Assessment of the impacts and Adaptive
Capacity of the Machobane Farming System
to Climate Change in Lesotho
African Technology Policy Studies Network

RESEARCH PAPER | No. 16
Sissay B. Mekbib
Adesola O. Olaleye
Motlatsi N. Mokhothu
Masia Johane
Spirit B. Tilai
Taddese Wondimu

Assessment of the Impacts and Adaptive
Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to
Climate Change in Lesotho

Sissay B. Mekbib
National University of Lesotho,
Lesotho
Adesola O. Olaleye
National University of Lesotho,
LesothoMotlatsi N. Mokhothu
National University of Lesotho,
Lesotho

Masia Johane
Department of LivestockMarketing and Registration,
LesothoSpirit B. Tilai
National University of Lesotho,
Lesotho
Taddese Wondimu
National University of Lesotho,
LesothoThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.
Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network
P O Box 10081, 00100 GPO Nairobi Kenya
2012

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network

ISBN: 978-9966-030-31-3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement

4

Abstract

5

1.

Introduction

6

2.

Literature Review

103.

Research Methodology

22

4.

Results & Discussion

26

5.

Policy Issues

43

6.

Summary

45

7.

Challenges

48

8.

Conclusion & The Way Forward

49

References

52

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 3

Acknowledgement
This paper was produced as part of the implementation of the African Technology
Policy Studies Network (ATPS) Phase VI Strategic Plan, 2008 – 2012 funded by
ATPS Donors including the Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (DGIS) the
Netherlands, Rockefeller Foundation, amongst others. The authors hereby thankthe ATPS for the financial and technical support during the implementation of the
program. The Authors specially thank the ATPS Climate Sense Program Director,
Dr. Kevin Urama (ATPS); and the Program Coordinators including Prof. Francis
Mutua (ATPS Kenya); Dr. George Owusu Essegbey (Council for Scientific andIndustrial Research (CSIR), Ghana), Prof. Eric Eboh (ATPS Nigeria), Dr. Nicholas
Ozor (ATPS), and Ms. Wairimu Mwangi (ATPS) for their technical support during
the research process.

4 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in LesothoAbstract
Lesotho is a landlocked country within South Africa with a population of less than
2 million people and is highly vulnerable to climatic changes. Agriculture remains
a major source of income for more than 80% of rural population in Lesotho. The
arable land is only about 9% of the total land area of 30,355 square kilometers andthe current crop yields are about half the level achieved in the late 1970s. Despite
its contribution to Lesotho's development, the rural economy has been
languishing due to poor land management and farming practices. Among otherthings, the overall decline is attributed to poor weather; declining fertility of landand poor management of water resources. Communities living in marginal lands
and whose livelihoods are highly dependent on natural resources are among themost vulnerable to climate change. The Machobane Farming System (MfS) is afarm practice with high adaptability and resilience to climate change that wasdeveloped by Dr Machobane in the late 1950s. Fields of farmers practicing the
MfS remained green throughout the year. Although there are discernible
challenges for its wide application, the MfS is a very disseminative and friendly
farming system combining indigenous knowledge and technology for high andsustainable production of variety of crops throughout the year. In this study
besides documenting the historical, current status and future prospects of the
Machobane Farming System and of its adaptability and resilience to climatechange, we also assessed the physicochemical and microbial characteristics of
its soil, and presented the challenges and vulnerability of the farming system.
Key words: Machobane Farming System, Indigenous farming technology,
Climate change, Adaptability, Traditional knowledge

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 5

1. Introduction
Of the many environmental problems facing mankind today, climate changeremained as a global concern for its increasing number of impacts on all aspectsof human lives. In Africa, climate change affects agriculture production throughincreased water stress, reduced suitable areas for production and decrease yieldpotential. The situation is even getting worse in countries with low income
populations that practice subsistence agriculture. In this piece of work, theadaptive and resilient nature of Machobane Farming Systems compared to othernon-Machobane Farming System were studied and documented in the different
agro-ecological zones of Lesotho.
1.1
Background information
The Kingdom of Lesotho is a country located in the southern part of Africa withthe land area of 30,355 sq km, of which 15% is considered arable (Flannery,
1977). It is situated within the Southern African plateau at an elevation of between
1,500 m and 3,482 m above sea level. It is divided into four agro-ecological zones(Table 1) based on climate and elevation: Lowlands (17%), Senqu River Valley(9%), Foot-hills (15%) and Mountains (59%) (Cauley,1986). Currently,
approximately 9% of its land area is arable, the remainder of the country being
dominated by rangeland suitable for extensive livestock production (Bureau of
Statistics and Planning, 2007). The highest population pressure is found in thelowlands of the country, where the estimated arable land is concentrated and thisis compounded by the problem of serious soil erosion, land degradation andincreasing population pressure (BoSP, 2007). Rainfall is sporadic and drought,
hailstorms and winters can be quite severe. Even the estimated arable land isdeclining because of the thin layer of soil, limited vegetation and the highmortality of farmers caused by HIV/ AIDS. Lesotho loses about 40 million tons of
6 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesothosoil annually due to wind and water erosion (Flannery, 1977). While weather ispartly to blame for the soil erosion, poor land management and an ancient land
tenure system also play their part. Lesotho has been described as one of the least
forested countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Trees are cut down for firewood andnew shoots are eaten by animals, causing further soil erosion and making evenless land available for agriculture.
Naturally, the agro-ecological location of the country made it so vulnerable tomany effects of climatic changes. The northern and central lowlands arecharacterized by large deposits of rich volcanic soils, while the southern lowlands
are characterized by poor soil and low rainfall. The foothills, on the other handconsists of very fertile land that is associated with high agricultural productivity.
The drainage patterns of the mountain regions has produced deep river valleys,
gorges, and gullies. However, it forms the main livestock grazing area in Lesotho.
The soils of the Senqu River valley on the other hand remained the most
unproductive in the region (Cauley,1986).
The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report confirmedthat climate change is already happening and that communities living in marginallands and whose livelihoods are highly dependent on natural resources areamong the most vulnerable to climate change and have to develop strategies forcoping with these phenomena. These communities have valuable knowledge
about adapting to climate change, but the magnitude of future hazards may
exceed their adaptive capacity, especially given their current conditions ofmarginalization.
In pursuit of commitments under the Climate Change Convention, Lesotho has
developed the National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) on climate change
under the UNFCCC in 2007 (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2007) and identified
technology needs in agriculture because it contributes the most important to thenational economy and on the livelihoods of majority of the population (LMS,2004). The NAPA process identified eleven adaptation options, most of which
address land and water management and agricultural production, following thefinding that chronic food insecurity is likely to be further deepened throughclimate change (MoNR, 2007).

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 7

1.2
Problem statements
Lesotho is one of the countries vulnerable to climate changes due to her
geographical location and agro-ecology. It is therefore imperative for Lesotho to
examine various technological possibilities in agriculture that will form part of thecountry's adaptation strategy to reduce its vulnerability to climate change.
Evaluation of the different types of farming practices (systems) in a condition
where the existing arable land (9%) is even more decreased from time to time is
crucial. Successful adaptation reduces vulnerability and it depends greatly on
the adaptive capacity of an affected system, region, or community to cope with
the impacts and risks of climate change. On the other hand, enhancement ofadaptive capacity can reduce vulnerability and promote sustainable
development across many dimensions (IPCC 2003).
The Machobane Farming System developed by Dr Machobane is one of the
farming systems in Lesotho with high adaptability and resilience to climatechange because of its convenient practice and disseminative traditional
knowledge to the farmers using existing natural resources (Robertson, 1994).
However, there are uncertainties or challenges to the MfS such as intensive
nature of the farming activity, input to expand the system; training to build
nurseries, training to harvest water, pest control methods, etc as a system to awider community.
1.3
Objectives
The present study was therefore made based on the following objectives:
General Objectives:
1. to understand the technical features of MfS and develop scientific ground to
exploit its full benefits in comparison to other farming systems.
2. to develop a base line information for sustainable use of the MfS as its
principle can be applicable to smallholder farming areas in tropical Africa.
Specific objectives:> to identify perceived causes of poor crop production by households> to collect information on current traditional pest control practices> to develop important pest list and type of crop diseases in the major
cropping zones of the country> to determine the physicochemical characteristics of both MfS and non8 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in LesothoMachobane Farming System soils from the different agro-ecological zones
of Lesotho> to determine the soil microbiota as soil fertility indicator from both MfS andnon-Machobane Farming System soils from the different agro-ecologicalzones of Lesotho> to determine and analyze the trend of detailed meteorological data from thenearest stations> correlating the basic field agronomic features, cropping practices, andmeteorological data from the nearest station.
1.4 Justification
In due course of climatic change, some of the agricultural farming fields
practicing Machobane Farming System remained unaffected and appeared
green throughout the year. However, no study has been conducted that explain
why the Machobane fields are green while non-Machobane fields are dry in yearsof poor rainfall. There is also currently no explanation on the impact of the MfS on
the soil's capacity for retaining moisture and making it available for plant growth.
Thus, being a good farming practice, knowing the impact of the MfS on the soil's
capacity for retaining moisture and making it available for plant growth appears
an issue of concern.
1.5
Structure of the paper
This paper is organized based on the data obtained from field and laboratory
work to substantiate the adaptive and resilient nature of the Machobane Faming
System. Data analysis, including validation was done using SPSS and SAS
software. In some cases, results and findings are presented in descriptive format.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 9

