TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

0The Small Grants Facility (SGF) as a financing mechanism for Ecosystem-based
Adaptation (EbA) in Namaqualand, Northern Cape Province, South Africa

1. INTRODUCTION
Many communities in the Namakwa and Mopani districts of South Africa are largely dependent on natural
resources to support their livelihoods, such as small-scale farming and fishing, and are therefore vulnerable
to the impacts of climate change. The Global Adaptation Fund provided funding to develop a Small Granting
Mechanism in the two districts after its approval in 2014. The Small Grants Facility (SGF) community-based
adaptation pilot project aimed reduce the vulnerability and increase the resilience of vulnerable communities
to climate change. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) was the National Implementing
Entity (NIE) and was supported by other organisations for the executive and facilitatory functions includingSouthSouthNorth (SSN, Executing Entity) and CHoiCe Trust and Conservation South Africa (CSA) as the
Mopani and Namaqualand Facilitating Agencies (FA) respectively. During the Small Grants Facility (SGF)
project, CSA became aware of the opportunities and challenges of providing direct access to finance forcommunity-based organisations and many lessons were learnt.
This overview tells the stories from vulnerable communities in the Namaqualand region (Namakwa District,
Northern Cape) of South Africa that implemented projects funded by the Small Grants Facility (SGF) as afinancing mechanism to deliver tangible and sustainable adaptation benefits to people and nature. It also
provides insights that were obtained through interviews with the implementers of the programme, including
SANBI and CSA, as well as Small Grant Recipients and talks to their experiences of the delivery of themechanism.
Climate finance needs to reach the most vulnerable communities and here is why:
The livelihoods of vulnerable people are often dependent on natural resources that are
threatened by a changing climate.
Many communities in Namaqualand struggle with limited economic opportunities, surviving on less than
R2 500 per month, and depend on social grants. They often have limited or no access to financial capitaland have high levels of debt. Their livelihoods often rely on natural resources that are threatened by climatechange, such as the small-scale fishers of Hondeklipbaai on migrating fish or Kamiesberg farmers on rainfed
agriculture. Rural and poor communities are often the least equipped to cope with the impacts of climatechange due to financial constraints or limited knowledge on appropriate adaptation actions.
Vulnerable communities are impacted by a changing climate.
The impacts of a changing climate, one with warmer temperatures, unpredictable rainfall and more frequentand intense storms, are already being felt across the globe by people and nature. Namaqualand ischaracterised by a Succulent Karoo biome, which receives low winter rainfall and intense aridity during thesummer season. Climate change is further impacting local communities in Namaqualand as livestock herders
are exposed to extreme temperatures, and at times experience limited access to water. Small-scale fishers
make less income because fish migration patterns are changing. Livestock are weakened by drought andextreme cold temperatures. More intense storms erode away productive topsoil, and crop seedlings perish
in high temperatures and strong winds.
It is critical that climate change adaptation projects address the most vulnerable communities
to effectively conserve natural resources and boost the ability of communities to adapt to andcope with climate change.
One climate change adaptation approach that can conserve natural resources alongside helping vulnerable
communities adapt to the effects of a changing climate, is an approach known as Ecosystem-based
Adaptation (EbA). EbA uses nature to reduce the risk of disasters, as well as mitigate and adapt to climatechange, while generating a range of co-benefits for both people and nature. For example, healthy rivers andwetlands can store water for longer during periods of drought and act as buffers against the effects of floods.
Rangelands are better able to provide fodder for livestock during extended dry periods if they have been
rested and maintained.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

1The capacity of vulnerable communities to apply for and access funding is often limited.
Climate finance is critical to support the implementation of adaptation measures in response to climatechange however, significant barriers prevent climate finance from reaching the ground where the mostvulnerable people need it the most. Vulnerable communities, including rural and poor communities, often
lack the skills needed to write successful proposals and generally have limited knowledge on applying tointernational funders as these processes can be complex. In some cases, funders require specificaccreditation or eligibility criteria of local institutions due to concern over the responsibility in mobilising large
amounts of finance. As a result, climate finance often fails to reach the local level or is poorly implemented.

“Channelling climate finance to the ground is not easy.”– South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)The Small Grants Facility (SGF) facilitated the process of delivering climate funding to the local
level.
The SGF was set up to enable the most vulnerable communities to access climate finance by assisting themwith applications and proposal writing, with the aim to increase local resilience to climate change.

2. HOW THE SMALL GRANTS FACILITY (SGF) WORKS
2.1. What is the Small Grants Facility (SGF)?
The Small Grants Facility (SGF) was established under the Adaptation Fund, which aims to innovate the way
in which climate finance is provided to vulnerable communities through direct access by the communities
themselves. The National Implementing Entity (NIE), the South African National Biodiversity Institute(SANBI) was the overall lead for the programme with support from an Executing Entity and two Facilitating
Agencies of which Conservation South Africa (CSA) was one.
The SGF is a community-based adaptation pilot project that has been implemented in South Africa in the
Namakwa District, Northern Cape, and Mopani District, Limpopo, since its approval in 2014. The projectprovided small grants to vulnerable communities, empowered local institutions to identify and implement
adaptation projects, and shared lessons that were learned to facilitate future scaling up and replication ofsmall grant financing mechanisms.
The SGF was approved a grant value of USD 1 211 276. The project was able to offer grant sizes ofapproximately USD 100 000 each to 12 Small Grant Recipients (SGRs) (seven of which were implemented in
Namakwa) for the implementation of tangible climate change adaptation responses. The project was able toincrease the climate resilience of 1 921 direct beneficiaries, of which 1 083 were women, 838 were men and422 were youth.

