BUILDING RESILIENCEIN RANGELANDS THROUGH
A NATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT APPROACH

NAMAQUALAND: A CASE STUDYSUMMARYThe Department of Environmental Affairs in South Africa has been implementing a Natural Resource Management(NRM) programme that has been contributing towards the restoration of rangelands for several decades.
Although contributing to adaptation, the NRM programme is not measuring the impact of its intervention interms of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA). A case study in Namaqualand by Conservation South Africa (CSA)
tested whether low cost erosion control structures within the NRM programme would have both biophysical andsocio-economic benefits in South Africa’s semi-arid rangelands. The study found that there is opportunity for theprogramme to provide investment for large scale EbA if they are designed and monitored as such. Monitoringshould include both socio-economic impacts in terms of specific adaptation benefits and biophysical impacts
to show ecosystem benefits. Dedicated training and engagement could support workers’ understanding ofadaptation and the additional benefits of their interventions. The cost benefit of soft (loosely stone packedgabions with brush packing for gullies, micro catchments and brush packing for sheet erosion) versus harderinterventions (concrete structures/gabions) to reduce erosion should be further explored and monitored.

Figure 1 | Location of the 10 paired sites in the Leliefontein commonage and the associated vegetation types, in Northern Cape, SouthAfrica
2 | BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDSINTRODUCTIONMETHODOLOGYSouth Africa’s Succulent Karoo biome in South Africa is oneof only two arid biodiversity hotspots in the world (Myers et al2000). Pastoralism is the main land use activity and decades ofoverstocking with small livestock and dry land cultivation have
led to extensive degradation particularly in the communal areas(Bourne et al 2017). Communal farming communities rely mainly
on state grants as a means of income while livestock production
is a means of economic buffering and increased food security,
leaving these communities extremely vulnerable, especially if
farming should fail (Gardiner 2017; Jansen 2017). Climate change
also increases the Namakwa District’s vulnerability in general.
Climate predictions show further increasing temperatures, rainfall
variability and exposure to more frequent extreme events, suchas droughts, and consequently this vulnerability is expected toincrease (Bourne et al 2015).

The NRM participants within the study area were interviewed
in April 2017 and again in February 2018 in order to determine
the socio-economic impact of the NRM programme. Interviews
comprised semi-structured, face-to-face interviews including
closed- and open-ended questions. A Before-After-ControlImpact-Paired (BACIP, see Fig. 2) study design after Smith (2002)
was used to test the biophysical impacts of structures, specificallyto control and reverse erosion. Ten paired sites, of which six weregully erosion and four sheet erosion, were sampled by trained
participants for sediment capture at the following times:

Ecological restoration projects are largely implemented throughgovernment funded NRM programmes led by the Departmentof Environmental Affairs (DEA). Restoration at scale in semi-arid
areas is expensive, risky and time consuming, when considering
only the direct benefits. It is especially costly when using hard
infrastructure (concrete) in conjunction with revegetation (Bourneet al 2017; De Villiers 2013). Restoration activities in the Namakwa
District focus on reversing soil erosion using (soft) low cost,
low technology soil stabilisation measures through the NRM
programme. These measures were the focus of this case study.

1.
2.
3.

After each natural rainfall event,Before and after interventions were constructed for impact
sites,
Once for surface water run-off during a rainfall simulation
experiment after interventions were constructed.

CONTROL
Gully eroded sites

At present the NRM programme does not monitor the biophysicaleffectiveness or climate adaptation impact of its projects, nordoes it consider whether these qualify as EbA. This case study
investigates whether and to what extent, the low cost, lowtechnology restoration activities conducted by community
members as part of an NRM programme, have biophysical andsocio-economic impacts and can therefore qualify as EbA.

STUDY SITE
The study site is located within the Leliefontein commonage inthe Kamiesberg Local Municipality, Namakwa District (Fig. 1). The
annual rainfall for this district ranges between 100mm and 250mm
per annum, with temperatures between -2.7°C and 35.9°C. Soils
are shallow with 60-80% of the surface being rock and stones.
Two vegetation types are found in the study area, namely
Namaqualand Klipkoppe Shrubland and Namaqualand Blomveld(Mucina & Rutherford 2006).

IMPACTCONTROLIMPACT

Sheet eroded sites
Figure 2 | Low cost erosion control structures tested for efficacy
at capturing sediment and increasing water infiltration into gully
eroded (top) and sheet eroded (bottom) paired sites within theBACIP experimental design.