2. Literature Review
2.1
Climate change impacts on farming systems in Lesotho
As the case is true in many other developing countries, in Lesotho, more than
80% of the population livelihood rely on subsistence agriculture by raring animals
and/or crop farming. Only nine per cent of the land is arable in the rocky,
mountainous “Kingdom in the Sky”. Even this figure is declining because of thethin layer of soil, limited vegetation and farmers dying of AIDS (European Forumon Rural Development Cooperation, 2002).
Naturally, Lesotho is critically vulnerable to climate change scenarios because of
its agro-ecological location. Rainfall occurs mainly during the summer season
but is extremely variable in quantity and time. Lesotho usually receives 85% of its
annual rainfall between the months of October and March. Data from Lesotho
Meteorological Services reported that rainfall levels in September 2006, thebeginning of the planting season, were 57% lower than average. Although laterains commenced in October and remained constant through December, rainfall
amounts declined as from January 2007 and decreased dramatically during
February and March as compared to the 30-year average for Lesotho (EM-DAT,2008). A shift in precipitation patterns ultimately brings a shift in sawing andharvesting seasons to which unexpected disastrous situations could happen
before crops are harvested in the field. Assessment of historical data since 1961
to 1994 predict warmer future climatic conditions over Lesotho being lower
precipitation in spring and summer and a higher precipitation in winter andautumn (MoNR, 2007).
On the other hand, an increase in precipitation in winter may suggest an increase
activity in frontal systems which may result in heavier snowfall and strong
10 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesothodevastating winds often bring disasters and human suffering posing significant
risks for agricultural production in Lesotho. Every year, wind and water carry 40
million tons of soil from Lesotho (European Forum on Rural Development
Cooperation, 2002). Rainfall is higher in the mountains and foothills and may
favor the animal farming, but, the cropping season is much shorter due to theearly outset of frost which will be exacerbated by climate change. The lowlands
areas are significantly drier and crop failure from drought is very common.
2.1.1 Crop farming systems
Crop production is one of the most important components of the farming
systems in Lesotho throughout all livelihood zones. Maize (63%) dominates thearea under cropping followed by sorghum (28%) and wheat (12%), while beansand peas accounts for (5%) and (3%) share of area planted respectively (BoSP,
2007). The North and South western Lowlands, the Senqu River Valley, theFoothills and Mountain regions are the main cropping regions in the country. The
amount and distribution of precipitation and other climatic conditions of the area
is an important factor in crop production activity. The south western lowlands are
the more susceptible areas to erratic agro-climatic conditions in the region.
Maize is the basic staple food crop of the people as it contributes 40% to the daily
diet. Sorghum is the next important cereal used in preparation of porridge,
traditional beer brewing and preparation of animal feed. Beans and peas havebeen grown for long as cash crops and are major sources of protein in the local
diet. The area under cultivation, production, and yields are very erratic andclosely related to rainfall patterns. Other factors such as soil infertility,
inadequate use of organic fertilizers, inefficient technologies that arecharacterized by untimely planting, poor land preparations inadequate weeding,and delayed harvesting are also major factors that greatly affect crop production
in Lesotho.
The domestic production of fruits and vegetables is a source of livelihood for atleast 10% of the population in the foothills, lowlands, and Senqu River Valley(MoNR, 2007). However, this potential has been marginalized by skewed climate
extremes and hazards such as hail, frost, and extreme temperatures, which could
even become more severe under climate change conditions.
Currently, six farming systems or technologies are practiced in Lesotho, namely:
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 11

block farming (Integrated Regional Information Network, 2009), mono-cropping(traditional farming), conservation farming (Soil and Water Conservation andAgro-forestry Program, 2001), keyhole garden (Taylor, 2008), double digging [a24 inch (610 mm) deep trench] and the Machobane Farming Systems(Machobane and Robert, 2004). Data depicting the percentage of farmers
engaged in each farming system is not available. The farming systems arepromoted with the obvious goal of assisting the rural livelihoods, conserving theenvironment, and generating income. However, the response of the farming
systems to climate change impacts, adaptability and resilience property remains
a crucial factor for consideration.
2.1.2 Animal husbandry
In Lesotho, livestock production plays an important role for both economic andsocial reasons next to crop production and it contributes 30% to agricultural
gross domestic product (Turner, 1993). The sub sector consists mainly of cattle(25%), sheep (45%) and goats (30%) (BoSP, 2002). Other livestock kept include
horses, donkeys, pigs and poultry. Cattle are mostly raised for subsistence
livelihoods including draught power, milk, fuel (dung), and meat.
Livestock are reared around homesteads for half of the year due to seasonalchanges (onset of winter), management practices (shearing, dipping) or tominimize the risk of theft. Thus most stock have inadequate ration during long
periods of the year in terms of poor nutritive value of fodder and forage. Farmers
have no tradition of fodder husbandry on arable land or conserving fodder assilage or hay. This leads to insufficient dry matter intake for livestock. Though insome remote areas, rangelands are under-grazed due to remoteness, mostvillage pasture areas support high stocking rates and are severely degraded. The
range land deterioration as a result of overstocking, in turn affects the livestock
productivity amongst other factors such as lack of proper feeding, disease
control, poor breeding practices and stock theft.
The livestock sub-sector is less prone to erratic climatic conditions as comparedto the arable agriculture. Good rains positively affected rangelands and the waterflow in streams and rivers on which livestock depend. However, the productivity ofthe sub-sector is severely affected by failure to maintain an appropriate balance
between range resources and animal population and by adherence to traditional
management practices (World Bank, 2001). A trend of declining in the number of
12 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

livestock and its output is attributed to declining of animal nutrition that has mainly
resulted from degrading and overgrazing of rangelands (Messner, 1989).
2.2.

Vulnerability of the farming systems and challenges
encountered
Although agriculture accounts for only 15% of Lesotho's gross domestic product,
it is the main source of livelihood for about 60% of the population. Agricultural
productivity is affected greatly by climate changes. As droughts have always
been a part of the climate in Southern Africa, its frequency in Lesotho has
increased significantly over the past few years. And because of its high elevation(1388-3482m) above sea level, Lesotho is heavily influenced by a variety ofcompeting weather systems, leaving the country prone to natural disasters,
drought and desertification, loss of biological diversity and land degradation. In
accordance with Article 4 of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climatic Change (UNFCC), these conditions indicate Lesotho as a country highly
vulnerable to climate change.
Lesotho has experienced the growing impact of global warming, as seen from theincreasing frequency of natural disasters, droughts, and emerging signs ofprogressive desertification, fragile characteristics of its soil and terrain, erratic
climatic conditions (including changing patterns in rainfall periods and the risk ofshorter growing seasons), increased poverty levels, and the relative deprivationof the inaccessible mountain region which makes up more than 60% of thecountry. Out of a population of 1.8 million people, 56% live on less than $2 perday, many in the rural areas where about 82% of Lesotho's people are foundengaging primarily in subsistence rain-fed agriculture and informal trade (MoNR,
2007).
Lesotho experienced a prolonged dry spell and high temperatures during thecritical period of the 2006/07 cropping season (January – March 2007) which
resulted in large-scale and irreversible damage to the maize and sorghum crops.
The absence of rains during January to March was the main cause of the damage
to yields, coupled with an excessive dry spell that has prevailed since December
2006 (EM-DAT, 2008).
Migration of the male working force to South African mines and industry had alarge impact upon mountain communities (Arnalte, 2006). Besides this, the lack
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 13