2.2. What was the SGF’s aim?
The SGF aimed to identify and develop community-based climate change adaptation responses, and climate
proof developmental projects in response to future climate threats while providing economic, social andenvironmental benefits. It addressed financial needs for climate adaptation in local practices to reduce
vulnerability and increase the climate resilience of assets, livelihoods and nature in the two target areas
through a small granting mechanism known as ‘Enhanced Direct Access’ (EDA).

“Drawing on cross-sectoral knowledge to build responses to community based climate
threats and climate proofing developmental projects for future climate threats allowed
for successful delivery of the SGF programme.”– SANBI

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND2

2.3. What is Enhanced Direct Access (EDA)?
Enhanced Direct Access (EDA) channels internationally sourced funds through various governance structures
to reach communities on the ground. Receiving access to climate finances enables communities to implement
appropriate adaptation projects that add tangible and sustainable value at the local level and through EDA,
it ensures project development and decision making is driven at the subnational level for implementation ofcommunity based climate change adaptation projects.

2.4. Governance of the SGF
The SGF project was approved and funded by the Adaptation Fund. In South Africa, SANBI was accredited
as the National Implementing Entity in 2011, after being endorsed by the now Department of Forestry,
Fisheries and Environment (DFFE). DFFE served as the project’s National Designated Authority and acted as
the point of contact for the Adaptation Fund. SANBI was responsible for overall management and particularly
monitoring. SANBI then appointed SouthSouthNorth (SSN) as the SGF project’s Executing Entity to receiveand disburse funds. SSN was also responsible for management but with a focus on operational and financial
management. Conservation South Africa (CSA) and CHoiCe Trust were appointed by SSN as Facilitating
Agencies to facilitate the project in the Namakwa District and Mopani District, respectively. Facilitating
Agencies were responsible for monitoring and evaluating the finances of the project. The pilot SGF projects
worked with and empowered local stakeholders to enhance the integration of Ecosystem-based Adaptation(EbA) measures into local practices and institutions with a view to scale up and replicate the financing
mechanism. District municipalities were involved through participation in the Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
and the Project Advisory Group (PAG). See Box 1 for descriptions of groups that were formed to
manage and execute the project.

The National Adaptation Funds Advisory Body (NAFAB), (formerly known as the National
Implementing Entity Steering Committee), was an oversight body that provided overall project
governance and promoted optimal linkages with the policy environment. It served to endorse projectsubmissions by Small Grant Recipients (SGRs) to the Adaptation Fund and ensured appropriate
compliance mechanisms were adhered to. The NAFAB included the DFFE, National Treasury, the National
Planning Commission in the Presidency, National Disaster Management Centre, Department of Scienceand Innovation, Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, National Business Initiative and the
Adaptation Network. NAFAB was set up by SANBI but oversight was broader than the SGF and included
other projects in order to facilitate alignment for a transformative and systemic response to climatechange adaptation.
The daily operational management of the CA SGF project was supported by a Project Advisory Group(PAG), which considered and endorsed the small grant applications and provided guidance on
implementation. The PAG included the DFFE, Adaptation Network, SANBI, Executing Entity, Adaptation
Network, representatives from each District Municipality, academic experts and government departments
as needed.
District level technical oversight and guidance was provided by Local Reference Groups, later named theTechnical Advisory Group (TAG), which were established by each Facilitating Agency in each area toscreen SGR project concepts, and their implementation. The TAG ensured that projects were locallycontextualised, technically robust and properly coordinated into ongoing programmes of work that
integrated indigenous knowledge. It included representatives from selected provincial and local
government departments, namely the DFFE, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural
Development (DALRRD), Provincial Economic Development Department, academic institutions and theDistrict Municipalities. Incorporating local government representatives on the TAG facilitated government
support for the SGR projects and promoted sustainability, particularly regarding activities that fell withingovernment responsibility.
Box 1 CA SGF Project Management and Execution

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

3

Figure 1 SGF Project Management and Execution structures

2.5. The role of Conservation South Africa (CSA) as a facilitating agency
The facilitating agencies (including CSA) were critical to the project’s success as they developed strategies,
tools and training to respond to challenges that arose on the ground and help Small Grant Recipients tocomplete their projects within the rigour and constraints of the SGF design, governance systems, and the
expectations of the Adaptation Fund. CSA identified the skills and knowledge that was needed to implement
the projects and then trained SGRs and community members. The fact that CSA was working amongst
communities was critical to translate information and practices into ways that communities would
understand. They also conveyed the needs, concerns and priorities of communities to the SGF ProjectManagement Team. In other words, Conservation South Africa’s role was to bridge the gap between local
conditions and international expectations.
Lessons Learnt as reflected by the Namaqualand FA and NIE on Governance, finance andcompliance:
•

