Assessment on the Adaptive Capacityof the Machobane Farming System
to Climate Change in Lesotho
African Technology Policy Studies Network

WORKING PAPER SERIES | No. 60
Sissay B. Mekbib
Adesola O. Olaleye
Motlatsi N. Mokhothu
Masia Johane
Spirit .B. Tlali
Taddese W. GodetoAssessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the
Machobane Farming System to Climate Change
in Lesotho

Sissay B. Mekbib
Department of Biology
National University of Lesotho
Lesotho

Masia Johane
Department of LivestockMarking and Registration
Maseru, Lesotho

Adesola O. Olaleye
Department of Soil Science
National University of Lesotho
LesothoSpirit .B. Tlali
Department of Physics
National University of Lesotho
LesothoMotlatsi N. Mokhothu
Department of Crop Science
National University of Lesotho
Lesotho

Taddese W. Godeto
Department of Chemistry andChemical Technology
National University of Lesotho
LesothoThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multidisciplinary network of researchers, private sector actors andpolicy makers promoting the generation, dissemination, use andmastery of science, technology and innovation (ST&I) for African
development, environmental sustainability and global inclusion.
ATPS intends to achieve its mandate through research, capacity
building and training, science communication/dissemination andsensitization, participatory multi-stakeholder dialogue,knowledge brokerage, and policy advocacy.
Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network
P O Box 10081, 00100 GPO Nairobi Kenya
2011

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network

ISBN: 978-9966-030-16-0

Table of Contents
Acknowledgement

4

Abstract

5

1.

Introduction

6

2.

Literature Review

103.

Objectives

21

4.

Justification

22

5.

Research Questions

24

6.

Characteristics of the Study Area

25

7.

Research Methodology

27

8.

Results

29

9.

Conclusions & Recommendations

37

References

39

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 3

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

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

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 5

1. Introduction
Of the many environmental problems facing mankind today, climate changeremains as a global concern for its increasing number of impacts on all aspects ofhuman lives. In Africa, climate change affects agriculture production throughincreased water stress, reduced suitable areas for production and decrease yieldpotential. The situation is even getting worse in countries with low income
populations that practice subsistence agriculture. In this piece of work, theadaptive and resilient nature of Machobane Farming System compared to other
Non-Machobane Farming Systems were studied at different agro-ecologicalzones of Lesotho.
The Kingdom of Lesotho is a country located in the southern part of Africa withthe land area of 30,355 sq. km and of which 15% of the land was arable by 1977
(Flannery, 1977). It is situated within the Southern African plateau at an elevationof between 1,500 m and 3,482 m above sea level. It is divided into four agroecological zones (Figure 1) based on climate and elevation: Lowlands (17%),
Senqu River Valley (9%), Foot-hills (15%) and Mountains (59%) (Cauley, 1986).
Currently, approximately 9% of its land area is arable, the remainder of the country
being dominated by rangeland suitable for extensive livestock production(Bureau of Statistics and Planning, 2007). The highest population pressure isfound in the lowlands of the country, where the estimated arable land isconcentrated and this is compounded by the problem of serious soil erosion,
land degradation and increasing population pressure (BoSP, 2007). Rainfall issporadic and drought, hailstorms and winters can be quite severe. Even theestimated arable land is declining because of the thin layer of soil, limited
vegetation and the high mortality of farmers caused by AIDS. Lesotho loses
around 40 million tons of soil annually due to wind and water erosion (Flannery,
6 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

1977). While weather is partly to blame for the soil erosion, poor management andan ancient land tenure system also play their part. Lesotho has been described as
one of the least forested countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Trees are cut down for
firewood and new shoots are eaten by animals, causing further soil erosion andmaking even less land available for agriculture.

Fig. 1. Agro–ecological zones of Lesotho: the study area.
Naturally, the geographical location and agro-ecology of the country makes it sovulnerable to many effects of climatic changes (BoSP, 2007). The northern andcentral lowlands are characterized by large deposits of rich volcanic soils, while
the southern lowlands are characterized by poor soil and low rainfall. The
foothills, on the other hand, consist of very fertile land that is associated with highagricultural productivity. The drainage patterns of the mountain regions haveproduced deep river valleys, gorges, and gullies. However, it forms the main
livestock grazing area in Lesotho. The soils of the Senqu River valley on the other
hand remained the most unproductive in the region (Cauley, 1986).
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 7