of resources and the inappropriate farming techniques, such as monoculture,
resulted in declining yields and therefore, food insecurity for many families in themountain kingdom.
The increase in the density of livestock is causing land degradation across thecountry due to the over-grazing of pasture. Over-grazing coupled with
deforestation for firewood, has lead to severe erosion and associated loss of soil
fertility. The particular situation in the mountains gets aggravating for the isolationof communities. Inherently poor communication and lack of transport
infrastructure make it more difficult for advice and extension agents to reach themountain communities. Then, people in the mountain remain unaware ofalternative management techniques which could improve the fertility of their land
and their food security.
2.3
Measures taken by the Government of Lesotho
As a member of the international community, Lesotho has signed the UNFCCC at
the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and of its ratification in 1995.
However, there are no national coordinated policy to deal with such pervasive
problem directly (BoSP, 2007). The country puts more priority on adaptive
measures because of its extreme vulnerability to the adverse effects of climatechanges. This includes: promotion of renewable sources of energy for the
residential and commercial sectors, the promotion of energy efficient devices,
the encouragement of energy switching to cleaner sources such as electricity,
reforestation of indigenous forests, aforestation of gullies and degraded lands
and rehabilitation of wetlands.
In addition, other different programmes such as Disaster Management andPoverty Alleviation Programmes, which include social funds, special
employment schemes, restoration and resettlement schemes are implemented
for households that are affected by development activities.
2.4
Climate change adaptive strategy
Climate change predictions are still too coarse to give highly specific guidance.
Drought-affected areas are likely to expand, and the poor have the least capacity
to adapt to the increasing severity of weather events that are expected (UnitedStates Agency for International Development, 2007). To adapt to increasing
weather variability, buffering and diversification strategies such as cropping
14 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesothosystems change (Philip et al., 2007), water harvesting and small-scale irrigation(USAID, 2007), integrated crop management, diversification with higher-value
crops, Government policies and longer-term development pathways to build theresilience of smallholder farmers (Hazell and Haddad, 2001; Pender et al., 2001),
2.5
The Machobane Farming System and its requirement
The following are key features of the Machobane Farming System, signifying its
basic behavioral and technical requirements to adopt as an agricultural farming
system.
2.5.1 Behavioral requirementsi) self reliance; farmers must be convinced that can achieve food security
without external assistance: it is their will that makes the difference;ii) appreciation of the resource base; farmers must be convinced that they can
improve crop production by fully exploiting their resource base;iii) readiness to do hard work;iv) learning and teaching by doing; farmers must be trained on their own fields
and farmer trainers must be ready to do work along with them;v) spontaneous technology spreading; farmers learn from their farmers;vi) Machobane farmers have the duty to help their neighbors.
In Lesotho mountain areas, most crops are grown on permanently terraced land.
Due to poor soil structure, inadequate soil fertility management and erratic
rainfall, land productivity is low and subject to wide fluctuations. According to
Machobane, these constraints can be overcome by rational exploitation of theresource base and minimizing the need for purchase inputs. In the MfS, it isconsidered that intensive cropping of one acre is sufficient to ensure food security
for an average family of 5 members (1/3 of the area conventionally thought
necessary).
Commonly, seven basic crops are grown in Lesotho: maize, potatoes, sorghum,
wheat, peas, beans and curcubits (pumpkins and melons). These crops arerelay-intercropped in a 1-acre (0.4 ha) plot and the cropping pattern allows foodcrops to be produced almost all the year round. To reduce the likelihood of total
crop failure, and increase productivity the Machobane farming system takes thefollowing basic technical applications into account:

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 15

2.5.2 The technical basesi)
The use of organic fertilizers.
ii) Perennial vegetation cover.
iii) Cropping pattern adequate to the varying climate.
iv) Natural pest control.
v) Relay harvesting allowing for almost year-round harvest.
Although the specifics of this farming system may be appropriate only in thetemperate climate of Lesotho, many of the principles outlined here are also
applicable to smallholder farming areas in tropical Africa.
i) Use of organic fertilizers
The Machobane Farming System uses animal manure and wood ash as fertilizer.
For the initial land preparation, approximately 300 wheelbarrowfuls are used per
hectare (120 per acre; one wheelbarrow contains about 25 kg). Depending upon
the type of soil, different mixtures of organic material are applied as required.
About the same amount of organic matter is applied to the field before each
cropping season. By the fourth year, the fertility of the soil will have improved, andless organic fertilizer will be needed each cropping season then after. Plant leaf
litter and/ or remains (mulching) can also be used as effective soil cover tomaintain moisture and decomposing material to the plant.
ii) Perennial vegetative cover
The Machobane Farming System ensures complete crop cover throughout theyear, because winter crops (e.g., wheat and peas) are planted in April–May (forharvest in January–March), and summer crops (e.g., maize, beans andsorghum) are planted in August–October (for harvest in November–December).
Because the system uses minimum tillage (complete plowing of the field is only
done once every 5 years), soil movement is minimized. Crop residues are left in
the field, allowing humus to build up. Because there are always crops in the field,
grazing of livestock is not possible.
iii) Cropping pattern adapted to varying climate
Lesotho's climate is temperate, with a warm summer and a cool winter. Late or
early frosts, hail and seasonal drought are not uncommon. The Machobane
system allows for the planting of cool-weather crops, such as peas, wheat andpotatoes, which perform well in the winter conditions. In the summer months,
16 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesothomaize, beans, pumpkins and other crops are intercropped (Figure 1 and 2).
However, because Lesotho can experience drought in the summer, droughtresistant crops like sorghum (aptly known as the “camel of the plant kingdom”)
are also planted to reduce the risk of crop failure.
iv) Seedbed preparation and planting
In the first planting season, the 0.4 ha (1 acre) field is ploughed. The plot is thenharrowed or disked to prepare the soil completely. A spade or hoe can be used tomake the furrows or rows where the seed is to be planted. In April, the wintercrops (wheat and peas) are planted. A double row of wheat is planted, with 30 cm
between the two rows. Then a gap of 2 m is left, and a double row of peas isplanted, again with 30 cm between the rows. Then comes another gap of 2 m,followed by a double row of wheat, a 2-m gap, another of peas, and so on (Figure
1).

Figure 1: Machobane Farming System: double row of wheat andvegetables.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 17

In August, the first batch of potatoes is planted in the 2-m gaps between the rowsof wheat and peas; only half of the field is planted at this time. Starting inNovember, the rest of the field is planted with a second batch of potatoes.
In October, the summer crops are planted in a complex intercropping pattern ofmaize, beans, sorghum, pumpkin and watermelon. In the 30-cm spaces between
the double rows of wheat and peas, a single furrow is dug. Maize and beans areplanted in this furrow, with 30 cm between the maize plants, and 15 cm between
the beans.
Every 4 m, two pumpkin seeds are added to the maize and bean hill. In every
other row, watermelon is planted rather than pumpkin. Finally, sorghum is sownalong the entire furrow (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Maize intercropping with pumpkin and watermelon:
Mountains (Mantsonyane)

18 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in LesothoAfter the first batch of potatoes are harvested in December, vegetables such as
rape, cabbage, and spinach can be planted.
v) Crop management practices:
TillageOnce the crops are in the field, minimum tillage is done using a spade or a hoe. A
hand-pushed ripper (Figure 3) can also be used to open the furrow to plant thesummer and winter crops. New crops can then be planted without harming thestanding crops.
Weeding
Weeds in the field should be controlled as they can harbor insects and pests, andcan also compete with plants for moisture, light and nutrients. The first weeding isdone with a hoe immediately after crop emergence to break up and aerate the soil
around the crops and to kill the weeds. The second weeding is done when thecrops are about 1 month old. Crop residues are left in the field, helping to improvesoil fertility and hindering weed growth.

Figure 3: A hand push ripper to open the furrow
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 19

Earthing the potatoes
The first earthing is done when the potatoes are at their first stage of flowering. Avery small quantity of soil is gathered around the plant at this time. The second
earthing is done at the second budding: a little more soil is ridged around theplant. The third earthing is done at the third budding, and ridging is done to coverhalf the plant with soil. With the fourth earthing, two-thirds of the plant is covered
with the soil.
Natural pest control
Natural pest control is encouraged in the system, while chemical pesticides are
discouraged. Since some crops act as natural repellents to certain insects, theintercropping practice contributes to pest control. The deliberate crop rotation
helps to break the life-cycle of insect pests. Regular weeding throughout the year
helps to control pests and diseases. Also, some plants can create an unsuitableenvironment for insects; for example, the pumpkin plant has hair which is
irritating. Pest-control home remedies may also be used.
Relay intercropping
The relay intercropping practice offers many advantages. For example, because
the crops are sown at different times there is little competition during the growing
period. Time spent weeding one crop helps prepare the soil for the crop that will
follow. Available land is maximized with the production of several species.
Relay harvesting
The relay intercropping system allows for staggered harvesting of crops
throughout the year, manually. No machinery is used for harvesting. The wintercrop of peas can be harvested in November (as green peas) and in March (asgrains). Wheat is harvested starting in January. The first batch of potatoes isharvested from late November to March; the second batch is harvested starting in
April. The potatoes are harvested as soon as the leaves and stems have become
dry using a spade or digging fork.
Harvesting the large number of summer crops begins late in the year. Greenmaize can be harvested in December–January, and green beans in
December–February. Watermelons can be harvested starting in February. From
March to May, pumpkins should be harvested. Beans in grain form are harvested