BUILDING RESILIENCE IN RANGELANDS | 3

RECOMMENDATIONSSOCIO-ECONOMIC
Climate change awareness and training should be built
into the NRM programme to enable a more effective
application of erosion structures. Socio-economic results
show that respondants had a good baseline understanding ofclimate change and the NRM’s work. However, time spent in the
programme or previous employment with similar programmes
did not increase this understanding, nor did age, education,
location or gender. It was acknowledged that training in climatechange and EbA is needed before increased understandingof these concepts could be expected. Such a change should
occur with further engagement on these concepts (Acker 2018).
Benefits of the NRM programme most valued by participants wereemployment, income, job creation, capacity building, improved
livelihoods and increased food security (Fig. 3). Other co-benefits,
which support resilience in the landscape, such as increased
community involvement, healthier animals, more successful
farming and more water, were not considered to be received fromthe programme. Further training would emphasise these linkages.

BIOPHYSICAL
Low-cost, low-technology restoration treatments
for gully erosion significantly increased sedimentcapture and water infiltration. In gully eroded sites, the use ofsoft options, specifically low-cost gabions and brush-packing,resulted in statistically significantly higher sediment capture(reversing erosion) at impact versus control treatments (Fig. 4).
In sheet erosion sites, the low-cost structures (micro-catchments
and brushpacking) did not make a difference. The low-costinterventions increased water infiltration into the soil at both gully
and sheet erosion sites (Fig. 4), presumably due to decreased
water run-off in response to the structures. The results show
effects after one rainy season. It is recommended that the sites
are monitored over time. Long term data will help assess the costeffectiveness of EbA and the increased resilience of the ecosystemthrough the NRM programme investment. Monitoring the socioeconomic benefits of the programme as well as the impact ofspecific adaptation training will demonstrate the additional
benefits the programme provides in terms of resilience.

**

**

**
***

*

Figure 3 | Responses from respondents
when asked to list the benefits associatedwith the NRM programme.

*Figure 4 | Differences in soil infiltration (left) and sediment capture (right) at gully and sheet
eroded sites. Different number of stars above bars indicate statistical difference.

CLIMATE CHANGE AWARENESS AND TRAINING SHOULD

LOW-COST,BE BUILT INTO THE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENTTREATMENTS FOR GULLY EROSION AS PART OFLOW-TECHNOLOGYRESTORATION(NRM) PROGRAMME OF WORK.

NRM IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASEDSEDIMENT CAPTURE AND WATER INFILTRATION, THUS
SUPPORTING ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE AND SERVICEUNSKILLED,TO

SUPERVISEDCONSTRUCTSTRUCTURES.

WORKERS

LOW-COST,HOWEVER,NRM

ARE

ABLE

LOW-TECHNOLOGYWORKERS

AND

OFFICIALS SHOULD COMPLETE TRAINING TO ENABLE A
MORE EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF EROSION CONTROLSTRUCTURES.

CONCLUSION
Monitoring both the biophysical and thesocio-economic benefits of the programme,
as well as the impact of specific adaptation
training, will demonstrate the additional
benefits the programme provides withregards to long term resilience.

PROVISION. THESE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE SCALED UP
IN FUTURE.
LONGER TERM MONITORING OF BIOPHYSICAL AND
SOCIO-ECONOMIC

ELEMENTSWOULDFURTHERCONTRIBUTE TO THE EVIDENCE BASE FOR NRM AS AN
EFFECTIVE EbA.

REFERENCESAcker C et al 2018. Promoting positive social change through conservation programs. Proceedings of the National Wetlands Indaba,Kimberley, South Africa, http://www.nationalwetlandsindaba2018.com; Bourne A et al 2015 A Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment.
Report to Conservation South Africa, Cape Town; Bourne A et al 2017 Plant Ecology 218, DOI: 10.1007/s11258-016-0644-3; De Villiers
A 2013 Ecosystem-based Adaptation report to Conservation South Africa, Cape Town; Gardiner M 2017 Kamiesberg Socio-economic
Survey report to Conservation South Africa, Cape Town; Jansen C 2017 Biodiversity and Stewardship initiative report to Conservation
South Africa, Cape Town; Myers N et al 2000 Nature 403:853–858, https://www-nature-com.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/articles/35002501.pdf;
Mucina L and Rutherford MC (eds) 2006 Strelitzia 19, https://www.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Strelitzia-19.pdf; 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.
For more details on this study, please see the full CSA report.

All photos and figures by © Conservation South Africa.

This research was conducted as part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI) project ‘Ecosystembased approaches to adaptation: strengthening the evidence and informing policy.’ The projectis led by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) with IUCN and the UN
Environment Word Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). The German Federal Ministryfor the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) supports the IKI on the basisof a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. The views in this publication do not necessarilyreflect those of the project donor or partner organisations.