•

•

•

The project was not sufficiently integrated into the broader District Municipality portfolio in Namaqualandie integrated with other areas of the Districts work until quite near to project close out. There washowever interest in integration from the onset and the District was an integral part of the TechnicalAdvisory Committee.
The Facilitation Agency (FA, Conservation SA) remained somewhat siloed in their approach in terms ofintegration within the FA’s broader portfolio of work. This placed pressure on a few SGF focused staff in
the organization and hampering support to the project and minimising learning from the project bothinternally and externally during the project lifecycle.
Understanding and articulating roles and responsibilities in the governance of the SGF was a challenge.
Adequate project management teams with clear roles and responsibilities should be formed early on toensure that the roles do not overlap particularly between the FA, the EE and the NIE and that efforts
are not duplicated. For example the EE and FA both being involved in project management activities or
duplicating comments on reports from NIE and EE.
There were significant challenges in reporting and cascading compliance, for example the number of
amendments to agreements of the SGRs that the FA had manage to allow for changes in target numbers
and delivery dates. The reporting requirements by the NIE and Executing Entity from the SGRs were in

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

4

some cases too heavy and this led to increased support required from the FA to the SGRs to be able tosubmit reports that adhered to these requirements.
Regulatory frameworks as required by Designated Authorities and National Implementing Entities(government structures) under the Adaptation Fund can create unnecessary compliance which does notallow flexibility on the ground for recipients in managing the funds and changing activities. Compliancerequirements such as the drafting of reports, their review and approval as well as approval for any
changes to the projects and adherence to safeguards took a long time and negatively impacted theimplementation of projects due to these time delays. However regulatory compliance also positively
impacted projects in some cases when it influenced project activities to prevent maladaptation or anegative environmental or social impact for example eg Enhancing structural integrity of shelters
prevented potential damages.
The FAs had to provide a significant amount of co finance to support the ongoing mentorship and training
needs for the beneficiaries to comply with the regulatory requirements which needs to be factored into
initial budgeting for these types of programmes.

••

2.6. How were Small Grant Recipients (SGRs) and projects chosen?
Three investment windows namely, climate smart agriculture, climate resilient livelihoods, and/or climateproof settlements (see Box 3 for descriptions of the SGF investment windows) were identified locally basedon findings from the District Climate Change Analysis and Vulnerability Assessment that was developed by
the National Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE).
Project concept notes focussing on the three investment windows were developed and submitted bycommunity representatives, and reviewed and screened by the facilitating agencies, CSA and Choice Trust.
Shortlisted applicants submitted proposals to SANBI, and SSN, with support from the respective facilitating
agencies. Facilitating Agencies supported the Small SGRs to access climate finance and provided beneficiaries
with training and resources to allow them to develop their own solutions to adaptation.

•••

Climate-resilient livelihoods: Projects sought to increase the resilience of income-generating
activities, and associated assets that were vulnerable to climate change.
Climate-smart agriculture: Projects addressed the impacts of climate change on agricultural
production, including livestock or crop farming. This investment window focused on responses thatfeature shifts towards resilient farming techniques and technological improvements.
Climate-proof settlement: Projects addressed the climate change susceptibility of structures inwhich people live.

Box 2 Descriptions of SGF investment windows. These were prioritised after vulnerability assessments identified theclimate impacts and related community vulnerabilities.

The screening and review process consisted of three steps. First, small grant recipients were screened against
predetermined criteria relating to management structure, experience, presence in the community, andcurrent funding commitments, to name a few. Next projects were screened to ensure that they responded
to climate change vulnerability and aligned to the investment windows of the SGF. The third step was toensure that they had no significant risks in terms of the Adaptation Fund’s Environmental and Social Policy
as well as Gender Policy to promote environmental and social benefits. All concepts were also reviewed byat least 3 external reviewers for expert input.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

5

Lessons Learnt when selecting Small Grant Recipients (SGRs)
The financial capacity of all potential SGRs needs to be accurately evaluated by facilitating agencies against
predetermined criteria. For example, evaluating previous experience in receiving funds of R250 000 or more
per year over a period of at least two years. SANBI acknowledges that “finding organisations with capacity
to receive funds of R1 000 000 is relatively low in some of the most vulnerable communities.”
Evaluating the full extent of the requirements of the Adaptation Fund Small Grants Facility (SGF) and thecapacity of each SGR to receive small grants and comply with the requirements of the Fund can help toidentify gaps where funding should be allocated for specific trainings, such as bookkeeping, financial
reporting and accounting.
Civil Society Organisations who need to administer projects under the funding criteria of the Adaptation Fundand the SGF require a high level of capacity to support SGRs.

2.7. How the Small Grants Facility (SGF) can help fund Ecosystem-based Adaptation(EbA)
The investment windows, used to select projects, were based on Namakwa’s Vulnerability Assessment which
focussed on identifying priority areas for Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA). Furthermore, the SGF projects
were screened to ensure that no significant risks were created to the environment and that they provided
environmental co-benefits in addition to economic and social co-benefits. Several criteria in the Adaptation
Fund’s Environmental and Social Policy used in the screening process promoted environmental conservation.
These included protection of natural habitat, conservation of biological diversity, pollution prevention andresource efficiency, public health and land and soil conservation. These criteria increased awareness ofpotentially environmentally harmful activities and promoted community health and safety. Knowledge andcapacity building to this effect has the potential to change local practices over time to ensure ecosystems
are restored, maintained or improved to increase the long-term resilience of nature through the fund.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

6

3. HOW THE SMALL GRANTS FACILITY (SGF) HELPED PEOPLE AND
NATURE IN NAMAQUALAND
The following projects were implemented in Namaqualand:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Kamiesberg Heritage Foundation: Climate proofing herder shelter to facilitate climate change
adaptation;
Coastal Livelihoods Foundation: Building Resilience for Northern Cape Small-Scale fisher
communities and cooperatives;
Environmental Monitoring Group: Two communities adapting together;
Gondwana Alive: Climate, Biodiversity, and Red Meat – Land and Livestock Adaptation;
Heiveld: Climate proofing small-scale rooibos production;
Saveact: Building Resilience to Climate Change by Promoting Savings; andConcordia Landbou Boerevereniging: Concordia Farmers Adaptation Project.