20 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

from April to the end of June; rape, cabbage, and spinach can be harvested
during the same period. Grain or dry maize and sorghum are harvested in
June–July.
2.6 Current status of the Machobane Farming System
As part of its broader initiative in African countries affected by drought anddesertification, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) helped
the government of Lesotho to establish the Soil and Water Conservation andAgriculture Program (SWaCAP) as an intervention to encourage conservation
based agricultural production practices (Consolidated Applied Program, 2007).
In the 1991-1992 cropping season, SWaCAP persuaded Dr. Machobane to get
involved in reinstating the MfS, an effort which succeeded in reintroducing the
MfS with 22 participating farmers producing variety of plants such as potato,maize, sorghum, wheat, bean, pumpkin, and watermelon seed. The number of
new farmers continued to increase rapidly, reaching about 1600 farmers by mid1996. The project also promoted soil ripping to break up subsurface compaction
and Bana grass to reduce sheet erosion between bunds and provide fodder. It
was noted that significantly high adoption rates of the MfS were linked to farmerdriven extension initiatives (CAP, 2007). Currently, however, among many otherfactors, due to less support provided and lack of work force, the practicality anddisseminative role of the MfS is weak.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 21

3. Research Methodology
The Study Area

Figure 4: The study area: agro-ecological zones of Lesotho
The study area covers the four agro-ecological zones of Lesotho: the Highlands,
Foothills, Lowlands and Senqu River Valley as depicted in figure 4.
3.1 Data Collection and Analysis
3.1.1 Objective 1 - 3: Identification of the perceived causes of poor crop
production by households
Fieldwork data collection was undertaken using informally structured
questionnaires and field interviews with respondents. In total, 400 households
22 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho[100 from each of the four agro-ecological zones of Lesotho] were interviewed.
The questionnaire comprised of four major parts. The first part covers data on thehousehold characteristics [name, education, marital status and family size…].
The second part covers data on food security and poverty alleviation practices
that comprise household livelihood, the farming system used, household
expenditure, soil fertility, irrigation practices, pest and disease control strategies,
crop diversity and productivity, and natural resource conservation practices. The
third part covers data on climate change and adaptation practices, which
comprises of the detailed aspects of climate change impacts and hazard typeand occurrence. The fourth part refers to Government and civil society's
intervention and their involvement in climate change and its impact by providing
support at community level.
3.2.2 Objective 4 & 5: Determination of soil physicochemical andmicrobiological characteristics
Undisturbed soil samples were collected from five districts [ThabaTsekaMants'onyane (Mountain), Leribe-Pitseng (Wet lowland), Buthat Bothe (Foothill),
Quthing (Senqu River valley) and Mohale's Hoek (Dry lowland) of the four agroecological zones in Lesotho. From each of the selected farmers' fields(Machobane and non-Machobane) samples were collected from the mini-pits atthe depth of 0-20cm to determine the bulk density (Blake and Hartge, 1986) andwater reaction (Klute, 1986). Samples were collected according to pedologicalhorizons based on slope/ relief of the area. Data about type of vegetation aroundeach mini-pit, position of the mini pit on the slope, type of parent materials in thearea and soil texture was recorded according to USDA method.
3.2.2.1 Soil physico-chemical analyses
Air dried samples were used to determine the proportion of gravel (>2mm) in thesoil. The <2 mm fraction were determined using hydrometer method as an index
of soil micro-aggregate stability The total N, organic carbon, available
phosphorus (P), exchangeable cations and micro-nutrients, soil pH and cationexchange capacity were determined using the method described in Badamchian(1984).
3.2.2.2 Soil microbiology analyses
Soil samples from different agro-ecological zones of Lesotho were collected fromfive locations of Machobane and non-Machobane farming plots using (A4 size)
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 23brown paper bags. The samples were kept frozen at 4°C in the fridge until
processing. As good indicator for soil fertility, the population dynamics of Bacillus
strains as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and strains of nonsymbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria (NfB) were determined using the methods
described in Foldes et al (2000) and Kennedy et al. (2004) respectively.
3.2.3 Objective 6: Meteorological data analysis
Meteorological data on rainfall and temperature were collected from Lesotho
Metrological Service (LMS) for the period of from 1923 to 2006. This data wereanalyzed using SAS statistical package.
3.2.4 Objective 7: Correlation of basic field agronomic features andcropping practices
From each of the agro-ecological zones visited, 10 – 12 members of thecommunity were selected to participate in discussion groups. The selection
criteria for participating farmers were based on their active participation in thefarming activity and recommendation by the Extension Department of the
Ministry of Agriculture. The lead questions that were used for discussion were:type of farming system, disease and pest control mechanisms the community
currently using, climate change impacts to their farming system, adaptation
strategies that they are using to climate change and collective measures to beunder taken for future adaptation were raised and discussed at various agrological zones of the study area in Lesotho.
3.3

Climate change adaptation policy issues relevance to
Lesotho
A workshop was conducted to discuss climate changes adaptation policy issues
in Lesotho. The workshop involved an open dialogue with stakeholders fromvarious sectors in Government, representatives of Non-Governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and farmers (private and association holding firms).
3.4 Statistical analyses
Summary statistics – CV, standard errors, skewness etc. were used to summarize
all soil data collected. Students' t-test was used to compare the difference
between the soil properties at each section of the slope positions using the PROC
Means of the Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS Version 8), 2001. The subsets of
topography and soil fertility data were analyzed and summarized by the principal
24 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

component analysis (PCA) using the PRINCOMP procedure of SAS. Principal
components (PC's) were calculated based on correlation matrix. The mean
separation analyses were conducted using Duncan's Multiple Range test at
P<0.05.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 25

4. Results & Discussion
4.1

Objectives 1-3: Identification of perceived causes of poor
crop production by households

4.1.1 Respondents gender cross tabulation with farming systems
More than 66.8% of the respondents of which 51% were male and 49% females
were found to practice the Machobane Farming System. Of the remaining 33.2%
of respondents that do not practice Machobane Farming System, about 56% ofthem were females (Table 1) at all. This finding could be attributed to the intensive
nature of Machobane faming practice which requires more labor compared toother farming practices.
Table 1: Respondent gender cross tabulation with Farming
Systems
Response

Do you use a
Machobane
Farming System?
Total

Respondent Gender

Total

Male

FemaleYes

132 (51%)

127 (49%)259 (66.8%)

No

56 (43.4%)

73 (56.6%)

129 (33.2%)

188

200

388

4.1.2
Soil fertility management
More than 88% of the respondents were subsistence farmers producing maize(81%) as a main staple food followed by beans (52%), sorghum (30%) andvegetables (29%).

26 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

Although the application of fertilizer is still supported by others, most of the
respondents advocate on farm manure application, inter-planting andincorporation of farm crop residues as main strategy to improve soil nutrient. In
their faming system, more than 64% of the respondents were found to utilize
manure (64%) followed by the application of commercial fertilizers (32.8% andwood ash (30.8%) to ameliorate the soil quality. The use of organic manure andash as has been practiced by the community is an encouraging situation that
could be adopted widely.
As there are many cattle in Lesotho, adopting a centralized way of getting manurefrom other kraals to the farm practitioner through cooperatives and/ or any
support by extension workers can benefit the wide application of organic farmingin the country. Many of the respondents that use manure prefer fully composted
sheep manure for application. Results from soil microbiology analysis, supports
this fact by showing that, activity of microorganisms in the farming systems
applying manure increased soil pH (Fig. 10) and ameliorated soil fertility.
4.1.3
Soil conservation practices
The application of terracing as a conservation practice to control of soil erosion
followed by counter farming and intercropping is depicted in Figure. 5 below. The
development and construction of permanent water ways and furrow diversion isregarded as a means to minimize soil erosion problems in the community.
60

Percentage (%)

50
40
30
20
10

RiparianManagement

Retention
Ponds

Windbreaks

Permanent
Water Ways

Conservation
Tillage

WinterCover Crops

Intercropping

Strip Cropping

Counter
Farming

Terracing0

Figure 5: Soil conservation practices

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 27

4.1.4 Agricultural inputs availability
Amongst the many factors that affect agricultural productivity, the survey data
revealed respondents reaction as climate variability (81.8%) followed by noavailability of local/ improved seeds (55.8%), no availability of irrigation water(
47.7%) and lack of money to hire labor and buy inputs (41.2) as major factors that
limit their activity (Table 2).
Table 2 : Factors affecting agricultural productivity: caseprocessing summary
Factors affecting agricultural productivity

Cases

Percentage (%)

ValidHigh cost of land for expansion

78

19.7

No availability of labor (Family/non-family)

66

16.7

High cost of non-family labor

60

15.2

Non-availability of irrigation water

189

47.7

No availability of local/ improved seeds

221

55.8

No availability of machine hire services

115

29.0

Lack of money to hire labor, buy inputs etc.

163

41.2

Lack of market or low prices

61

15.4

Climate variability

324

81.8

4.1.5 Pest prevalence and control
Insects were identified as the major pests followed by fungal and bacterial
infections that cause great damage to respondents crop plants (Fig. 6). StockBorer (Busseola busca), and Bagrada Bug (Bagrada hilaris) were identified as
the major insect pests followed by Aphids that causes great damage to the leaf(>55%) and stem (51.5%) parts of crops, respectively.