The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report confirmedthat climate change is already happening. It further underscored that
communities living in marginal lands whose livelihoods are highly dependent on
natural resources are among the most vulnerable to climate change and have todevelop strategies for coping with these phenomena. These communities havevaluable knowledge about adapting to climate change, but the magnitude of
future hazards may exceed their adaptive capacity, especially given their current
conditions of marginalization.
In pursuit of commitments under the Climate Change Convention, Lesotho has
developed the National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) on climate change
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
in 2007 and identified technology needs in agriculture because it contributes themost to the national economy and to the livelihoods of majority of the population(Lesotho Meteorological Service, 2004). The NAPA process identified elevenadaptation options, most of which address land and water management andagricultural production, following the finding that chronic food insecurity is likely
to be further deepened through climate change.
It is therefore imperative for Lesotho to examine various technologicalpossibilities in agriculture that will form part of the country's adaptation strategy to
reduce its vulnerability to climate change. Evaluation of the different types offarming practices (systems) in a condition where the existing arable land (9%) iseven more decreased from time to time is crucial. Successful adaptation reduces
vulnerability and it depends greatly on the adaptive capacity of an affected
system, region, or community to cope with the impacts and risks of climatechange. On the other hand, enhancement of adaptive capacity can reduce
vulnerability and promote sustainable development across many dimensions.
The Machobane Farming System (MfS) is one of the farming systems in Lesothowith high adaptability and resilience to climate change. The system wasdeveloped long time ago by Dr Machobane for its convenient practice anddisseminative traditional knowledge to the farmers using natural resources
existing around (Robertson, 1994). However, there are uncertainties orchallenges to the MfS such as intensive nature of the farming activity, input toexpand the system; training to build nurseries, training to harvest water, pest
control methods, etc. as a system to a wider community.
8 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

The present study was therefore designed to evaluate the adaptive and resiliencenature of the Machobane Farming System compared to other farming practices
to climate change in Lesotho.

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 9

2. Literature Review
2.1
Climate change impacts on farming systems in Lesotho
Like in many other developing countries, in Lesotho, more than 80% of the
population livelihood relies on subsistence agriculture by raring animals and/or
crop farming. Rainfall occurs mainly during the summer season but is extremely
variable in quantity and time due to climate change (European Forum on Rural
Development Cooperation, 2002).
A shift in precipitation patterns ultimately brings a shift in sawing and harvestingseasons to which unexpected disastrous situations could happen before crops
harvested in the field. Assessment of historical data since 1961 to 1994 predict
warmer future climatic conditions over Lesotho being lower precipitation inspring and summer and a higher precipitation in winter and autumn (Ministry of
Natural Resources, 2007). On the other hand, an increase in precipitation in
winter may suggest an increase activity in frontal systems which may result inheavier snowfall and strong devastating winds often bring disasters and humansuffering posing significant risks for agricultural production in Lesotho.
Every year, wind and water carry 40 million tons of soil from Lesotho (EFRDC,
2002). Rainfall is higher in the mountains and foothills and may favor the animalfarming, but, the cropping season is much shorter due to the early outset of frost
which will be exacerbated by climate change. The lowlands areas are
significantly drier and crop failure from drought is very common.
2.1.1 Crop farming systems
Crop production is one of the most important components of the farming
systems in Lesotho throughout all livelihood zones dominated. In terms of the
10 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesothoarea planted, it is dominated by maize (63%) followed by sorghum (28%) andwheat (12%), whereas beans and peas account for (5%) and (3%) share of area
planted respectively (BoSP, 2007). The North and South western Lowlands, theSenqu River Valley, the Foothills and Mountain regions are the main cropping
regions in the country. The amount and distribution of precipitation and otherclimatic conditions of the area is an important factor in crop production activity.
The south western lowlands are the more susceptible areas to erratic agroclimatic conditions in the region.
Maize is the basic staple food crop of the people as it contributes 40% to the daily
diet. Sorghum is the next important cereal used in preparation of porridge,
traditional beer brewing and preparation of animal feed. Beans and peas havebeen grown for long as cash crops and are major sources of protein in the local
diet. The area under cultivation, production, and yields are very erratic andclosely related to rainfall patterns. Other factors such as soil infertility,
inadequate use of organic fertilizers, inefficient technologies that arecharacterized by untimely planting, poor land preparations inadequate weeding,and delayed harvesting are also major factors that greatly affect crop production
in Lesotho.
The domestic production of fruits and vegetables is a source of livelihood for atleast 10 percent of the population in the foothills, lowlands, and Senqu River
Valley (MoNR, 2007). However, this potential has been marginalized by skewed
climate extremes and hazards such as hail, frost, and extreme temperatures,
which even could be more severe under climate change conditions.
2.1.2 Animal husbandry
In Lesotho, livestock production plays an important role for both economic andsocial reasons next to crop production and it contributes 30% to agricultural
gross domestic product (Turner, 1993). The sub sector consists mainly of cattle(25%), sheep (45%) and goats (30%) (BoSP, 2002). Other livestock kept include
horses, donkeys, pigs and poultry. Cattle are mostly raised for subsistence
livelihoods including draught power, milk, fuel (dung), and meat.
Livestock are reared around homestead pasture lands for half of the year due toseasonal changes (onset of winter), management practices (shearing, dipping)or to minimize the risk of theft. Thus, most stock have inadequate ration during
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 11