“A large number of community members received direct access to information and tools
to help them manage the effects of climate change on their daily lives.”
FACILITATING AGENCY, CONSERVATION SOUTH AFRICA

3.1

Climate proofing herder shelters to facilitate climate change adaptation

Investment Window: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Climate-Resilient Livelihoods
Timeline: June 2018 - September 201
Total beneficiaries: 15 total beneficiaries (2 youth and 3 women)
Total funding provided: R1 208 813 (amount spent was R1 122 072)
Adaptation Responses:
The Kamiesberg Heritage Foundation (KHF) (with Swakara Kooperasie Limited, and the Agricultural ResearchCouncil), provided 13 mobile herder shelters, and 13 tanks for rainwater harvesting to protect thebeneficiaries from extreme temperatures, and water scarcity. The mobile structures, make it easier for
herders to move around more regularly with livestock, allowing areas to be rested. A climate-resilient grazing
plan was developed to improve grazing management, giving plants time to regrow, and breaking up
compacted soil, which improves the land’s ability to hold as much rain as possible.
Key Lessons:•••Using indigenous knowledge in the project empowered community members, which is important for thesustainability of implemented measures. However, at times there was conflict caused when indigenous
knowledge went against, or was superseded by safeguards and engineers’ decisions.
The timeline of the project was too short to be able to implement what was needed, putting pressure
on the SGR
Through this project, the small grant recipient learned the importance of financial record-keeping andaccountability.

“We could reach out to vulnerable farmers who were less resilient to climate change andbuild their resilience to extreme events.”
CORNEELS LINKS, AN IMPLEMENTER FROM THE KAMIESBERG HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
Although he says they would have liked more time for project implementation, people are continuing now without the
SGF, using their own funds. In particular, they will continue to harvest rainwater from the roofs of shelters. He also saysthat it is possible to replicate the project elsewhere in his community.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

7

Figure 2 KHF putting the dome prototype together (Photo courtesy of Clement Cupido)

3.2

Building resilience
cooperatives

forNorthernCapesmall-scale

fishercommunities

andInvestment Window: Climate-Resilient Livelihoods
Timeline: June 2018 - June 2019
Total beneficiaries: Benefitted a total of 111 fishers, and crew (14 youth and 13 women)
Total funding provided: R1 677 597 (amount spent was R1 593 316)
Adaptation Responses:
The Coastal Livelihoods Foundation, in partnership with Abalobi, aimed to improve the resilience of local
fishers in Hondeklipbaai and Port Nolloth. Small-scale local fishers in the area are often lost at sea or are
unable to go out to fish, due to unpredictable weather events, including increasing days with thick fog andstormy seas. With a R1 677 597 budget received from the SGF (amount spent was R1 593 316), the local
Safety at Sea procedure was upgraded, trackers and radio systems were installed and fishers were supported
in establishing an emergency response plan. A Safety System Operator was trained and later employed by
the local municipality to utilise newly installed safety systems, and track the locations of small-scale fishers
when out at sea. In addition, two climate-resilient small-scale cooperatives were established and local fishers
were trained on the Abalobi information system which includes financial management, market access andenterprise development with a view to future collective decision-making and use of Abalobi Information
Communication Technology platforms to also support future climate research and environmental
sustainability in the fishing industry. Local government was involved whereby a Memorandum of Agreement
was signed to ensure that a local Maintenance Committee monitors, and maintains the implemented safety
equipment, and technology and supports with some mentorship of the fisher.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

8

Key Lessons:••

The project did not allocate an adequate budget for personnel, particularly to meet the demanding
compliance and administrative reporting requirements and did not account for far distances for travel toworkshops for ongoing mentorship. This resulted in insufficient funds for project staff by the end of the
project.
It is important to work closely with local government in support of the sustainability for institutional
structures such as the fisher cooperatives

Figure 3 Fishers and their boats – safety is important to ensure they can continue fishing for their families

Figure 4 Small-scale fishers undergoing ‘safety at sea’ training.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

