support system. Create

knowledge mediation productions, manuals,

handouts and other resources necessary for learning

and implementation.

31 January

2020

FINANCIAL YEAR 2020/2021

Final report: Results of

pilots, season

Pilot chosen collaborative strategies for introduction of a

range of CSA and WSC strategies, working with the CoPs

in each site and the decisions support system. Create

knowledge mediation productions, manuals, handouts

and other resources necessary for learning and

implementation.

1 May

2020

Final Report:

Consolidation and

finalisation of decision

support system

Finalisation of criteria and practices, introduction of

new ideas and innovations, updating of decision

support system

3 July

2020

Final report -

Summarise and

disseminate

recommendations for

best practice options.

Summarise and disseminate recommendations for

best practice options for knowledge mediation and CSA

and SWC techniques for prioritized bioclimatic regions

7 August

2020

In addition, the following activities are to be given attention

Theme

Activities

Practices

Inclusion of more practices in the 1pagers

Initial web design and online survey for the DSS

Exploration of potential practices (more expertise and refinement required); spring

protection, furrow irrigation, improved irrigation practices, windbreaks, fodder

production, crop calendars, seed saving, drought and bird resistant varieties,

Knowledge mediation products: Manuals, learning materials, participatory video

Process

Ongoing facilitation (learning, mentoring and monitoring) process to be conducted

with the 7 established learning groups across three provinces

Strengthening of stakeholder CoPs. Set up of learning and sharing events.

Dissemination workshops

Monitoring and

Evaluation

Participatory impact assessments in all provinces, with the next round of CSA

implementation

Continue write up monitoring results (Quantitative and qualitative); summer (CA and

winter (gardening)

Final assessment of appropriate visual indicators

Recommendations; including Pes systems,

9. Capacity building

Capacity building has been undertaken on three levels:

•Community level learning

•Organisational capacity building

•Post graduate students

9.1 Community level learning

This has been discussed at length in previous sections. In summary,learning workshop have benen

conducted in 9 villages across three provinces (EC, KZN and Limpopo) with a total of 250 participants

including a number of topicsincluding; scientific and community level understanding of climate

change and weather variability, impact of climatechange on production, adaptive measures,

introduction to a range of CSA practices, farmer level experimentation and practical learning for a

range of CSA practices. Some of the themes for learning workshops and demonstrations were:

•Tunnel construction and installation, use and maintenance of bucket dripkits (Bergville,

Madzikane, Turkey)

•Use of measurements in tunnel experimentation process; including rain gauges and

chameleon water sensors and procedures for measuring amounts of irrigation and harvests

(Sedawa, Ezibomvini, Mhlwazini)

•Soil fertility management using trench beds, shallow trenches and eco-circle beds (Bergville,

Swayimane, Turkey

•Building and maintaining tower gardens for greywater management (Turkey, Dimbaza,

Swayimane, Ezibomvini, Mhlwazini, Thamela)

•Spring protection and reticulation of water form springs and boreholes (Lepelle, Sedawa,

Turkey, Ezibomvini and Eqeleni) and

•Fodder production and management (incl fodder species, supplementation, making and

baling hay) (Stulwane, Ezibomvini and Eqeleni)

9.2 Organisational capacity building

Within 3 NGOs (MDF, Lima RDf and AWARD) capacity of field staff to facilitate and work with climate

change concepts and facilitation of CSA at community level has been enhanced through:

Collaborative design of workshop outlines and facilitation processes:

•Training sessions in CC and CSA facilitation, including appropriate CSA practices

•Mentored facilitation of CC and CSA workshops

•Field staff managed facilitation of learning events

•Participatory impact assessments

•Setting up of CoPs and

•Attendance at stakeholder CoP processes related to this work (Agroecology network in

Limpopo, Rangelandmanagement cross visit with UCPP in Eastern Cape and regenerative

agriculture symposium in the Free State.

9.3 Post graduate students

Two students that have been registered under this project have left:

1. Sylvester Selala: PhD in Hydrology (UKZN). He never completed his concept proposal

and after two years of re-conceptualising his concept opted not to register for a

doctorate. He felt that his topic of developing proxy and visual indicators and

benchmarks for monitoring of CSA processes was too risky as an option and may not

easily be completed within 1-2 years. He left the employ of MDF to pursue a business

opportunity in financial management services.

2. Khethiwe Mthethwa: She was registered for an MSC in rural resource Management,

but left the programme after her first year, having received full time employment

under the Umgeni Resilience Programme, managed by UKZN. In addition, UKZN only

provides 1 year of bursaries for Masters degrees and she did not want to continue

with the study withouta full bursary. She did not acceptthe payment of fees and

support for field work offered through this project.

Progress with theses: Field work and initial reporting

1. Palesa Motaung:MAgric -University of Pretoria. Evaluating the restorative effect of

conservation agriculture on the degraded soilsof the upper Drakensburg area of Bergville,

KwaZulu-Natal using qualitative versus quantitative soil health indicators

2. Mazwi Dlamini: MPhil -UWC_PLAAS. Factors influencing the adoption and non-adoption of

Conservation Agriculture in smallholder farming systems, and the implications of these for

livelihoods and food security in Bergville, Kwazulu-Natal

Progress: Initial proposals and research methodology

1. Samukhelisiwe Mkhize: PhD Human Sciences –UKZN; January 2019. An investigation into the

factors limiting and promoting the adoption of CSA in smallholder systems in South Africa.

10. Publications and networking

Publications

➢SA Grain Newsletter; CA SFIP, 1 smallholder case study (Swayimane)

Cross visits

➢PACSA –small livestock production interventions in the Umgungundlovu DM

➢INR_ Agroforestry implementation and progress

Attendance

➢No-Till Club Annual Conference- 4-6 September 2018

➢KZN CA Forum

➢Introduction of Agricloud app (www.rain4africa.org) for smallholder farmers –ARC

Presentations

➢Land RehabilitationSociety of South Africa:Annual Conference 13-15 August 2018. Presentation

of a paper “Learning CA the Innovation Systems Way”– E Kruger

➢8th Biennial LandCare Conference; 25-27 September “CA Innovation Systems; progress and

successes” – T Mathebula

➢2ACCA: Learning Conservation Agriculture the Innovation Systems way _E Kruger (2 October 2018)

and Soil Health improvements in smallholder CA systems _E Kruger (3 October 2018)

➢Agroecology Network: Decision Support System for CSA for smallholder farmers in SA _Catherine

van den Hoof (22 November 2018) and Best practices incommunity based climate change

adaptation _E Kruger (22 November 2018)

➢National Climate change Committee Stakeholder Meeting: Community based climate smart

agriculture _E Kruger (11 November 2018)

➢Farmers Days: Joint open day events for Conservation Agriculture with LandCare and KZNDARD in

Nokweja (SKZN), Stulwane- Bergville (KZN), Swayimane and Appelbosch (Midlands-KZN)

➢Agroecology network: Farmer level CSA practices cross visit, demonstrations and presentations

(12 March 2018)

Awards

➢2ACCA conference;

Conservation Agriculture

Champion award

➢LandCare; Best Civil Society

Organisation in LandCare

award.