A CASE STUDY:
BUILDING RESILIENCE IN
RANGELANDS THROUGH
A NATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT MODEL
Ecosystem-based approaches
to adaptation: strengthening theevidence and informing policy

Halcyone Muller
Heidi-Jayne Hawkins
Sarshen Scorgie
November 2019

Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
Materials and methods .................................................................................................... 6
Climate and biophysical characteristics of the study area ............................. 6
Socio-economic characteristics of the study area ............................................. 7
Socio-economic survey .............................................................................................. 7
Biophysical study design ........................................................................................... 7
Statistics .......................................................................................................................... 8
Results .................................................................................................................................. 10
Socio-economic survey ............................................................................................. 10
Biophysical study ......................................................................................................... 11
Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 12
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 13
References ......................................................................................................................... 13

2 | BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS

Acronyms
BACIP			Before-After-Controlled-Impact-Paired study design

CSA 			

Conservation South Africa

DEA			

Department of Environmental Affairs

EbA			Ecosystem-based Adaptation
EPWP			

Expanded Public Works Programme

IIED 			International Institute for Environment and Development

IUCN			

International Union for Conservation of Nature

SANParks		

South African National Parks

UNEP-WCMC		

United Nations Environment Programme - World 					Conservation Monitoring Centre
WfWet			Working for Wetlands programme

BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS | 3

Introduction
The Succulent Karoo, including Namaqualand is globally
recognized as a semi-arid biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al 2000)
and is particularly vulnerable to climate variability. Temperatures
as well as hot extremes have increased over the last century,
specifically minimum and maximum temperatures have increasedby 1.4°C and 1.1°C respectively, with an increase of 30 mm
evapotranspiration per decade in coastal regions (Davis et al2016). While there is no evidence of changed mean annual rainfall,changes in spatial variability and increased temperatures present
challenges for water security in the area (Davis et al 2016; Reid et
al 2018). Arid rangelands are vulnerable to land degradation, e.g.
loss of vegetation and soil (Bourne et al 2017a). This is presently
exacerbated by anthropogenic threats to habitat and biodiversity,
such as overgrazing of livestock that is linked to poverty, resulting
in a climate-resources-poverty nexus.
Anthropogenic threats to diversity in the biome are not likely
to reduce under present climate scenarios (Driver et al 2003)
because local capacity to adapt to climate change is very low(Bourne et al 2015). Adaptation could take the form of fodder
subsidies for livestock or alternative livelihoods but because theNorthern Cape is one of South Africa’s poorest provinces, many
households in the rural areas rely on livestock farming as a major
source of income beside social grants, leaving the communities
extremely vulnerable should farming fail (Gardiner 2017; Jansen2017). Since the area is arid, very large areas of land are needed
to sustain relatively few animals (Bourne et al 2015). This meansthat farming is on the margins of economic viability and thecontinuous use of rangelands (overgrazing) and overstocking by
resource-poor farmers to extract more income is common, causing
increasing loss of plant diversity and cover (Todd and Hoffman1999) and ultimately soil erosion. Pastoralists opportunisticallyuse ephemeral wetlands to provide their livestock with waterand fodder during the dry summer months (Bourne et al 2017b)
and this may also lead to loss of wetlands and soil if there isuncontrolled and unmanaged grazing. Sheet erosion is the
progressive removal of very thin layers of soil across extensive
areas by wind and water. Gully erosion is where channels are cut
when water flows down livestock paths, roads or areas affectedby sheet erosion. The presence of erosion gullies is a clear signof rapid water flows, plus soil and organic matter from an area.
Rangelands and wetlands provide crucial water, soil and grazing
services (Ziervogel et al 2014; De Villiers 2013) to the same ruralcommunities that threaten their provision, and this problem
is further exacerbated by climate change, i.e. this is a ‘wicked
problem’. It is possible that Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) can
overcome this problem by helping sustain agricultural production
while maintaining the ecological infrastructure that supports thisproduction.
EbA is the use of biodiversity ecosystem services as part of an
overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse
effects of climate change. EbA approaches or strategies consider
ways to manage ecosystems so that they can provide theservices that reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience ofsocio-ecological systems to both climatic and non-climatic risks,
while at the same time providing multiple benefits to society. EbA
uses sustainable management, conservation and restoration of
4 | BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS

ecosystems. It considers the anticipated climate change impact
trends, in order to reduce vulnerability and improve the resilienceof ecosystems and communities. It is important to develop theresilience of farming communities to climate change, by restoring
the capacity of ecosystems to retain soil, provide fodder, replenish
aquifers, store water, and reduce the impacts of flooding. At abroader scale, EbA is not being sufficiently mainstreamed intosome international and national policy processes and programmes(Reid et al 2019). This is partially due to a lack of robust quantitative
data on the effectiveness of EbA, despite information or guidanceon methodologies for mainstreaming EbA into new and existing
programmes of work, and metrics to monitor this effectiveness.
Nationally, ecological restoration and rehabilitation projects
focused on clearing alien vegetation from river courses andrestoring degraded wetland ecosystems have been active
for over two decades. These have been implemented largely
through government funded Natural Resource Management(NRM) programmes, as part of the Expanded Public Works
Programme (EPWP) led by the Department of Environmental
Affairs (DEA). More recently, restoration activities in Namakwa
District focus on reversing sheet and gulley erosion of soil. These
interventions comprise low-cost, low-technology soil stabilization
measures such as un-caged gabions and micro-catchments orponds (soft options). They are expected to reduce water run-off
and increase sediment capture, water infiltration into the soil, soil
moisture content, and ultimately vegetation cover. Conventionally,
wetlands and rangeland restoration in the Namakwa District isaccomplished using engineered options such as caged gabions,concrete water culverts and earth works (hard options) estimatedto cost ca. ZAR143 354 per hectare (Black & Turpie 2016), whilesoft options were estimated to cost ZAR10 350 per hectare(Marais 2018).
Until recently, monitoring of the NRM programme has focused
mainly on activities such as cubic meters of gabions constructed
and jobs created. The outcomes and impacts of these activities,
including the co-benefits, are not being considered. Although
there is presently an effort to develop socio-ecological metrics
for the NRM programmes (Marais 2018), which is a move towards
an EbA approach, we need to quantify the efficacy of thesesoft options of erosion control, before DEA NRM can invest andimplement these options at scale.
Within this context and in collaboration with International Institutefor Environment and Development (IIED), International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) and United Nations Environment
Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEPWCMC), Conservation South Africa (CSA) aimed to test whether
soft options of soil erosion control could provide both socioeconomic and ecosystem benefits (as improved soil capture andhydrology) that support an EbA approach. At the same time, thestudy informs the development of a broader metrics process andtests whether EbA can be integrated into NRM programmes atscale.
The main hypothesis for the case study was that NRM programmes
have restoration outcomes and socio-ecological benefits throughdirect ecological restoration of soil erosion, and social benefits via

employment, training and community driven climate adaptation
activities. Specific questions were:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Is there an improved understanding of climate change
through the programme?
Is there an improved understanding of the programme
among NRM workers in relation to climate adaptation?
What are the challenges and benefits of the programme inrelation to adaptation?
Can low-cost, soft erosion control structures slow run-off
of water during rainfall events in arid rangelands and thusincrease soil retention and water infiltration?

Sheet erosion is the removal of thinlayers of soil by wind and water
Gully erosion is the removal of soil indeep channels due to water flows overbare areas such as roads, livestock
paths and sheet eroded areas

Long-term, we expect that increased soil retention and infiltration
will increase the net primary productivity of rangeland and thus
the resilience of rangelands to extreme weather events.

Photo | A Before-After-Control-Impact-Paired (BACIP) study site is prepared by employees of the Natural Resource Management (NRM)Land User Incentive programme.
BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS | 5

Materials and methods
Climate and biophysical characteristics of the study area
The study site is in Namaqualand, specifically the Leliefontein
commonage in the Kamiesberg Local Municipality, Namakwa
District of Northern Cape, South Africa (Fig. 1). The climate ofNamaqualand is determined mostly by the southern subtropicalhigh-pressure system and circumpolar westerly airstream, withgeographic and marine features (mountains and the cold Benguelacurrent) influencing local climate (Tyson & Preston-Whyte 2000).
Mean annual precipitation (MAP) for the Kamiesberg is 428 mm(Tyson & Preston-Whyte 2000) with an extremely low averageof 138 mm in 2017 (measured in this study). More than 60% of
MAP falls in antipodal winter between May and September as aresult of cold westerly fronts from the southern oceans. Mountains
receive more precipitation than the surrounding plains (Desmet2007). The Orange River, with its origins over 2000 km away in
the Lesotho Highlands, is the only perennial river in the District
and supplies much of the fresh water for the towns in the northernparts, with the rest coming from groundwater. Temperatures range

between -3°C and 36°C. Maximum temperatures vary between
1.8°C and 35°C in winter (from March to August) and 6°C and 36°C
in summer (September to February). Minimum temperature varies
between -3°C and 24°C in summer and -3°C and 23°C in winter(Tyson & Preston-Whyte 2000).
Namaqualand has a great diversity of soil types that can bebroadly grouped into three categories (inland weakly structured
grey, yellow or red medium grained sands from aeolian reworkingof marine or fluvial deposits; coastal red, granite-derived colluvial
soils rich in clay near the coastal plain; and shallow undifferentiatedfree-draining red and yellow sandy to loamy soils (Hengl et al2017), upon which our study sites were situated. Soils at the site
are shallow with ca. 70% of the soils comprising sand but alsohigh percentages of clay (Table 1). The vegetation types comprise
Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland and Namaqualand Blomveld(Mucina & Rutherford 2006, Fig. 1).