9

3.3

Two communities adapting together: Soebatsfontein and the Suid Bokkeveld

Investment Window: Climate-Resilient Livelihoods and Climate-Proof Settlements
Timeline: September 2016 – June 2019
Total beneficiaries: 196 total beneficiaries (52 youth and 119 women)
Total funding provided: R1 320 000 (amount spent was R1 224 201)
Adaptation Responses:
Farmers in Soebatsfontein, and the Suid Bokkeveld, are reliant on farming to support their livelihoods, but
are highly vulnerable to drought, extreme heat, and increasingly unpredictable rainfall. In response, theEnvironmental Monitoring Group Trust (EMG), in partnership with Universität Hamburg, aimed to increase
their water security.
People were trained on water conservation and the installation and use of sustainable technologies, includingcollecting and storing rainwater. A total of 15 houses were improved with roof insulation to adapt to extreme
temperatures. Gutter collection systems and 37 tanks were installed at houses for domestic rainwater
harvesting with materials provided for two additional tanks, water-wise gardening was encouraged, and fiveclimate-resilient backyard food gardens were developed. Household water use was reduced through theimplementation of three composting toilets. Maintenance of the installed technologies also provided
opportunities for local employment.
Key Lessons:
Katriena Fortuin from Suid Bokkeveld in the Namakwa District had difficulties with household water scarcity,which was made even worse by changes in rainfall patterns and longer dry periods. She did not have enoughwater for her plants and for domestic use. The SGF helped her to install a rainwater harvesting tank to collectrainwater that her and her family can use in their home or for their food garden.
Aside from the tangible benefits of rainwater harvesting tanks, insulated roofing, compost toilets and waterwise gardens, the community enjoyed co-creating knowledge and understanding household adaptation, andshared understanding of the crisis at the community level - which is very important,” says Siyabonga Myeza,
the Project Manager from Environmental Monitoring.

Figure 5 A beneficiary in Suid Bokkeveld with her composting toilet

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

10

Figure 6 A newly installed watertank and gutters in Soebatsfontein (EMG)

3.4

Biodiversity and Red Meat Cooperative

Investment Window: Climate-Smart Agriculture
Timeline: August 2016 – June 2019
Total beneficiaries: 85 total beneficiaries (27 youth and 23 women)
Total funding provided: R1 320 000 (R1 311 220 spent)
Adaptation Responses:
The Biodiversity and Red Meat Cooperative (BRC) is a local farmers’ cooperative of 92 members, based in
Leliefontein. Gondwana Alive supported local farmers to adapt to and cope with the impacts of a changing
climate. More climate resilient livestock breeds, such as Meatmaster sheep, were introduced to the BRC tobetter able to tolerate extreme temperatures and disease, and reach more competitive prices for farmers
who rely on their income from sales.
Farmers signed Ram Agreements with the BRC whereby farmers agreed to conservation actions, sufficient
dosing/inoculating and livestock monitoring, in return for rams. Farmers had a maximum of 4 years to pay
back the BRC, either in cash or lambs. 1 Farmers who experienced poor lambing seasons made arrangements
to delay their loan payments. The BRC used the payments to support other farmers to convert to more
resilient herds. To reduce environmental degradation and conserve water, planned grazing was also
implemented.

By December 2018, R6 600 in cash and 21 lambs, at R1 500 each (which came to a total of R38 100) was paid, but only by
53% of farmers.

1

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

11

During the project, 60 local youth were also trained on farming techniques, and ecological knowledge toimprove the sustainability of livestock farming and the adaptive capacity of community members.
Key Lessons:“Our organisation's members benefitted by getting the Meatmaster rams. It resulted in us getting morelambs of better quality which we could sell for more money, therefore it improved our income,” says Katrina
Schwartz, a beneficiary of the Biodiversity and Red Meat Initiative.
“The movable kraals we received through the funding resulted in our animals being sheltered during extreme
weather and thus, we lost less livestock to cold. This also helped improve our income,” says Katrina. “I would
not [have been] able to buy the rams or the kraals on my own, I would not have been able to afford it. Now
that I do have access to the rams and kraals, I will continue using them, which improves my income, and I
will select from the ram's progeny, which I can sell for breeding material,” says Katrina. “It was a goodproject, I learned about my herd's health and I learned about climate change and how I could adapt to it.”She says the climate change training and the animal health training could definitely be done with the rest ofher community. The training helped her. She says, “It was not difficult for me to implement the proposed
activities, as we received training in it, and therefore I knew what to do.”Figure 7 A Gondwana Alive monitor explaining during a learning exchange the benefits of the climate smart breeds

3.5

Climate proofing small-scale rooibos production

Investment Window: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Climate-Resilient Livelihoods
Timeline: September 2016 – June 2019
Total beneficiaries: 107 total beneficiaries (31 youth and 35 women)
Total funding provided: R1 320 000 (spent R1 155 387)
Adaptation Responses:
The Heiveld Cooperative Limited, a Nieuwoudtville-based community cooperative, in partnership with
Avontuur Sustainable Agriculture (ASA) received a grant to address the vulnerability of small-scale rooibos
tea farmers in the Suid Bokkeveld. Increasing water scarcity threatens the livelihoods of the rooibos farmers.
The community used to store water in an earth dam but, longer dry periods and warmer temperature madeTAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

12

the water unusable. Warmer temperatures have also made it harder for rooibos seedlings to survive, anderosion caused by more intense storms erodes away productive topsoil.
Climate smart agricultural approaches like mulching, and composting were introduced to improve theproductivity of the rooibos lands. Sustainable water supplies were ensured through the installation of a solar
pump and 10 water storage tanks. Farmers were encouraged to share climate information, and theirexperiences with coping with the impacts of climate change, through Farmers’ Days, and Climate Change
Preparedness Workshops.
Key Lessons:••••A drought occurred for the duration of the project which required flexibility from the project’s activities.
Mulching was found to be more expensive and labour intensive than anticipated.
The project required more effort from the Heiveld Cooperative than anticipated due to complex
compliance and reporting processes. However, capacity building enabled the project team to successfullycomplete these processes.
Local knowledge and existing activities or infrastructure should be taken into account when designing
climate change adaptation projects.