long periods of the year in terms of poor nutritive value of fodder and forage.
Farmers have no tradition of fodder husbandry on arable land or conserving
fodder as silage or hay.
2.2
Vulnerability of the farming systems and challenges
encountered
Although agriculture accounts for only 15% of Lesotho's gross domestic product,
it is the main source of livelihood for about 60% of the population. Agricultural
productivity is affected greatly by climate changes. As droughts have always
been a part of the climate in Southern Africa, its frequency in Lesotho has
increased significantly over the past few years. And because of its high elevation(1388-3482m above sea level), Lesotho is heavily influenced by a variety ofcompeting weather systems, leaving the country prone to natural disasters,
drought and desertification, loss of biological diversity and land degradation. In
accordance with Article 4 of the UNFCCC, 2000, these conditions indicate
Lesotho as a country highly vulnerable to climate change.
A prolonged dry spell and high temperatures during the critical period of the
2006/07 cropping season (January – March 2007) resulted in large-scale andirreversible damage to maize and sorghum crops. The absence of rains during
January to March was the main cause of the damage to yields, coupled with anexcessive dry spell that has prevailed since December 2006 (Emergency Events
Database, 2008).
Migration of the male working force to South African mines and industry had alarge impact upon mountain communities (Arnalte, 2006). Besides this, the lackof resources and the inappropriate farming techniques, such as monoculture,
resulted in declining yields and therefore, food insecurity for many families in themountain kingdom.
2.3
Measures taken by the Government of Lesotho
As a member of the international community, Lesotho ratified the UNFCCC Treaty
in 1995. However, there is no national coordinated policy to deal with such
pervasive problem directly (BoSP, 2007). The country puts more priority on
adaptive measures because of its extreme vulnerability to the adverse effects ofclimate changes. This includes: promotion of renewable sources of energy forthe residential and commercial sectors, the promotion of energy efficient
12 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesothodevices, the encouragement of energy switching to cleaner sources such as
electricity, reforestation of indigenous forests, aforestation of gullies anddegraded lands and rehabilitation of wetlands. In addition, other different
programmes such as Disaster Management and Poverty Alleviation
Programmes, which include social funds, special employment schemes,
restoration and resettlement schemes are implemented for households that are
affected by development activities.
2.4
Climate change adaptive strategy
Climate change predictions are still too coarse to give highly specific guidance.
Drought-affected areas are likely to expand, and the poor have the least capacity
to adapt to the increasing severity of weather events that are expected (UnitedStates Agency for International Development, 2007). To adapt to increasing
weather variability, buffering and diversification strategies such as cropping
systems change (Philip et al., 2007), water harvesting and small-scale irrigation(USAID, 2007), integrated crop management, diversification with higher-value
crops, and are important. Government policies and longer-term development
pathways to build the resilience of smallholder farmers (Hazell and Haddad,
2001; Pender et al., 2001), are also urgently required.
2.5
Farming technologies: the Machobane Farming System
2.5.1 Requirements
Currently, six farming systems or technologies are practiced in Lesotho, namely:
block farming (Integrated Regional Information Network, 2009), mono-cropping(traditional farming), conservation farming (Soil and Water Conservation andAgro-forestry Program, 2001), keyhole garden (Taylor, 2008), double digging [a24 inch (610 mm) deep trench] and the Machobane Farming Systems(Machobane and Robert, 2004). Data depicting the percentage of farmers
engaged in each farming system are not available. The farming systems arepromoted with the obvious goal of assisting the rural livelihoods, conserving theenvironment, and generating income. However, their response to climate change
impacts, adaptability and resilience property remained a crucial factor forconsideration of the farming systems as a best farming practice in the rural
livelihood of Lesotho.
The Machobane farming system is an intensive cropping system, using crop
rotation, relay cropping, and intercropping practices with the application ofAssessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 13