Table 1 | Rainfall and soil characteristics (Hengl et al 2017) of the study site.
Erosiontype

Rainfall(20172018)

Depth tobedrockBulk
density

(mm)

(mm)

(g m-³)

188

1013 ± 73

1.45 ± 0.01

7.2 ± 0.04

16 ± 1.2

13 ± 0.5

Sheet (n=4) 207

1134 ± 10

1.44 ± 0.0

7.0 ± 0.0

14 ± 1.5

14 ± 0.4

Gully (n=6)

Soil pH

Clay

Silt

Sand

Coursefraction

Soilorganic
matter70 ± 211 ± 1

3 ± 0.3

69 ± 213 ± 0.2

4 ± 0.3(%)

Figure 1 | Location of the paired experimental sites in the local vegetation and topography within the Leliefontein commonage, Kamiesberg
Local Municipality, Northern Cape. One member of each paired site comprised low-cost erosion control structures on gully or sheet
eroded areas while the other pair had no structures.
6 | BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS

Socio-economic characteristics of the study area
Together with the aridity of the area, a dependence of theNamaqualand population on natural resources (e.g. grazing,
fuelwood and medicines), livestock production and agriculture
increases the vulnerability of people to climate change. Agriculture,mostly small stock (sheep and goats) production, is the primaryland use amongst both communal and private land owners in
Namaqualand, including the study area (Rohde et al 2001). Thereis some cultivation of arable allotments (oats, wheat, rye andbarley) for growing additional feed for livestock, when conditions
are suitable. Crop failures are frequent, and returns are highlyvariable. Consequently, crop farming constitutes a very small partof livelihoods. Herds comprise goats and sheep, which are herdedby day and kraaled at night in stockposts. Boer goats and a hybrid
mix of Karakul, Persian, Dorper and indigenous Afrikaner sheep
are kept in a ratio of 55% goats and 45% sheep, though this mayvary between herds. The mean size of a herds owned by each of
the 42 farmers participating in the CSA stewardship programme isgenerally low: around 51 animals (based on recent stock counts).
The stocking rate (hectares per large stock unit) of Leliefontein
and Paulshoek has been as much as twice that recommended
by the South African Department of Agriculture (Todd & Hoffman
1999; own stock counts 2014 to 2019). Regulations and mutual
arrangements between communal livestock farmers do exist tocontrol land use (May 1997). However, no formal written controls
are in place with regards to stock numbers or movement (May1997).
Animal production is mainly aimed at household consumption
and exchange within families. It serves a savings function withfew livestock owners selling animals on commercial markets(Anseeuw 2000). In the villages where the socio-economic
surveys were conducted, only ca. 17% of the farmers in the
Leliefontein commonage indicated that livestock production anddryland cultivation are their main source of income (Gardiner 2017)and ca. 11% of farmers in the Steinkopf commonage (Jansen 2017).
The unemployment rate among 15 to 64 year olds is highest(31%) in Kamiesberg Local Municipality, where NRM programmes
are implemented, compared to the average of 20% for theDistrict (Statistics South Africa 2016). Up to 64% of farmers in
the Leliefontien and Steinkopf commonage rely directly onstate grants as their main source of income (Gardiner 2017;
Jansen 2017). Mines, commercial farms and larger towns such as
Springbok, Vredendal and Cape Town, provide the main source of
employment to people from the Leliefontein commonage (Simons
2005). Earnings from mining and commercial agriculture areunreliable, as much of this work is on a contract or seasonal basis
and the future of these industries in the province is very uncertain(May 1997; Anseeuw 2000).

combatting soil erosion control (SAQA US ID – 252457, NQF Level
2, Credits 8). All participants were informed about the objectivesof the study, assured of anonymity and given the option to opt
out of the study at any time. Participants within three villages(Nourivier, Leliefontein, Steinkopf) from two communal farming
areas (Leliefontein and Steinkopf) were interviewed in 2017 andagain in 2018 in their home language, at a place convenientto them, during working hours. Interviews comprised semistructured, face-to-face interviews including closed- and openended questions. Respondents in the two years were the same
people as far as possible but some respondents were different
between the two years. The survey was conducted by completing
printed questionnaires and capturing the data using an online
survey tool (Survey Monkey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/).
Surveys were conducted in April 2017 and February 2018 in all
three villages. Generally, questions aimed to understand whether
the programme had increased understanding of climate change
and natural resource management, and what challenges andbenefits participants experienced during the programme. Scoresof understanding of NRM or climate change were calculated bycounting the occurrence of relevant phrases and expressing
as a score between 0 and 1 after logit transformation. Social
perceptions complemented the biophysical study, which tested
efficacy of one aspect of the program (erosion control).