28 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

80
70

Percentage (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Viral

Nematode

FungalBacterial

InsectPest Category

Figure 6 : Crop Pest Categories
To control pests, about 44% of the respondents depend on application ofcommercial pesticides, whereas 30% use traditional pesticides on their farms.
The formation of concoction from various plant materials and other inputs wasalluded to during the Focused Group Discussions.
Table 3: Effects of climate change manifestation on agricultural
productivity and community material loss as indicated byrespondents
Climate Change Factors
EffectDrought

Flooding

Mud slide

Hail

Freezing

(%)

Storm
surge
(%)

(%)

(%)

Evaporation
(%)

(%)

(%)

Crop loss

91.7

57.6

5.3

41.9

70.2

49.5

27.8

Spread of disease

72.2

22.5

1.3

12.9

41.7

21.5

12.4

Livestock mortality

53

26

2.3

27

36.9

31.1

8.3

Property loss

14.4

28.8

2.5

34.1

29.8

10.4

4.8

Fertility loss

48.5

41.7

2.3

22.0

40.4

12.9

7.1

Microbial crop
infestation

34.1

9.6

0.5

7.8

15.4

9.6

4.8

Pest infestation

54.8

8.8

0.5

7.8

15.2

8.6

5.3

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 29

4.1.6
The Farming Systems
Different farming systems, including Machobane Moldboard, Conservation
Broad Casting and Keyhole gardening are practiced by communities as
discussed in the Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) in the areas visited (Table 4).
These Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held between 21st and 25th ofAugust 2010.
The different types of crops that are grown at different agro-ecological zones andthe types of disease/pest that commonly affect them are also listed in Table 5.
4.1.7
Community understandings of climate change
Participants from all agro-ecological zones have noticed that climate is changing.
Long period of drought, exceptionally heavy rain fall and drought have been
noticed by all focus group participants. In the mountains area of Mantsonyane,
farmers used to experience early frost due to climate changes, which some
respondents thought could be due to the construction of Mohale dam, suchproblem is now a bit improved. In the other agro- ecological zones, farmers havenoticed the change in climate by a shift in sawing season, early frost, wet and dry
seasons and extremely high temperatures.
The eminent shift in planting season has excluded certain crops like peas andbeans in the mountain areas. The changing climate has also decreased yield
because of poorly developing buds; pest infestation, drought, flooding and hailstorms. In the Mountain and the Foothill villages practicing Machobane Farming
System noticed that it is less affected by a climate change. Sustenance of fertility
from the soil that slowly release nutrients to the farm and conservation of the
moisture content in Machobane Farming System make its resilience to climatechange noticeable. In the Senqu River valley, participants noticed that noparticular crop was resistant to climate change.
4.1.8

Adaptation strategies by the communities in response to climatechangeSpecific measures taken against changing of climate conditions have varied fromone village to the other. In the mountains some participants mentioned that they
were running trials to find out as to which crops would be more suitable to theshifting and short growing period. In the dry Senqu River valley, mulching andreturning residue on to the fields was observed to be the best way of conserving
30 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in LesothoAssessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 31

Foothills (Pitseng)

Mountains(Mantsonyane)

Senqu River Valley(Mokanametsong)

Agro ecological zone
(village)

4

11
3

11

MfS

Moldboard ploughing
Conservation farming

Broad casting
Key hole

Key hole garden (KH)

112

Machobane (MfS)

Moldboard
Mixed (MfS andCrop rotation)

62

Conservation farming

Keyhole garden (KH)

115

Numbers
practicing

Moldboard ploughing

Machobane (MfS)

Farming system· variety of vegetables can be cultivated in piece of land/farm year ro und.
· crops/ vegetables resist disease· sustain fertility from the soil that slowly release nutrients· improve the quality/characteristics of the soil.
· ploughing is always at shallow depth· reduce work load to the user
· not labor intensive· it can maintain soil moisture and ma kes nutrients available· cost effective· It is an old practice when resources such as seed are limited.
· used for small scale farming such as front or back ya rd farms· works year round and sustainable· produce all types of crop ; it is best for vegetables· less expensive with less labor because it is animal traction ploughing· conserves moisture and there is no application of fertilizers to growmaize because of crop rotation· effective maize -peas - wheat rotation adopted after long trials whichhave increased maize yield.
· not well known but it is being introduced· conserves moisture· low cost inputs used
· Easier to manage· conserves moisture, no need to buy inputs and ensures optimal use
of farm by- products; nothing is wasted.
· variety of vegetable can grow in a pieces of plot with a possibility ofgrowing traditional vegetables· conserves moisture and creates less need to buy inputs· Ensures optimal use of farm by- products; nothing is wasted.
· produce taste much better and there is possibility of growing traditional
vegetables, which are not likely to be grown on other farming systems· all residue can be turned under· ensures large scale farming/relatively· no spade used· soil is not disturbed and hence no weed infestation and makes
construction of strips is easierBenefits· There is still a need to apply MFS
inputs for vegetable cultivation· It is labor intensive initially· small scale production system· soil and moisture not conservedwith hard soil clods· holes are to be dug and this is alabor intensive step

· Participants did not mention any
drawbacks of the system

Disadvantages

Table 4: Benefits and disadvantages of different farming systems practiced in three selectedagro-ecological zones

32 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho· Maize· Sorghum· Wheat· Beans· Potato· Tomato· Beet root
· Green pepper· Spinach· Cabbage

3. Foothills (Pitseng)· Farmers use any pesticides as per their economy for applicationfrom the nearby available markets whenever there is an outbreak.
· These days, however, the application frequency and dose ofpesticides increased from time to time.
· They also use a mix of plant concoction (different herbs) such as
Aloe, Rhamnus prinoides.

- These crops are grown in all farming systems.
- All farming systems are said affected by disease and pests- Herbicides used on small areas like gardens- Use of Aloe, soap lather, seholobe*, moroko oa joala*,seholobe and mosali mofubelu*- Using concoction of smelling types of herbs mixed with chillis· The concoction is applied during pest outbreaks· Main advantage of this mixture lies in its being non-poisonous.
· also some buy commercial pesticides for field crops such assorghum, wheat and maize· Cut worm ( and stalk borer (B. busca)· Drought· Drought· Frost· Frost· Frost· Maize· Sorghum· Wheat· Beans· Peas· Lentils· Vegetables

2. Mountains (Mantśonyane)· Cut worm (Agrotis spp)
· Cut worm (Observation is that Sorghum was
not affected by worms in the previous years)· Gradabug* (on vegetables)· Aphids (on vegetables)- Tigatus minuta and Aloe, Onion and Pepper concoction- They also claim using pharmaceuticals such as Acaricides (Dezzel NF*),
Fast take, Avalanche* and Cut worm. They used these chemicals as
pesticides to control animal diseases such as sheep scab as well.

· Cut worm (Agrotis spp)and stalk borer(Busseloa busca)· Aphids (Hoaba* and Boroku*)· Rust and smuts· Blight· Maize· Sorghum· Wheat· Beans· Vegetables

1.Senqu valley (Mokanametsong)

Pest control method

Pests and environmental factors

Crops

Agro-ecological zone (village)

Table 5: Different crops grown and pests/ diseases that commonly affecting them in theagro-ecological zones givenmoisture (Table 6). They have also proposed water harvesting and constructionof small dams for irrigation during dry period as an effective adaptive measure
towards climate change. In the foothills at Pitseng village participants mentioned
several adaptive measures such as:> Ploughing the land while the plant residue is still there> Avoid burning of plant residues in order to conserve soil moisture and not
destroy the nutrients.
> Establishment of appropriate sawing season for different crops in responseto the shifting sawing season to cope with a climate change.
> Farmers used to saw maize in August but, due to climate variability, they
have established the sawing season for maize to be towards the end of Julyinstead.
> Farmers still run trials for other crops and vegetables.
There have been no unique (innovative) measures implemented in Senqu Rivervalley agro-ecological zones. In the mountains and foothills, on-farm trials by
farmers are ongoing to establish appropriate crops that can cope with shifting
sawing season.
4.1.9
Future collective measures to be implemented
Education and guidance to farmers by Government and Non-government
institutions is found to be an important future policy direction to adapt tochanging climate conditions and this could include the use of organic farming
through Machobane and Conservation Farming systems. Community based
discussion forum to seek solutions to impacts of climate change was also
considered an important milestone towards building adaptive measures toclimatic changes. The supply of seed varieties that can resist drought anddisease by government and NGOs is also viewed as an approach to overcome
the problems imposed by climate change.
4.2

Objective 4: Determination of soil physicochemical
characteristics
4.2.1 Soil texture
Silt and clay were found to be the most important fractions of the soil texture asshown in Figure 7 and 8. The silt and clay contents are very important for soil
nutrient retention. These sites can be grouped into two categories those with silt
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 33