Figure 8 Heiveld cooperative processing rooibos tea at the tea court

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

13

3.6

Building resilience to climate change by promoting saving

Investment Window: Climate-Resilient Livelihoods
Timeline: August 2016 – June 2019
Total beneficiaries: 290 total beneficiaries (59 youth and 250 women)
Total funding provided: R 1 569 297 (R1 544 558 was spent)
Adaptation Responses:
The SaveAct Trust facilitated the establishment of 20 community-based saving groups. The project used asustainable savings model whereby savings groups became self-managed, and independent of the SaveAct
Trust after being trained on financial education for 18 months. Members collectively saved money andborrowed at a 10% service charge. It ensured that communities have access to financial services, likesavings, and credit to be able to access different options to sustain their livelihoods in a changing climate.
Farmers were able to access loans to buy livestock, medicines and fodder during drought. Collectively thebeneficiaries saved R1 171 039, which equalled an average annual savings of R3 009 for each member.
Share-outs of savings, which happened once a year, gave members access to larger lump sums to makebigger investments in their enterprises to adopt climate smart technology. Training was also provided througha board game called SALT to teach beneficiaries to consider long-term and green investments.
Key lessons:•••

The savings groups worked because members were responsible for their own finances. The SaveAct
Trust also worked with community members who play a leadership role, to gain the trust of thecommunity. The SaveAct Trust collaborated with other SGF projects and organisations, such as Abalobi,
who were active in Namaqualand to ensure that the savings schemes were embedded in local
development, and climate change adaptation, of five vulnerable communities.
The establishment of a savings culture does not require a large budget. A slow trickle of funding over along-term period is best suited to this project, combined with careful monitoring of savings groups inorder to ensure a sustained impact.
Monitoring requires one reliable person who can support the achievement of a savings culture over an
extended period.

“I have to buy material before February price hikes kick in. I borrowed money from
Angels, which I know I can double up and repay, and then put money away. I want tobuy a buttonhole machine which I need for the dresses, and it costs R18 000. I have to
put money away for that and I need operational money, especially for material. In themeantime, I can now sometimes also buy food with my loans and help my mom when
she needs fodder or medicines for her animals. It is not much but every little bit helps.”
LISA MATHYS, A BENEFICIARY OF THE SAVEACT TRUST
Lisa joined a new savings group called Angels. Five months down the line she has nothing but praise for it.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

14

Figure 9 Lisa’s business - a beneficiary from SaveAct that used her savings to strengthen her business

3.7

Concordia Farmers Adaptation Project

Investment Window: Climate-Resilient Livelihoods
Timeline: June 2018 – January 2020
Total beneficiaries: 20 total beneficiaries (0 youth and 0 women)
Total funding provided: R 1 186 278 (R1 072 860 was spent)
Adaptation Responses:
The Concordia Landbou Boerevereniging (CLB), a livestock farmers’ association, received a small grant tohelp livestock farmers adapt to drought and water scarcity through multi-purpose livestock shelters (12 wereconstructed), each equipped with two rainwater harvesting tanks. In addition, five 5 000 litre water tanks
were installed at existing boreholes in open commonage areas to benefit the wider community. A climateresilient grazing plan was also developed to support land restoration and maintenance.
Key Lessons:•Construction as part of small granting projects should be considered carefully, as the community based
projects often lack the capacity and experience of legal parameters necessary to fulfil the requirements,
specifically relating to contract management, engineering requirements and project management.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

15

GERT SAAL, THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONCORDIA LANDBOU BOEREVERENIGING (CLB), SAYS THAT

the SGF helped the CLB and the community access funding for infrastructure for climatechange adaptation as well as training. He would like to access funding again, but would
like to work with funders who are flexible and put the needs of the locals first. He statesthat the biggest project challenges were project management, and language barriers
between funders and the community.

Figure 10 CLB chairperson explaining what vulnerability means to farmers

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

16

Figure 11 Livestock using one of the CLB shelters Challenges: A Summary of Lessons from challenges

A Summary of Lessons from Challenges
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Timeframes: The duration of projects, such as the savings groups, Biodiversity and Red Meat
Cooperative (BRC), and climate resilient herder shelters, were too short to achieve major behaviouralshifts that are sustainable, which takes a long time to achieve. The rollout of resources such as theclimate resilient herder shelters, and saving for climate smart technologies such as solar powered pumps
to extract groundwater also takes time. More time is needed to encourage more small-scale farmers towork together, and to focus on specific trainings.
Compliance: Compliance requirements such as the drafting of reports, their review and approval aswell as approval for any changes to the projects took a long time which negatively impacted theimplementation of projects.
Lack of capacity: The capacity of communities, and institutions often needs to be built for climatechange adaptation projects to be successful. For example, training on basic livestock management
practices needed to be completed before climate-smart practices such as rotational grazing could betackled in the BRC project.
Procurement and construction processes: The procurement of service providers and involvementof CSA in construction decisions was indicated to be a challenge.
Integration: There was a lack of integration of this project into other projects in the broader
Namakwaland District Municipality until quite close to project close out.
Roles and Responsibilities: Understanding and articulating roles and responsibilities in thegovernance of the SGF project is critical to avoid duplication of efforts.
Grant Size: Even though most recipients had managed grant sizes of over R1 million, it became
apparent that the grant size and cascading compliance required to meet global and national requirements
was challenging for all the small grant recipients.
Budget: Ensuring sufficient funding is available upfront for the Facilitating Agencies to support the Small
Grant Recipients and beneficiaries with all the required training and mentorship. During this project a lotof co-finance was provided by the Facilitating Agencies.
Capacity Building: There is a lack of training for project management for recipients and not enoughinvestments in helping overcome language barriers for vulnerable communities.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