Biophysical study design
A Before-After-Control-Impact-Paired (BACIP, Fig. 2) study design
was used to test the biophysical impacts of NRM interventions tocontrol and reverse sheet and gulley erosion of soil. The BACIP
design is recognized as being highly suitable for measuringchange after a restoration activity has been implemented (Smith
2002). In more detail, each replicate in the study comprised
paired sites that were similar in degree of erosion. Measures ofsediment capture and water infiltration were taken after eachrainfall event, both before the start of the experiment (November
2017 for sites 8 and 9, March 2018 for sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 10), and after low-cost structures were installed (gabions
for gully eroded sites, micro-catchments and sloping for sheet
eroded sites) then after each rainfall event up until October 2018.
Only the ‘Impact’ member of the pair received treatments, while
the other member in a pair did not, i.e. was a control. The use ofmeasurements before treatments as well as the paired ControlImpact approach served to account as far as possible for variability
from other independent variables besides the treatment, e.g. soil
type, rainfall, land use (Control-Impact-Paired aspect of the study).
This also allowed the calculation of a relative difference value(delta Δ) for each site, allowing the combination of diverse sites
as replicates, e.g.

Socio-economic survey
Employees of the NRM Land User Incentive programme weredeliberately targeted as participants for this survey (n = 106) since
it was the programmes objective to inform its future practices.
However, results should be interpreted in the context of nonrandom sampling open to bias, e.g. prone to overestimation of
benefits and underestimation of challenges due to potential
fear of retribution or desire to please the employer. Prior to thesurvey all NRM participants received accredited training on

Where Δ is the difference in sedimentation, runoff or infiltration,
I is Impact, C is Control for any site and t indicates time, and x
indicates a particular point in time.
Sediment capture was measured as the relative position of soil
on numbered, graduated erosion pegs placed at all sites andgeolocated before treatment (Fig. 3). A total of 25 1.2 m iron pegs
were placed per pair and spaced 2 x 2 m apart (sheet eroded
BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS | 7

CONTROLIMPACT
Gully eroded sites

CONTROLIMPACT
Sheet eroded sites

Figure 2 | Theoretical framework for comparing soil erosion
structures using the Before-After-Control-Impact-Paired (BACIP)
design. Paired sites are monitored both before and after applying
treatments to account for variability from other variables besides
the treatment.

Figure 3 | Placement of erosion pegs as part of the Before-AfterControl-Impact-Paired (BACIP) design on sheet (bottom) and gully(top) eroded sites, where interventions were placed on Impact(right) but not Control (left) sites).

sites) or 1 m apart across a gully and 2 m apart along the length of
the gully. At gullies, the third peg in each row was always placedso that it was in the middle of the gully floor. Pegs were installed toa depth of 0.6 m with a maximum depth of 0.9 m below or above
the soil surface. Directly after installation, the height of the soilon the peg was recorded as the t=0 soil level, and subsequently
measured after each rainfall event of more than 1 mm as a measureof sediment capture.

in rainfall events, the study extended over an 18 month period(April 2017 to October 2018). Rainfall events were small, between
1 mm and 27 mm.

Run-off data was collected using a gutter system installed at the
down-slope extent of each site. The gutter system channelled run
off water to a water meter which was logged in real time by a
CR200 series datalogger using LoggerNet v. 2.1 Software. A 12V
DC 12 Ah sealed rechargeable battery powered the dataloggers.
Unfortunately, waterflow between the gutter and the soil surface
resulted in small rills eventually diverting all run-off water
underneath the PVC gutter, making these measurements unusable.
An alternative rainfall simulation and infiltration experiment was
conducted 18 months after treatment implementation for sites that
could be reached with a vehicle, specifically three gully pairedsites (sites 3, 8 and 10) and four sheet paired sites (sites 4, 5, 6
and 9, Fig. 4). A petrol pump was used to pump water from a waterbowser to a network of pipes with sprayer heads to simulate
rainfall at each site. The volume of water required to initiate runoff was recorded. This volume was used as a proxy for volume ofwater infiltrated into the soil.
Rainfall was collected continuously and recorded after eachrainfall event using a conventional rain gauge at three sites and in
the nearby Nourivier village (Fig. 1). As a result of the low number
8 | BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS

Statistics
All data was inspected for normal distribution and assumptionsof linearity before resorting to logit (proportional data) or log(continuous data) transformation as a corrective measure. Analysis
of variance on drivers of response variables (social perceptions,sediment capture, infiltration) were performed on bothtransformed and untransformed data with similar results, using
ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests, or paired t-test/ Mann Whitney test,
respectively after selecting potential explanatory variables frommatrices of Pearson product-moment correlations. Predictors of
response variables were tested using linear mixed-effects models(Harrison et al 2018) with the ‘lme4’ package (Bates et al 2014) in R
(RCoreTeam 2016). Briefly, significance of the overall best-fit linear
mixed-effects models used the maximum likelihood test and t-tests
to determine the significance of terms within the model using theSatterthwaite’s method [‘lmerModLmerTest’] with an ANOVA-liketable produced for random effects. Erosion control treatments,and social aspects such as gender were considered fixed effects
while variables designating nonindependence of replicates (i.e.
repeated measures in years 2017 and 2018, respondents) wereconsidered random effects.

Figure 4 | Rainfall simulation and infiltration experiment using a series of water pipes connected to spray heads (top), which received
water from a water bowser via a petrol pump and sprayed over the paired sites until run-off occurred (bottom).

BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS | 9

Results
Socio-economic survey
The demographics of respondents was fairly balanced with 55%
females and most (79%) respondents being between 18 and 50
years old and the rest between 50 and 70 years old. Over half(63%) of respondents had some high school education, while
only 27% had completed high school and only 2% had tertiary
education. Each household comprised about 4.6 ± 0.2 people
with 1.5 ± 0.1 of those being employed. Much of the income perhousehold (38% ± 2) came from government grants (pension, childsupport, disability, youth and other) while 20% were previously
employed through other EPWP programmes.
Most participants displayed a basic understanding of climatechange using phrases such as ‘temperature’, ‘rainfall’, and‘seasonal changes’ while some included the phrases ‘greenhousegases’ and ‘climate patterns’ (Fig. 5). Participants could also
provide examples of natural resource management wherephrases such as ‘restoration’, ‘increased plant cover’, and ‘groundFigure 5 | Phrases mentioned in response to a question about
respondents understanding of climate change.

Figure 6 | Phrases mentioned in response to a question about
respondents understanding of natural resource management(NRM).
10 | BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS

water recharge’ were commonly mentioned while a smaller
number of people mentioned the less visible potential impacts of
NRM such as ‘healthy wetlands’, ‘healthy crops’ ‘healthy animals’and ‘withstand shocks’ (Fig. 6). More people recognized that
NRM could result in increased plant cover in 2018 compared to2017 (Fig. 6). Related to the understanding of climate change
and interventions through NRM were benefits perceived from
NRM (Fig. 7). Respondents focused on training, employment andthe confidence that this provided rather than socioecologicalbenefits such as water and food provision or resilience to climatechange. Overall the scores for understanding climate change
ranged between 0 and 5 and did not differ with year, age, genderor previous employment (data not show) while scores for NRM
ranged between 0 and 10. While NRM scores did not differ withage, gender or previous employment, scores were higher in 2017versus 2018 (p = 0.04, 2-way ANOVA, Fig. 8).
Over half of respondents (58%) said that the NRM programme
could improve on how it is delivered, and experienced challenges
mainly relating to environmental stressors (heat, cold, wind)
and transport, while lesser challenges were a lack of tools andproblems with co-workers. Most felt that communication toworkers and the employment period were not a challenge (Fig.
9). Importantly, many felt that fetching rocks for gabions at a place
distant from the sites (to not erode adjacent areas by removing
rocks) was a challenge in 2017 but by 2018 only 3 respondents
saw this as a challenge (Fig. 9). The top three recommendations
that respondents made to the programme was that the qualityof erosion control structures should be improved (accounting for
30% of recommendations), more indigenous plants should beplanted (16%) and that the project timescale should be increased(ca. 16%). Other comments accounting for a collective 20% weremore information sharing between co-workers, efforts to maintainthe erosion control structures, and specific training about climatechange. Levels of education, gender, age, previous employment
or location did not influence the number of challenges orrecommendations reported.

Figure 7 | Phrases mentioned in response to a question about
benefits that respondents experienced as part of the natural
resource management (NRM) programme.

Figure 8 | Scores for understanding of natural resource management(NRM) amongst respondents in communal areas between 2017 and2018. Boxes indicate where half of the data is distributed while
whiskers indicate 25th and 75th percentiles.

Figure 9 | Phrases mentioned in response to a question about
challenges that respondents experienced as part of the natural
resource management (NRM) programme.

Biophysical study
We recorded 25 rainfall events ranging between 1 mm and 30
mm over an 18 month period between April 2017 and October
2018 amounting to a total of 188 mm in gully sites and 207 mm
in sheet eroded sites (see Table 1). The low cost, low technology
gabions captured significant amounts of sediment compared tocontrols over the study period whether calculated for all pegs (Fig.
10) or the middle pegs only (p < 0.0001, paired t-tests). The mostparsimonious model to describe overall sediment capture at gully
eroded sites was a linear mixed-effects model (p < 0.0001):

where ~ indicates dependence, and treatment and site werehighly significant components of the model (p < 0.0001, ANOVA
after lmerTest). The addition of soil texture properties and bulk
densities of the sites did not improve the model. The middle ofthe Impact gullies captured ca. 100 mm more sediment than otherareas of Impact gully sites, which captured ca. 22 mm. Some areasin gullies lost sediment so that the average sediment capture in
gullies with structures was between 5 mm and 45 mm soil (Fig. 10).
Control gully sites showed no change in sediment levels (Fig. 10).
The amount of rain per event did not affect the ability of the lowcost gabions to capture sediment (data not shown). No significant
sediment capture was observed for the sheet eroded sites withmicro-catchments, after 18 months of collection (Fig. 10, p > 0.05,
paired t-tests), although this may change over time.
The placement of erosion control structures at either gully or
sheet eroded sites significantly increased infiltration of water into
soils (p < 0.007, paired t-test), presumably due to the structures