manure and plant ash. The farming system was established as a system by Dr.
James Machobane, a Mosotho agronomist, who first conceived this “farming
system” around 1950s and experimented on his own land for 13 years before
attempting to launch it amongst his fellow farmers (Machobane and Robert,
2004). Although he had no formal agricultural training, Mr. Machobane
developed a very complex, integrated farming system designed to improve theproductivity of small-scale farmers in Lesotho. The following are key features ofthe Machobane Farming System signifying its basic behavioral and technicalrequirements to adopt as an agricultural farming system.
2.5.1.1
Behavioral requirements
The behavioral requirements for farmers are:i) self-reliance; farmers must be convinced that they can achieve food security
without external assistance: it is their will that makes the difference;ii) appreciation of the resource base; farmers must be convinced that they can
improve crop production by fully exploiting their resource base;iii) readiness to do hard work;iv) learning and teaching by doing; farmers must be trained on their own fields
and farmer trainers must be ready to do work along with them;v) spontaneous technology spreading; farmers learn from their farmers;vi) Machobane farmers have the duty to help their neighbors.
In Lesotho mountain areas, most crops are grown on permanently terraced land.
Due to poor soil structure, inadequate soil fertility management and erratic
rainfall, land productivity is low and subject to wide fluctuations. According to
Machobane, these constraints can be overcome by rational exploitation of theresource base and minimizing the need for purchase inputs. In the MfS, it isconsidered that intensive cropping of one acre is sufficient to ensure foodsecurity for an average family of 5 members (1/3 of the area conventionally
thought necessary). Commonly, seven basic crops are grown in Lesotho: maize,
potatoes, sorghum, wheat, peas, beans and cucurbits (pumpkins and melons).
These crops are relay-intercropped in a 1-acre (0.4 ha) plot and the cropping
pattern allows food crops to be produced almost all the year round. To reduce thelikelihood of total crop failure, and increase productivity the Machobane Farming
System takes the following basic technical applications into account:

14 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

2.5.1.2
The technical bases
The following are the technical bases that are required in Machobane Farming
System to increase productivity.
i)
The use of organic fertilizers.
ii) Perennial vegetation cover.
iii) Cropping pattern adequate to the varying climate.
iv) Natural pest control.
v) Relay harvesting allowing for almost year-round harvest.
Although the specifics of this farming system may be appropriate only in thetemperate climate of Lesotho, many of the principles outlined here are also
applicable to smallholder farming areas in tropical Africa.
2.5.1.3
Use of organic fertilizers
The Machobane Farming System uses animal manure and wood ash as fertilizer.
For the initial land preparation, approximately 300 wheelbarrowfuls are used per
hectare (one wheelbarrow contains about 25 kg). Depending upon the type ofsoil, different mixtures of organic material are applied as required. About thesame amount of organic matter is applied to the field before each cropping
season. By the fourth year, the fertility of the soil will have improved, and lessorganic fertilizer will be needed each cropping season then after. Plant leaf litter
and/ or remains (mulching) can also be used as effective soil cover to maintainmoisture and decomposing material to the plant.
2.5.1.4
Perennial vegetative cover
The Machobane Farming System ensures complete crop cover throughout theyear, because winter crops (e.g., wheat and peas) are planted in April–May (forharvest in January–March), and summer crops (e.g., maize, beans andsorghum) are planted in August–October (for harvest in November–December).
Because the system uses minimum tillage (complete plowing of the field is only
done once every 5 years), soil movement is minimized. Crop residues are left in
the field, allowing humus to build up. Because there are always crops in the field,
grazing of livestock is not possible.
2.5.1.5
Cropping pattern adapted to varying climate
Lesotho's climate is temperate, with a warm summer and a cool winter. Late or
early frosts, hail and seasonal drought are not uncommon. The Machobane
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 15

system allows for the planting of cool-weather crops, such as peas, wheat andpotatoes, which perform well in the winter conditions. In the summer months,
maize, beans, pumpkins and other crops are intercropped (Fig. 2 and 3).
However, because Lesotho can experience drought in the summer, droughtresistant crops like sorghum (aptly known as the “camel of the plant kingdom”)
are also planted to reduce the risk of crop failure.
2.5.1.6
Seedbed preparation and planting
In the first planting season, the 0.4 ha (1 acre) field is ploughed. The plot is thenharrowed or disked to prepare the soil completely. A spade or hoe can be used tomake the furrows or rows where the seed is to be planted. In April, the wintercrops (wheat and peas) are planted. A double row of wheat is planted, with 30 cm
between the two rows. Then a gap of 2 m is left, and a double row of peas isplanted, again with 30 cm between the rows. Then comes another gap of 2 m,followed by a double row of wheat, a 2-m gap, another of peas, and so on (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Machobane Farming System: double row of wheat andvegetables.
16 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