17

Opportunities: A summary of opportunities that emerged••

Inviting the district and local governments to be a part of the Project Advisory Group, provided aplatform through which Small Grant Recipients and government officials’-built relationships, that can
now go beyond the SGF funded projects.
Using funds to strengthen local governance and organisational structures through savings groups,
can help put in place local long-term financing options.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DELIVERING MORE EFFECTIVEFINANCE MECHANISMS TO VULNERABLE COMMUNITIESThe following recommendations can be considered for improving financial delivery to communities:
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

8.
9.

10.

11.

Ensure sufficient capacity of recipients: Small Grant Recipients (SGRs) that have capacity tomeet the requirements of the National Implementing Entity (NIE) and the funder should be selected.
If recipients do not meet requirements, other more flexible funding models should be selected. In
addition, care should be taken when selecting projects to ensure that SGRs have the capacity to
implement them.
Build capacity: Ensure that capacity of communities and institutions is built from inception, andinvest in proposal development before implementation. Capacity can also be built by making use ofa phased implementation approach which entails a Training Needs Assessment to inform a targeted
capacity building programme for proposal development and project implementation.
Secure sufficient finance : Secure sufficient -finance for the Facilitating Agencies for the durationof the project to cover all the additional support needed to make sure the project can cover thesignificant amount of training and mentorship required for beneficiaries.
Appoint dedicated staff to provide project support: Employ sufficient financial staff within the
FA to support SGRs with financial capacity building, management, and reporting throughout the
programme. Employ sufficient dedicated personnel within the FA to assist with governance andproject management capacity building, monitoring and evaluation and including the monitoring ofcompliance against environmental safeguards. The original teams in FA were overburdened andsufficient teams need to be built to address all the requirements.
Streamline the governance and decision-making structures: Improve communication
between the SGRs and the EE and NIE, to ensure streamlining and faster decision-making processes
to prevent delays in project implementation.
Geographically align projects: Calls for proposals should be geographically aligned with thefacilitating agencies’ implementation areas to maximise the effort and resources provided to target
communities
Allocate different grant sizes: Allocate difference grant sizes (i.e. mini, micro, and macro grants)
based on due diligence and track record of applicants. If grants sizes are too large and SGRs don’t
have capacity to handle these funds, then the projects become very challenging to manage andimplement.
Link smaller projects to bigger projects: To receive more support from stronger relationships
with other organisations and different levels of government, link projects to other existing projects
in the Districts areas managed by partners to create a bigger impact.
Value indigenous knowledge: Indigenous knowledge plays an important role within thesefarming communities and provides value into adaptation solutions. Indigenous knowledge must be,balanced with expert inputs as required often by the compliance criteria of the funding, otherwise if
there is no consideration of local knowledge this leads to loss of empowerment and in some cases
maladaptation may occur. The compliance criteria should be well communicated upfront with
communities to come to an agreement on what can work for all.
Enable longer timeframes: More time is needed though the funding lifecycle to encourage more
small-scale farmers to work together, and to focus on specific trainings that support projectsustainability. Understand from the beginning the amount of time the project will take, include
realistic deliverables and timelines, expect delays and make them part of planning.
Learn together: Exchange visits between communities can be valuable in sharing experiences,lessons learnt, and best practices. Ensure that beneficiaries understand the benefits of working
together as a community.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

18

Be adaptable: When working with communities to implement their own projects allow for someflexibility. For example, projects need to be flexible to respond to immediate challenges such as
drought and funding requirements should allow for this.
Involve District and Local Municipalities as well as relevant Government sectors in projectplanning, development, monitoring and evaluation, supporting compliance proposal development,
the screening of SGR capacity, and capacity building activities, to ensure project sustainability.
Regular communication between project role players: Regular engagement between thecommunities (beneficiaries), implementing organisations, including the EE and NIE and local, district,provincial and national government in open forums that are not only part of the project management
committees is advised to build relationships and trust.
Procure suitable service providers: If there are parts of the project that fall outside of the scopeof Facilitating Agencies, such as some of the construction requirements, procure suitable consultantsor professionals in construction from project inception to help design project activities and develop
construction drawings.
Ensure the sustainability of the project: The SGF was designed to ensure sustainability at the
project level and at the level of creating a climate finance instrument that supports local climatechange adaptation. Communities are capable to respond to climate challenges if they are given theright support. The Project Management Team can provide support to the beneficiaries and SGRs todevelop Sustainability Plans to ensure that once Facilitating Agencies exit, the SGR has the skills andcapacity to manage on their own going forward.

12.
13.
14.

15.

16.

“The learning process (by organisations and communities) should have clear
measurable indicators to allow it to be a key part of the project at each step,rather than an add on at the end.”
CONSERVATION SOUTH AFRICA.