**

*

*

*

Figure 10 | Sediment capture at gully and sheet eroded sites
with (impact) and without (control) the installation of low cost, lowtechnology erosion control structures. Boxes indicate where halfof the data is distributed while whiskers indicate 25th and 75th
percentiles. Stars indicate significant difference at the p < 0.05
level after a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test.
reducing run-off. Infiltration was similar between gully and sheet
eroded sites with erosion control structures, and in both cases
was higher than the controls (p = 0.0019, ANOVA; Fig. 11). The mostparsimonious model to describe overall infiltration at both typesof eroded sites was a linear mixed-effects model (p < 0.0002):

where ~ indicates dependence, and treatment was a highly
BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS | 11

significant component of the model (p < 0.0002, ANOVA after
lmerTest). Specifically, the sheet erosion sites with structures had
to be irrigated with between 1291 and 2822 L of water before runoff was recorded at the down slope end of the site. For control
sites, run-off was recorded after the application of between 567 L
and 891 L of water. The difference between application volumes
for impact and control gully sites was less, where control sites
received between 636 L and 861 L of water before run-off wasrecorded while sites with structures required between 887 L and
2180L of water.

**

*

**

*

Figure 11 | Water infiltration into soil at gully and sheet eroded sites
with (impact) and without (control) the installation of low cost, lowtechnology erosion control structures. Boxes indicate where halfof the data is distributed while whiskers indicate 25th and 75th
percentiles. Stars indicate significant difference at the p < 0.05
level after a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test.

Discussion
The socio-economic survey of NRM employees confirmed thatmost respondents were from low income households where
the number of working people per household was low andgovernment grants comprised much of the income. It is evident thatthe benefits of the NRM programme most valued by participants
were a source of income, job creation, capacity building and theincreased food security that this would bring. Co-benefits suchas increased community involvement, healthier animals, more
successful farming, and more water, were not considered direct
benefits from the programme, although respondents were awarethat these aspects are part of NRM.
Participants had a basic understanding of climate change andthe meaning of NRM. The amount of time that participants spent
with the programme or had spent in previous EPWP employment,
i.e. were trained, did not increase their understanding of climatechange, nor did any other demographic variable. However, many
respondents have participated in conservation orientated training
events in the last decade (H Muller, pers comm) so understanding
was relatively high before entering EPWP/NRM programmes.
Whether the higher ‘NRM understanding’ score obtained in 2017versus 2018 is meaningful is uncertain considering that a few of
the respondents were different between the two years, i.e. data
was somewhat confounded, but this may reflect inconsistency intraining between years. Possibly training scores could increaseover time if engagement or training around climate change is
12 | BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS

consistent (Acker 2018).
The potential for the permanent incorporation of low cost, lowtechnology erosion control structures into NRM programmes wasdemonstrated in this study based on reduced erosion (measured
as increased sediment capture) and water run-off (measured asincreased infiltration), despite the small rainfall events during thestudy. Continued monitoring, including monitoring of vegetation
cover of sites, would further contribute to the evidence basefor NRM as EbA. In addition the cost-effectiveness and overall
implications for climate resilience (e.g. ground water level, soil
retention) of this EbA should be compared to gold standard ‘hard’options such as gabions in cages and concrete culverts.
Monitoring will also improve programme management, e.g.
maintenance requirements of erosion control structures,
availability of materials (rocks, brush), and personal protective
clothing. Outside the programme, monitoring will enable thegovernment to raise awareness about erosion management forincreased ecosystem services amongst implementers, land users
and management authorities. Monitoring can take the form of lowcost, low-input erosion pegs, fixed point photographs as well as
rainfall measurements, groundwater measurement in wetlands
using simple and easily constructible dip wells. A pilot Working
for Wetland (WfWet) monitoring team has been operationalin the Kamiesberg uplands since 2013 as part of South African
National Parks (SANParks) Biodiversity and social programme.
This successful pilot project illustrates the effort of DEA todevelop monitoring approaches within the NRM programme
and lessons learned from this initiative can be used to develop
a broad monitoring protocol at scale, which aims to monitor NRM
as EbA through biophysical, social and economic indicators. The
WfWet monitoring team uses a monitoring protocol developed
by wetland experts, WfWet officials and implementers, which
includes the above listed indicators (sediment capture, fixed point
photographs, rainfall and groundwater).
It was interesting to observe an increased response from the2017 survey to the 2018 survey that the quality of erosion control
structures should be improved and that more of the structures need
to be built for the NRM programme to better assist them in dealing
with climate change, which indicates genuine understanding of
EbA, despite no difference in ‘understanding’ scores. We also
note that incorrect design, placement, construction and the lackof follow up inspections and repairs of these structures, resultsin further erosion. Although the construction of low-cost, lowtechnology structures are easy to implement by unskilled but
carefully supervised workers, it is advisable that workers andofficials should complete a course or demonstration to enable
more effective application of the erosion control structures.
The study showed that by implementing soft options to control
soil erosion in arid rangelands, the DEA NRM programme iscontributing to soil retention, sediment capture and increased
water infiltration into a climate vulnerable ecosystem. Thisretention of soil and water supports restoration of the rangeland,
helping to establish a rangeland that is more resilient to extreme
weather events. Natural resource management is also providing
socio-economic benefits to those engaged in the programme andsurrounding communities who depend directly on the rangeland,
further supporting an EbA approach.