In August, the first batch of potatoes is planted in the 2-m gaps between the rowsof wheat and peas; only half of the field is planted at this time. Starting inNovember, the rest of the field is planted with a second batch of potatoes.
In October, the summer crops are planted in a complex intercropping pattern ofmaize, beans, sorghum, pumpkin and watermelon. In the 30-cm spaces between
the double rows of wheat and peas, a single furrow is dug. Maize and beans areplanted in this furrow, with 30 cm between the maize plants, and 15 cm between
the beans.
Every 4 m, two pumpkin seeds are added to the maize and bean hill. In every
other row, watermelon is planted rather than pumpkin. Finally, sorghum is sownalong the entire furrow (Fig. 3). After the first batch of potatoes are harvested in
December, vegetables such as rape, cabbage, and spinach can be planted.

Fig. 3. Maize intercropping with pumpkin and watermelon:
Mountains (Mantsonyane).

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 17

2.5.1.7

Crop management practices

2.5.1.7.1
TillageOnce the crops are in the field, minimum tillage is done using a spade or a hoe. A
hand-pushed ripper (Fig. 4) can also be used to open the furrow to plant thesummer and winter crops. New crops can then be planted without harming thestanding crops.
2.5.1.7.2
Weeding
Weeds in the field should be controlled as they can harbor insects and pests, andcan also compete with plants for moisture, light and nutrients. The first weeding isdone with a hoe immediately after crop emergence to break up and aerate thesoil around the crops and to kill the weeds. The second weeding is done when
the crops are about 1 month old. Crop residues are left in the field, helping to
improve soil fertility and hindering weed growth.

Fig. 4. A hand push ripper to open the furrow.

18 |Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

Earthing the potatoes
2.5.1.7.3
The first earthing is done when the potatoes are at their first stage of flowering. Avery small quantity of soil is gathered around the plant at this time. The second
earthing is done at the second budding: a little more soil is ridged around theplant. The third earthing is done at the third budding, and ridging is done to coverhalf the plant with soil. With the fourth earthing, two-thirds of the plant is covered
with the soil.
2.5.1.7.4
Natural pest control
Natural pest control is encouraged in the system, while chemical pesticides are
discouraged. Since some crops act as natural repellents to certain insects, theintercropping practice contributes to pest control. The deliberate crop rotation
helps to break the life-cycle of insect pests. Regular weeding throughout the year
helps to control pests and diseases. Also, some plants can create an unsuitableenvironment for insects; for example, the pumpkin plant has hair which is
irritating. Pest-control home remedies may also be used.
2.5.1.7.5
Relay intercropping
The relay intercropping practice offers many advantages. For example, because
the crops are sown at different times there is little competition during the growing
period. Time spent weeding one crop helps prepare the soil for the crop that will
follow. Available land is maximized with the production of several species.
2.5.1.7.6
Relay harvesting
The relay intercropping system allows for staggered harvesting of crops
throughout the year, manually. No machinery is used for harvesting. The wintercrop of peas can be harvested in November (as green peas) and in March (asgrains). Wheat is harvested starting in January. The first batch of potatoes isharvested from late November to March; the second batch is harvested starting in
April. The potatoes are harvested as soon as the leaves and stems have become
dry using a spade or digging fork.
Harvesting the large number of summer crops begins late in the year. Greenmaize can be harvested in December–January and green beans in
December–February. Watermelons can be harvested starting in February. From
March to May, pumpkins should be harvested. Beans in grain form are harvested
from April to the end of June; rape, cabbage, and spinach can be harvested
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 19