Further Reading
Further reading can be found in the following case studies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

A New Approach to Enabling Local Responses to Climate Change: Learning from the Community
Adaptation Small Grants Facility project
Adaptive Management: Enhancing Direct Access to climate finance
An Emerging Framework for Capacity Building: Reflection and response as part of Community-based
Climate Change Adaptation
Good Governance: Oversight and compliance support mechanisms within the context of Enhanced
Direct Access and Climate Change Adaptation
Participatory Project Development for Small Grants: Lessons from the Small Grants Facility project
funded by the Adaptation Fund
A tale of Two Districts: Regional influences on the implementation of Community-based Climate
Change Adaptation
Facilitating Agency Experiences: The important role of Facilitating Agencies in the implementationof the Small Grants Facility in two Districts in South Africa
Community-based Climate Change Adaptation: What does success look like?
Cascading Compliance: Lessons on achieving compliance within the Adaptation Fund’s
Environmental and Social Policy requirements

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

19

References
https://southsouthnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SGF-Facilitating-Agency-final.pdf
https://southsouthnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SGF-ESP-case-study-V2.pdf Beasley, E., et al.,2019. Guide to including nature in Nationally Determined Contributions: A checklist of information andaccounting approaches for natural climate solutions, s.l.: s.n.
Bourne, A., Donatti, C., Holness, S. & Midgley, G., 2012. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the

Namakwa District Municipality, s.l.: s.n.

CBD, 2009. Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation: Report of the Second
Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Technical Series No. 41., Montreal:

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

CI, 2020. Can conservation agreements catalyze private sector support for community-led conservation?
Lessons learned and recommendations for replication, s.l.: Conservation International.
CI, n.d. Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, s.l.:Conservation International.
CoGTA, 2020. District Development Model. [Online]
Available at: https://www.cogta.gov.za/ddm/index.php/about-us/[Accessed 17 February 2021].
Conservation International, n.d. Soap made from super shrub. [Online]
Available at: https://www.conservation.org/south-africa/stories/soap-from-the-bush[Accessed 16 February 2021].
CSA, 2017. Conservation Agreement Socio-Economic Monitoring Survey Data, s.l.: Conservation South
Africa.
CSA, 2019. Meat Naturally Initiative 2019 Conservation Stewardship Lessons Learned Workshop Report for
the Kamiesberg Conservation Stewardship Site, held at Nourivier Primary School on 26 June 2019., s.l.:Conservation South Africa.
CSA, 2020. Workshop with Steinkopf and Bulletrap stewards on activities post Conservation Agreement
implementation, s.l.: Conservation South Africa.
CSA, n.d. Guideline to conservation agreements on communal lands in South Africa, s.l.: Conservation
South Africa.
DEA and SANBI, 2017. Guidelines for ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) in South Africa, s.l.: Departmentof Environmental Affairs (now Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries); South African National
Biodiversity Institute.
DEA, 2015. s.l.: Department of Environmental Affairs.
DEAT, 2011. National Climate Change Response White Paper, Pretoria: Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (now Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries).
Gondwana Alive - BRK, 2019. BRK Land and Livestock Adaptation: Project closeout report, s.l.: Small
Grants Facility.
Heiveld Co-operative, 2019. Climate proofing small-scale rooibos production, s.l.: Small Grants Facility.
IIED, 2018. Nature-based solutions: Delivering national-level adaptation and global goals, United Kingdom:International Institute for Environment and Development.
Jansen, C., 2017. Biodiversity and Stewardship Initiative Socio-Economic Survey Report – Steinkopf andBulletrap, s.l.: Conservation South Africa.
Jansen, C., 2018a. Biodiversity and Stewardship Initiative Socio-Economic Survey Report – Steinkopf andBulletrap, s.l.: Conservation South Africa.
Jansen, C., 2018b. Lessons Learned Workshop – Steinkopf and Bulletrap stewards, s.l.: Conservation South
Africa.
Jansen, C., 2020. Draft Post CSP baseline survey report, s.l.: Conservation South Africa.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

20

Kamiesberg Heritage Foundation, 2019. Climate proofing herder shelter to facilitate climate change
adaptation: Project Closeout Report, s.l.: Small Grants Facility.
Lambrechts, J. & Phillips, T., 2019. BRC and livestock adaptation project: Project monitoring and evaluation
report, s.l.: s.n.
Meyers, D. et al., 2020. Conservation Finance: A Framework, Conservation Finance Alliance, s.l.:Conservation Finance Alliance.
Müller, B., 2013. 'Enhanced (Direct) Access' through '(national) funding entities' - Entymology andexamples, s.l.: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies; University of Oxford.
Newman, R., 2013. CEPF Final Project Completion Report: Consolidating Implementation of Conservation
Action in CEPF SKEP Priorities in the Namakwa District, s.l.: s.n.
Reid, H. et al., 2019. Is ecosystem-based adaptation effective? Perceptions and lessons learned from 13
project sites, London: IIED.
Schäfer, L. et al., 2014. Learning from Direct Access Modalities in Africa, s.l.: Germanwatch e.V..
Small Grants Facility, 2019. Building resilience for Northern Cape small-scale fisher communities and cooperatives: Project closeout report, s.l.: s.n.
Taibi, F. & Konrad, S., 2018. Pocket Guide to NDCs Under the UNFCCC, s.l.: European Capacity Building
Initiative.

TAKING ADAPTATION TO THE GROUND

21