Recommendations

Conclusion

CLIMATE CHANGE TRAINING
Climate change understanding was extant at the beginningof the programme but there is no formal engagement aroundclimate change. It is recommended that dedicated climatechange training and ongoing engagement around this, forms
part of the NRM programme, especially considering that
employees requested this. This training would support workers’
understanding of the impact of their interventions in terms ofadaptation, including the co-benefits of their work.

Perceived socio-economic benefits of the NRM programme related
mainly to income through job creation but respondents were
aware of concepts about climate change, NRM and some of thebenefits thereof. The study demonstrated that NRM programmes
using soft options for soil erosion control have the potential tobe implemented as part of an EbA and rangeland restoration
approach. We recommend that the programme includes climatechange training, and that there is monitoring and reporting on
biophysical and socio-economic elements that support climate
adaptation. These recommendations, coupled with an increase in
the application of soft options for restoration may enable NRM
programmes to demonstrate and report more effectively as an
EbA modality.

MONITORING
Monitoring the impacts of the NRM interventions is critical sothat the actual climate adaptation outcomes can be tested anddemonstrated.
Socio-economic monitoring
This monitoring should include socio-economic impacts of the
NRM interventions in terms of specific adaptation benefits andlinked to the biophysical monitoring to show the ecosystembenefits. These indicators need to align with the DEA NRM
reporting processes. Quite a few challenges were noted by NRM
workers and these need to be considered in terms of their ability towork and provide effective interventions. Continued assessmentof the challenges experienced by workers is recommended sothat this can be fed back into NRM programmes, and resources
can be made available to try to address these challenges. There
were notable direct benefits perceived by workers from the NRM
but no significant co-benefits. It is recommended that these cobenefits be assessed so that workers are aware of them and thelink to adaptation can be made.
Biophysical monitoring
Monitoring short and long-term biophysical impacts (erosion
control, plant growth) of NRM interventions is essential, if weare to demonstrate EbA- and cost-effectiveness. Erosion pegs
for sediment capture, fixed point photography for vegetation
cover, dip-wells for ground-water and rain gauges to measure
rainfall as a measure of environmental variation, are all costeffective monitoring options.
DESIGN ITERATIONS
The design concerns of workers and officials should beconsidered, and an iterative process of redesign conducted.
In this way structures will be able to withstand even high rainfall
events and provide more effectiveness in terms of resilience.
LOW COST INTERVENTIONSThe study shows that low cost gabions do increase sedimentcapture and water infiltration and it is recommended that theseinterventions be used more within the NRM programme going
forward, as part of an EbA approach. These low cost (softer)
options can also be used in conjunction with harder, constructedinterventions to support restoration and resilience.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Engineering (hard) options have been shown to be extremely
costly as part of an EbA approach (Black & Turpie 2016). The costeffectiveness as well as cost-benefit of using softer options
should be tested at scale to determine their feasibility as partof EbA in arid environments, especially where communities are
directly dependent on ecosystem services.

References
Acker C, Tarrant J & Magwaza J (2018), ‘Promoting positive socialchange through conservation programs’ Proceedings of the
National Wetlands Indaba, Kimberley, South Africa.
Anseeuw W (2000), ‘Household, family, economic entity; The
identification of relevant economic entities for development(A case study in South Africa)’, Masters thesis, Ecole Nationale
Superiere Agronomique de Montpellier, France.
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B & Walker S (2014), ‘Fitting linear mixedeffects models using lme4.’ Journal of Statistical Software DOI
10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Black D & Turpie JK (2016), ‘Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of
Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Kamiesberg Wetlands casestudy’, South African Journal of Economic and Management
Science 5: 72-713.
Bourne AP, De Abreu P, Donatti C, Scorgie S & Holness S (2015) ‘A
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Namakwa
District, South Africa: The 2015 revision’, Conservation South
Africa, Cape Town.
Bourne A, Pasquini L, Donatti CI, Holden P & S. Scorgie (2017a),‘Strengthening the role of local authorities to support
community-based adaptation: The case of South Africa.’
In: J. Atela, S. Huq, C. Ochieng, V. Orindi and T. Owiyo (eds)
Enhancing Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing
Countries, ACTS Press, Nairobi, 63-76.
Bourne A, Muller H, De Villiers A, Alam M & Hole D (2017b),‘Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of rangeland
restoration in Namaqualand, South Africa’, Plant Ecology 218.
Davis CL, Hoffman MT & Roberts W (2016), ‘Recent trends in the
climate of Namaqualand, a megadiverse arid region of South
Africa.’ South African Journal of Science 112, 2015-0217.
Desmet PG (2007) ‘Namaqualand—A brief overview of the physicaland floristic environment’, Journal of Arid Environments, 70:
570-587.
De Villiers, A (2013) ‘Ecosystem-based Adaptation to climatechange in Namaqualand, South Africa: Cost- effectivenessof rangeland rehabilitation for erosion control’, Conservation
South Africa, Cape Town.
Driver A, Desmet P, Rouget M, Cowling RM & Maze K (2003)‘Succulent Karoo ecosystem plan, biodiversity component’,Technical Report No CCU 1/03, Cape Conservation Unit,
Botanical Society of South Africa, Cape Town.
Gardiner M (2017) ‘Kamiesberg Socio-economic Survey Results’,
Technical report for Namakwa Green Economic Demonstration,
Conservation South Africa.
BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS | 13