34 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

35.4
5.8
8.1
21.2
8.6
13.4

Livestock mortality

Property loss

Fertility loss

Pest infestation

Evaporation or freezing

Floodprotection(%)

Crop loss

Protection to:

4.5

15.2

8.3

5.1

6.1

24.2

Crop
substitution
(%)

6.8

21.7

10.6

3.3

8.1

36.9

Crop
diversification
(%)

6.6

21.5

19.2

1.0

1.0

46.7

(%)

Inter-cropping

0.5

0.8

5.3

2.3

7.3

4.8

Settlement
restriction(%)

Climate Change Controlling Strategies

Table 6: Coping strategies to the effects of climate change

11.9

8.1

15.4

1.0

1.5

44.2

(%)

Mulching

1.8

1.8

0.8

2.3

23.7

3.8

Livestock
restocking
(%)

4.5

16.7

8.8

0.5

1.0

63.4

(%)

Replanting

contents of > 40% (PMfS) and those with silt contents < 30% (QMfS, TMfS,
MHMfS, BBMfS). The sand content in all the sites can be grouped into threeclasses. Those with sand contents >50% (i.e. MHMfS, BBMfS and BBNMfS);
those with sand contents between 35-48% (i.e. QMfS, TMfS, TNMfS, QNMfS) andthose with sand contents ≤ 35% (i.e. PNMfS, MHNMfS & PMfS) (Fig. 7).
Furthermore, the clay contents from all these sites can also be grouped into twogroups. Those with clay contents >30% (i.e. TMfS, PNMfS, PMfS and MHNMfS)
and those with clay contents < 25% (i.e. TNMfS, BBMfS, QMfS, BBNMfS, QNMfSand MHNMfS). These sites had significantly different levels of sand, silt and clay
contents.
4.2.2 Soil pH
Generally, the soil pH can be grouped into two classes. Soils with pH >6.0 (i.e.
TMfS, QMfS, MHMfS, BBMfS) and soils with pH < 5.0 (i.e. PNMfS and BBNMfS)(Fig 10). These sites had significantly different levels of acidity and alkalinity.
4.2.3 Organic Carbon
The organic “C” can be grouped into two classes. Those with org C < 1% (i.e.
BBNMfS, PNMfS and QNMfS) (Fig 11). In addition others had org C > 1.5%.
These sites had significantly different levels of organic carbon.
4.2.4 Available P
The available P were generally low and these could be grouped into two classes.
Those with available P of >10mg/kg (i.e. BBMfS, MHMfS and QMfS) and theothers had <5mg/kg of P (Fig 12). These sites had significantly different levels ofavailable prosperous (P).
4.2.5 Lime rate
Results showed that sites can be grouped into two categories based on their lime
requirements. These are sites with lime rate > 1,500kg/ha (MHMfS, TMfS, QMfS,
PMfS) and those with lime rates > 10,000kg/ha (TNMfS, BBNMfS, PNMfS) (Fig.
13).

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 35

70

Mean Value (%)

60
50
40
30
20

PMfS

MHNMfS

PNMfS

TNMfS

TMfS

QMfS

MHMfS

BBMfS

BBNMfS

0

QNMfS

10

Farm Site
Legend: Acronyms stands for the following representation: BBNMfS = Butha Bothe non-Machobane
Farming System, BBMfS = Butha Bothe Machobane Farming System, MHMfS = Mohale's Hoek
Machobane Farming System, QMfS = Quthing Machobane Farming System, TMfS = ThabaTseka
Machobane Farming System, TNMfS = ThabaTseka non-Machobane Farming system, QNMfS = Quthing
non-Machobane Farming System, PNMfS = Pitseng non-Machobane Farming System, MHNMfS =Mohale's Hoek non-Machobane Farming System, PMfS = Pitseng Machobane Farming System.

Figure 7: Sand fraction. Means with the same letter are notsignificantly different at Duncan's Multiple Rang Test andgrouping (P< 0.05)
70

Mean Value (%)

60
50
40
30
20

Farm Site

Figure 8: Silt fraction. Means with the same letter are notsignificantly different at Duncan's Multiple Rang Test andgrouping (P< 0.05). Legend: refer to figure 7.
36| Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

BBNMfS

BBMfS

MHMfS

QMfS

QNMfS

MHNMfS

TNMfS

PNMfS

PMfS

0

TMfS

10

35

Mean Value (%)

30
25
20
15
10

QMfS

QNMfS

BBMfS

TNMfS

TMfS

PNMfS

PMfS

MHMfS

MHNMfS0

BBNMfS

5

Farm Site

Figure 9: Clay fraction. Means with the same letter are notsignificantly different at Duncan's Multiple Rang Test andgrouping (P< 0.05). Legend: refer to figure 7.

8
7

Mean pH Value

6
5
4
3
2
1

PMfS

BBNMfS

BBMfS

PNMfS

TNMfS

QNMfS

MHMfS

MHNMfS

TMfS

QMfS

0

Farm Site

Figure 10: Soil pH. Means with the same letter are notsignificantly different at Duncan's Multiple Rang Test andgrouping (P< 0.05). Legend: refer to figure 7.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 37

4.0
3.5

Organic Carbon (%)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

QNMfS

BBMfS

PNMfS

BBNMfS

QMfS

MHMfS

MHNMfS

TNMfS

PMfS

TMfS

0

Farm Site

Figure 11: Organic carbon contents of soils practicing different
farming systems. Means with the same letter are notsignificantly different at Duncan's Multiple Rang Test andgrouping (P< 0.05). Legend: refer to figure 7.
40
35

Available P (mg/kg)

30
25
20
15
10
5

QNMfS

MHNMfS

TNMfS

PNMfS

PMfS

TMfS

BBMfS

BBNMfS

MHMfS

QMfS

0

Farm Site

Figure 12: Available Phosphorus (P) in soils of Machobane andnon- Machobane Farming practicing fields. Means with thesame letter are not significantly different at Duncan's Multiple
Rang Test and grouping (P< 0.05). Legend: refer to figure 7.
38 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

4000035000

Lime Regime (Kg/Ha)

30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000

PMfS

QMfS

TMfS

MHMfS

QNMfS

MHNMfS

PNMfS

BBMfS

BBNMfS

TNMfS

0Farm Site

Figure 13: Lime Regime (Kg/ha) in different soils practicing
Machobane and non-Machobane Farming Systems. Means withthe same letter are not significantly different at Duncan'sMultiple Rang Test and grouping (P< 0.05). Legend: refer tofigure 7.
4.3

Objective 5: Determination of soil microbiota as soil
fertility indicators
Soil samples brought from Machobane Farming practicing plots exhibited higher
number of soil fertility indicator microorganisms compared to the nonMachobane Farming System soils. The total count of free living Nitrogen Fixing
Bacteria (NfB) was 5.4 x 105 cells/ml followed by Bacillus spp (1.96 x
105cells/ml) (Fig 14 and 15). Soils rich in nutrients and carbon sources, not only
increase number of microbial population, but also diversity of microorganisms(Colin, 2002; Carlos and Gabor, 2005). An increase in number could also be
associated with the ability of the Bacillus spp to fix nitrogen in nitrogen deficientsoils (Colin, 2002) and has an overall ameliorative effect to the soil pH. Significant
differences were observed in soil pH improvement in some Machobane Farming
System practicing farms (Fig. 7). The Bacillus spp as Plant Growth Promoting
Rhizobacter (PGPR) is also known to exert a direct effect on plant growth byproduction of phytohormones, solubilization of inorganic phosphate, increased
iron nutrition through iron chelating siderophores and volatile compounds that
affect the plant signaling pathways (Joo et al., 2004).
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 39

They are also known for their migration to the aerial parts of the plant for the
mediation of disease suppression activity (Gnanamanickan, 2003).
5.8

Bacillus Total Count (log/ml)

5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4

PNMfS

PMfS

QNMfS

QMfS

MHNMfSMHMfSBBNMfS

BBMfS

TNMfS

TMfS

4.2

District Farm Sites

Figure 14: Total Bacillus count. Mean with the same letter are
not significantly different by Duncan grouping at (P<0.05).
Legend: refer to figure 7
6.2

NF Bacteria Total count (log/ml)

6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8

PNMfS

PMfS

QNMfS

QMfS

MHNMfSMHMfSBBNMfS

BBMfS

TNMfS

TMfS

4.6

District Farm Sites

Figure 15: Total Nitrogen Fixing (NF) bacteria count. Mean withthe same letter are not significantly different by Duncan
grouping at (P<0.05). Legend: refer to figure 7.
40 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

4.3 Objective 6 & 7: Metrological data trend analysis
The amount of precipitation and percentage change over years from 1923 to 2006
in Lesotho is depicted in Fig 9 and 10 below. The highest precipitation wasrecorded between 1954 and 1962 and this fluctuated irregularly as from 1963 to2006 (Fig. 16). Results of the decadal change in rainfall were highest for periods of
1944-1953 and this trend decrease successively over years to the lowest between
1974 and 1983. The lowest precipitation change was recorded between 2003
and 2006 (Fig. 17).
900
800
700

Precipitation (mm)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1923 1933

1934 1943

1944 1953

1954 1962

1963 1973

1974 1983

1984 1993

1994 2002

2003 2006

Years

Figure 16: Precipitation trend in Lesotho from 1923 to 2006.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 41

45
40
35

Change (%)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1923 1933

1934 1943

1944 1953

1954 1962

1963 1973

1974 1983

1984 1993

1994 2002

2003 2006

Years

Figure 17: Percentage change of precipitation over years in
Lesotho (1923 – 2006).