Harrison XA, Donaldson L, Correa-Cano ME, Evans J, Fisher DN,
Goodwin CED, Robinson BS, Hodgson DJ, et al (2018) ‘A
brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model
inference in ecology’, PeerJ, 6: e4794.
Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Heuvelink GBM, Ruiperez Gonzalez
M, Kilibarda M, Blagotić A, Shangguan W, Wright MN, et al(2017) ‘SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information basedon machine learning.’ PLoS ONE 12: e0169748. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0169748.
Jansen C (2017) ‘Biodiversity and Stewardship initiative: Socioeconomic survey report – Steinkopf and Bulletrap’, Technicalreport for Namakwa Green Economic Demonstration,
Conservation South Africa.
Land Type Survey Staff (1987) ‘Land Types of the maps 2816
Alexander Bay; 2818 Warmbad; 2916 Springbok; 2918
Pofadder; 3017 Garies; 3018 Loeriesfontein’, Memoirs of theAgricultural Natural Resources of South Africa No. 9.
Marais C (2018), Personal communication, 20 June 2018.
May H (1997) ‘Natural resource management and rural livelihoods:
some experiences from Namaqualand, Northern Cape’,
Proceedings of the LAPC conference on rural poverty andlivelihoods, Johannesburg.
Midgley GF & Thuiller W (2007) ‘Potential vulnerability ofNamaqualand plant diversity to anthropogenic climatechange’, Journal of Arid Environments 70: 615-628.
Mucina L & Rutherford MC (eds) (2006) ‘The vegetation of South
Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19’, South African
National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GA & Kent
J (2000) ‘Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities’,
Nature 403:853–858.
R Core Team (2016) ‘R: A language and environment for statisticalcomputing’, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for StatisticalComputing http://www.R-project.org/.
Reid H, Scorgie S, Muller H & Bourne A (2018) ‘Ecosystem-based
approaches to adaptation: strengthening the evidence andinforming policy. Research results from the Climate Resilient
Livestock Production on Communal Lands project, South
Africa’, IIED Project Report. IIED, London.
Reid H, Hou Jones X, Porras I, Hicks C, Wicander S, Seddon
N, Kapos V, Rizvi A R & Roe D (2019) Is ecosystem-based
adaptation effective? Perceptions and lessons learned from 13
project sites. IIED Research Report. IIED, London.
Rohde RF, Benjaminsen TA & Hoffman M (2001) Land reformin Namaqualand ‘Poverty alleviation, stepping stones and‘economic units’. Land reform and agrarian change in southern
Africa series; no. 16. Bellville: Programme for Land and AgrarianStudies.
Simons L (2005) ‘Rehabilitation as a method of understanding
vegetation change in Paulshoek, Namaqualand’ Masters
thesis. University of the Western Cape, Department of
Biodiversity and Conservation Biology. South Africa.
Smith EP (2002) ‘BACI design’, In: Addel H El-Shaarawi, Walter W
Piegorsch (eds.), Encyclopedia of Environmetrics, pp 141-148.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester. ISBN 0471 899976.
Statistics South Africa (2016) [Online] Available from: http://www.
statssa.gov.za/ [Accessed: 2018-11-07].
Todd S & Hoffman T (1999) ‘A fence-line contrast reveals effects ofheavy grazing on plant diversity and community compositionin Namaqualand, South Africa’, Plant Ecology 142: 169-178.
Tyson PD & Preston-Whyte RA (2000) ‘The weather and climate ofsouthern Africa’. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Ziervogel G, New M, Archer van Garderen E, Midgley G, Taylor A,
Hamann R, Stuart-Hill S, Myers J, Warburton M (2014), Climatechange impacts and adaptation in South Africa. WIREs Clim
Change 2014, 5:605–620. doi: 10.1002/wcc.295

This research was conducted as part of the International
Climate Initiative (IKI) project ‘Ecosystem-based approaches toadaptation: strengthening the evidence and informing policy.’
The project is led by the International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED) with IUCN and the UN Environment
Word

Conservation

Monitoring

Centre(UNEP-WCMC).

The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) supports the IKI on
the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag.
The views in this publication do not necessarily reflect thoseof the project donor or partner organisations.

All photos and figures by © Conservation South Africa.