42 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

5. Policy Issues
Climate Change Adaptation Policy Issues Relevance to Lesotho:
Opportunities to the Machobane Farming System
Lesotho is heavily influenced by a variety of competing weather systems becauseof its high elevation (1388-3482m above sea level). In accordance with Article 4 of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Change (UNFCC), these
conditions indicate Lesotho is highly vulnerable to climate change. The country isalready experiencing the growing impact of global warming as seen from theincreasing frequency of natural disasters, droughts, and emerging signs ofprogressive desertification, fragile characteristics of its soil and terrain, erratic
climatic conditions including changing patterns in rainfall periods and the risk ofshorter growing seasons. In Lesotho, more than 80% of the family livelihood
comes from subsistence agriculture. In order to either take full advantage of newopportunities and potential that may come with climate changes, or avert humansufferings that may be associated with its adverse effect, more robust national
coordinated, mitigative and/ or adaptive agricultural development policies
should be in place to support indigenous farming systems based on the following
policy research questions:i) What are the perceived causes of poor crop production by households?
ii) What are the physicochemical characteristics of both MfS and nonMachobane Farming System soils from the different agro-ecological zones
of Lesotho?
iii) What are the soil microbiota as soil fertility indicator from both MfS and nonMachobane Farming System soils from the different agro-ecological zones
of Lesotho?
iv) What information is available on current traditional pest control practices
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 43

v)

including important pest list and type of crop diseases in the major croppingzones of the country?
How do the basic field agronomic features, cropping practices, andmeteorological data within the study area relate to each other?

44 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

6. Summary
More than 66% of the respondents in this study of which 51% were male and 49%
female, were found to practice the Machobane Farming System. Of the
respondents not practicing the Machobane Farming System, , a greater
proportion (56%) were female l.
The study compared the Machobane Farming system (MfS)
to otherconservation farming practices in focus group discussions with farmers where it
was observed that the farming systems resemble each other in terms of yield.
However, the application of MfS to large scale farming requires more work and a
lot of inputs such as animal dung, ash and a special planter. Majority of farmers
consider the MfS as the best because of variety of products that it accommodates
such as nutrient availability and maintenance of soil moisture. It also involves
sustainable crop harvesting cycles throughout the year, which could be a goodpractice for family food security. In some cases farmers are still practice otherfarming practices such as the moldboard farming system (MBfS) despite of being
aware of the known drawbacks such as lack of soil conservation and the cost
involved. The farmers do not switch to other systems because of fear and the risks
involved in changing to a new system from the traditionally practiced farming
methods; besides, these farmers have not had the opportunity to come together
to compare and discuss the advantages of alternative farming systems.
Participants from all areas visited have noticed that climate is changing. Long
period of drought, exceptionally heavy rain fall and drought have been noticed by
all focus group participants. In the mountain areas of Mantsonyane, they used toexperience early frost but, due to climate changes, which they thought could be
due to the construction of Mohale dam, such problem is now a bit improved.
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 45

However, the eminent shift in planting season has excluded certain crops likepeas and beans in the mountain areas. The changing climate has also decreased
yield because of poorly developing buds; pest infestation, drought, flooding andhail storms. In the mountain and the foothill villages, Machobane Farming
System noticed to be less affected by climate change. Sustenance of fertility fromthe soil that slowly release nutrients to the farm and conservation of the moisture
content in Machobane Farming System made its resilience to climate change
noticeable.
In the mountains and foothills, they have been unique and innovative activities by
farmers that involve on farm trials which is an ongoing process to establish
appropriate crops that can cope with shifting of sawing season. In other agroecological zones: low lands, Senqu river valley and the Foothills, farmers havenoticed the change in climate by a shift in sawing season, early frost, wet and dry
seasons and extremely high temperatures. Too much rain has made weeding
impossible.
In the analyses of soil physicochemical characteristics, samples obtained from
the Machobane Farming System practicing fields showed a higher compositionof Carbon (C) and Nitrogen (N) compounds compared to the non-Machobane
Farming practicing soils, which is also with high lime rate requirements. Soil
fertility indicator microbiota analyses on the other hand indicates that the total
count of both Bacillus spp and Nitrogen Fixing (NF) bacteria found to be higher
between (1.96 x 105 - 5.4 x 105 cells/ml) in Machobane Farming practicing soils
compared to the non-Machobane Farming. Soils rich in nutrients and carbon
sources, not only increase number of microbial population, but also diversity of
microorganisms. An increase in number could also be associated with the abilityof the Bacillus spp to fix nitrogen in nitrogen deficient soils and has an overallameliorative effect to the soil pH (Cummings, 2005). Significant differences wereobserved in soil pH improvement in some Machobane Farming System
practicing soils, which could be important criteria for sustainable use of such a
farming practice to the benefit of subsistence farmers and is an environmentallyfriendly practice. The availability of humus (organic material) in the Machobane
Farming System soils on the other hand serves as a very good source of carbon,
which favor and energize the Nitrogen Fixing microorganisms including Bacillus
spp in their nitrogen fixing activity and an increase in number. As most of soil
Bacillus spp are endospore producing bacteria, they are tolerant to heat,46 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesothodesiccation and ultra –violet radiation so are able to survive for longer period oftime in the soil. The Bacillus spp are also known for their migration to the aerial
parts of the plant for the mediation of disease suppression activity.
From the overall trend of precipitation over years (1923 – 2006), the amount of rain
and percentage change in Lesotho showed that the highest precipitation wasrecorded between 1954 and 1962 and this fluctuated irregularly as from 1963 to
2006. Results of the decadal change in rainfall were highest for periods of 1944 to1953 and this trend decreased successively over years between 1974 and 1983.
The lowest precipitation change was recorded between 2003 and 2006.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 47

7. Challenges
Challenges to the Machobane Farming System
7.1 Resource limitation
As a guide principle to the Machobane Farming System, the practice involves theapplication of animal manure and plant ash as important elements to increasesoil fertility. The availability of animal manure for some is difficult unless donatedfrom external sources.
7.2 Competition over land
Livestock presents one of the biggest challenge for the MfS farmers. There isendless competition over land for grazing and land for farming. Basotho are very
close to their animals, but there is problem with management of grazing. People
stop cultivating because their fields are being grazed by other people's livestock.
The Research and Science Development Agency (RSDA) cannot do much itself
to improve the situation, but a new land tenure system probably could. Changes
have been discussed for years, but the new government does seem set onreform. Meanwhile lack of ownership keeps people from making substantial
investments in the land and from taking care of the environment. “Young people
will run away from agriculture if there is no profit attachment”.
7.3 Nationwide Policies and Measures
For nationwide dissemination of the Machobane indigenous farming technology,
there should be a centrally administered sector specific mitigative and/ or
adaptive policy to support activities throughout the nation. As part of its initiative,
the Machobane Agricultural Development Foundation has unique opportunityand duty to work for increased success of the Machobane Farming System.
48 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho

8. Conclusion & The Way Forward
Lesotho has experienced the growing impact of global warming, as seen by theincreasing frequency of natural disasters, droughts, and emerging signs ofprogressive desertification, fragile characteristics of its soil and terrain, erratic
climatic conditions including changing patterns in rainfall periods and the risk ofshorter growing seasons, growing levels of poverty, and the relative deprivationof the inaccessible mountain region which makes up more than 60% of thecountry.
In order to either take full advantage of new opportunities and potential that may
come with climate changes, or avert human sufferings that may be associatedwith its adverse effect, more robust national coordinated mitigative and adaptive
development policies should be in place for the best advantage of the poor.
More effort has to be done with strength towards improvement of productivity by
way of several traditional and technological practices such as crop rotation, crop
diversification and intercropping, good and sustainable irrigation practices, useof improved seed, traditional and integrated pest management practices, a shift
in sawing season, the use of animal manure and ash are some of the good
agricultural practices to be applied sustainably. Farmers' participatory
discussions and soil samples analyses from Machobane and non-Machobane
Farming Systems prevailed the potential of Machobane Faming System inameliorating soil quality at all times throughout the year.
8.1 Empowering the mountain people
Empowering geographically isolated people such as mountain dwellers who lacksupport from central administration and technical advice is crucial to enable them
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 49

take part in decision making activities within the local government administration.
Recently introduced local government policies could be advantageous for
mountain people. The NGOs and other organizations should take advantage ofthis policy and train the people in the mountain, the farmers, in administration andself-government, field farming practices, range land use and livestock production
so that they can develop strategies that come from and are for the mountaincommunities.
8.2 Agricultural Policy development
There is a need to boost government commitment in terms of budget allocation to
the agricultural sector. The Government must commit to allocating at least 10% of
the national budgetary resources to agricultural sectors. Lesotho has only
managed to allocate around 3% annually towards meeting the target set in the
Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security (IRIN, 2009). Anotherpromising approach to boosting crop production and combat climate change
impacts is to embrace the introduction and implementation of innovative
indigenous farming technologies such as the Machobane Farming System (MfS)
as it has been verified and supported by some technical approaches. The MfS
has more adaptive and resilient properties with the application of traditional andtechnological inputs to produce diverse crops throughout the year in the given
plot/farm with several harvesting cycles.
It is more economical andenvironmentally friendly that restores the soil fertility and improves crop
production in quality and quantity.
To disseminate the knowledge to needy communities in the region, it's proposedthat multi-faceted experience sharing program combining workshops, visitations
to model farming systems in Lesotho, networking and distribution of the training
manual and relevant literature material be promoted by concerned national andregional bodies. Such an approach is believed to play an important role inbringing a shift in social attitudes towards the improvement of farming systems incrop production.
8.3 NGOs, Regional and International Agencies
NGOs and other international agencies are playing important role in Lesotho ofaddressing the burning issues connected with poverty alleviation, HIV and AIDS,
the management of ecology and the environment, among others. In these efforts,
a greater role and concentration will be necessary not just to provide the urgently
50 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesothoneeded goods and services, but also to assist with the tools and training items tobuild local capacity and support sustainability. This implies a greater role andvisibility for the technical agents and projects of NGOs, bilateral and multilateralagencies in all agro-climatic regions of Lesotho.
8.4 Science and Technology Policy
Biotechnology is one of the 'key technologies' that can benefit society in many
ways, for instance by increasing the availability and enhancing the nutritional
value of food grains, by eliminating the use of harmful pesticides, facilitating the
manufacture of cheaper, safer and more effective drugs, by improving the qualityof livestock, by increasing tree cover in the country and by treating material in asafe and eco-friendly manner. These benefits to society can extend to a wide
range of sectors, such as Agriculture, Health Care, the Processing Industry andthe Environmental Sector (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization, 2006).
The Government of Lesotho through the Department of Science and Technology
should strive to facilitate the development of biotechnology in the country byerecting high quality infrastructure through the strategy of encouraging research
activities, developing human resources and establishing links between research
institutions, academia as well as industry, and initiate biotechnology curricula inschools, colleges and the university.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 51

References
Arnalte, L., 2006. A farming system for the mountains, [online]. Available at: web
address (http://base.d-p-h.info/es/fiches/dph/fiche-dph-7060.html). [Accessed
29th September, 2010].
Badamchian, J., 1984. Laboratory manual recommended soil test procedures forsoils of Lesotho. Ministry of Agriculture, Maseru.
Blake, G. R. and Hartge, K. H., 1986. Bulk density. In Klute A. (Ed). Methods of soil
analysis (2nd Ed). Agronomy Monograph 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison WI. PP 363- 375.
Bureau of Statistics and Planning, 2002. Lesotho Agricultural production survey.
Maseru, Livestock report.
Bureau of Statistics and Planning, 2007. Lesotho agricultural situation report(1982-2004). Maseru.
Carlos, R. and Gabor, P., 2005. Biodiversity and Ecophysiology of Yeasts.
Springer: Amazon.
Cauley, M., 1986. Benchmark soils of Lesotho: their classification, interpretation,
use and management. Office of Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Division Ministryof Agriculture: Maseru.
Colin, H. R., 2002. Bacillus, Springer: Amazon.
Consolidated Appeal Program (CAP), 2007. Lesotho drought flash appeal.
MaseruCummings, S. P., 2005. The role and future potential of nitrogen fixing bacteria toboost productivity in organic and low-input sustainable farming systems. Schoolof Applied Sciences, (1)1, 1 - 10.
EM-DAT., 2008. The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université
catholique de Louvain: Brussels.
52 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in LesothoEuropean Forum on Rural Development Cooperation, 2002. Rural
development: country report, [online] . Available at: web address(http://www.ruralform.info/en/montpellier_2002). Accessed on the 11th October
2010.
Flannery, R.D., 1977. Erosion phenomenon in Lesotho. Lesotho Agricultural
College: Maseru.
Foldes, T., Banhegyi, I., Herpai Z., Varga, L. and Szigeti, J., 2000. Isolation of
Bacillus
strains from the rhizosphere of cereals and in vitro screening forantagonism against phytopathogenic, food-borne pathogenic and spoilage
micro-organisms. Applied Microbiology, 89, 840-846.
Gnanamanickan, S. S., 2003. Biological control of crop diseases. CRC press:
Amazon.
Hazell, P and Hadded, L., 2001. Agricultural Research and poverty reduction. A
paper presented in food, agriculture and environment discussion, IFPRI:
Washington DC.
International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2001. Rural report 2001: thechallenge of ending rural poverty. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2003. Climate Change 2001:
impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. GRID-Arendal.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Intergovernmental panel on
climate change: synthesis report. Denarau Island, Nadi, Fiji. June 20 – 22, 2007.
Integrated Regional Information Network, 2009. Lesotho: a mountain ofchallenges, [online]. Available at: web address(http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=86910). Accessed 14th May,
2010.
Joo, G. J., Kim, Y. M., Lee, I. J., Song, K. S. and Rhee, I. K., 2004. Growthpromotion of red pepper plug seedling and the production of gibberellins by
Bacillus cereus, Bacillus macroides and Bacillus pumilus, Biotechnology letters,
26, 487-491.
Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 53

Kennedy, I, R., Choudhury, A. T., Keeskes, M. L., Roughley, R. J and Hien, N. T.
2005. Non symbiotic bacterial diazotrophs in crop farming systems: can theirpotential for plant growth promotion be better exploited? Biological Nitrogen
Fixation, Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment. 271 - 272.
Klute, A., 1986. Methods of soil analysis. Physical and meneralogycal methods,(2nd Ed). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Lesotho Meteorological Services, 2004. Adaptation to Climate Change
Technology Needs in Lesotho: Energy and Land Use Change and Forestry.
Machobane, J. J. and Robert, B., 2004. Drive out hunger: the story of J. J.
Machobane of Lesotho. Jacana: Johannesburg.
Messner, H. H., 1989. A report on unit equivalents for livestock and their influence
on National Carrying Capacity Estimates. Ministry of Agriculture: Maseru.
Ministry of Natural Resources, 2007. Lesotho's National Adaptation Program of
Action (NAPA) on climate change. Submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat.
Pender, J., Gebremedhin, B., Benin, S. and Ehui, S., 2001. Strategies forsustainable agricultural development in the Ethiopian Highlands. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(5), 1231 - 1240.
Philip, D., Barry, S., Webb, P. and Winslow, M., 2007. How do poor people adapt
to weather variability and natural disasters today? Human Development Report:
Maseru.
Robertson A. F., 1994. Popular scientist: James Jacob Machobane and Mantsa
Tlala, African affairs, 93, 99-121.
Soil and Water Conservation and Agro-forestry Program, 2001. Soil and water
conservation and agro-forestry project, Lesotho.

54 | Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in LesothoTaylor, P., 2008. Lesotho's keyhole gardens: sustainable urban farming that feeds
the community. Posted on Mother City Living: living green in Cape Town. [online].
Available at: (http://www.mothercityliving.co.za/20080624/lesothos-keyholegardens-how-urban-farming-can-feed-communities/). Accessed on 12 May
2010.
Turner, M. D., 1993. Overstocking the range: a critical analysis of theenvironmental science of Sahelian Pastoralism, Economic Geography, 69, 402 –421.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2006. Lesotho
science and technology policy. 2006-2011, Stella srl, Trieste, Italy.
United States Agency for International Development, 2007. Adapting to climate
variability and change: a guidance manual for development planning, US
Agency for International Development, New York.
World Bank, 2001. World Development Report 2000/01 attacking poverty. World
Bank, Oxford University Press.

Assessment of the impacts and adaptive capacity of the Machobane Farming System to climate change in Lesotho | 55

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.

African Technology
Policy Studies Network
Contact the Executive Director at
The Chancery, 3rd Floor, Valley Rd.
P O Box 10081, 00100-Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: (254 020) 2714092, 2714168,
2714498, 2723800
Fax: (254 020) 2714028
http://www.atpsnet.org

Science, Technology and Innovation
for African Development

ISBN: 978-9966-030-31-3