during the same period. Grain or dry maize and sorghum are harvested in
June–July.
2.6
Current status of the Machobane Farming System
As part of its broader initiative for Sub-Saharan African countries affected bydrought and desertification, the International Fund for Agricultural Development(International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2001) helped the governmentof Lesotho establish the Soil and Water Conservation and Agro-forestry Program(SWaCAP, 2001), as an intervention to encourage conservation based
agricultural production practices. In the 1991-1992 cropping season, SWaCAP
persuaded Dr. Machobane to get involved in reinstating the MfS, an effort which
succeeded in reintroducing the MfS with 22 participating farmers producing
variety of plants such as potato, maize, sorghum, wheat, bean, pumpkin, andwatermelon seed. The number of new farmers continued to increase rapidly,reaching about 1600 farmers by mid-1996. The project also promoted soil ripping
to break up subsurface compaction and Bana grass to reduce sheet erosion
between bunds and provide fodder. It was noted that significantly high adoption
rates of the MfS were linked to farmer-driven extension initiatives (Consolidated
Appeal Program, 2007). Currently, however, among many other factors, due toless support provided and lack of work force, the practicality and disseminativerole of the MfS is a bit weakened.

20 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

3. Objectives
In view of the short-comings noted under the section on literature review, thisstudy focuses on the following seven specific objectives:i) to identify perceived causes of poor crop production by households;ii) to determine the physicochemical characteristics of both MfS andnon-Machobane Farming System soils from the different agro-ecologicalzones of Lesotho;iii) to determine the soil microbiota as soil fertility indicator from both MfS
and non-Machobane Farming System soils from the different agroecological zones of Lesotho;iv) to collect information on current traditional pest control practices;v) to develop important pest list and type of crop diseases in the major croppingzones of the country;vi) to determine and analyze the trend of detailed meteorological data from thenearest stations;vii) correlating the basic field agronomic features, cropping practices, andmeteorological data from the nearest station.

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 21

4. Justification
There is a greater need to practice more robust farming systems in Lesotho andelsewhere around the globe considering the increased climate change impacts.
Under the circumstances, farmers need to explore alternative systems such as
planting crops like sorghum, which are more resistant to changing weather
patterns, instead of maize. Nevertheless, there has to be a fundamental andrevolutionary change in the way that agriculture is practiced. Improved farming
practices like crop rotation, and the more novel concept of conservation
agriculture - which minimizes soil disturbance, applies more precise timing forplanting, and utilizes crop residue to retain moisture and enrich the soil - would
need to be widely promoted (IRIN, 2009).
There is a need to boost government commitment in terms of budget allocation to
the agricultural sector. In 2003 the Southern African Development Community
leaders met in Maputo (Mozambique) and committed to allocating at least 10% of
their national budgetary resources to agricultural sectors, but Lesotho has only
managed allocating around 3% annually towards meeting the target set in the
Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security (IRIN, 2009). An alternative
promising approach to boosting crop production and combating climate change
impacts embraces the introduction and implementation of innovative indigenous
farming technologies such as the MfS.
In general, the Machobane Farming System has more adaptive and resilient
properties with the application of traditional and technological inputs to produce
diverse crops throughout the year in the given plot/farm. It is more economicaland environmentally friendly that restores the soil fertility and improves crop
production in quality and quantity. To disseminate the knowledge to needy
22 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesothocommunities in the region, it's proposed that multi-faceted experience sharing
program combining workshops, visitations to model farming systems in Lesotho,
networking and distribution of the training manual and relevant literature material
be promoted by concerned national and regional bodies. Such an approach isbelieved to play an important role in bringing a shift in social attitudes towards the
improvement of farming systems in crop production.

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 23

5. Research Questions
On the basis of the objectives, the following are the research questions whose
answers are sought in this study.
i). What are the perceived causes of poor crop production by households?
ii). What are the physicochemical characteristics of both MfS and nonMachobane Farming System soils from the different agro-ecological zones
of Lesotho?
iii). What are the soil microbiota as soil fertility indicator from both MfS and nonMachobane Farming System soils from the different agro-ecological zones
of Lesotho?
iv). What information is available on current traditional pest control practices?
v). What are the important pest list and type of crop diseases in the major
cropping zones of the country?
vi). What are the characteristics of the meteorological information within the
study area?
vii). How do the basic field agronomic features, cropping practices, andmeteorological data within the study area relate to each other?

24 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

6. Characteristics of the Study Area
The study area is situated at an elevation of between 1,500 and 3,482 m above
sea level. It is divided into four agro-ecological zones (Figure 1) based on climate
and elevation: Lowlands (17%), Senqu River Valley (9%), Foot-hills (15%) andMountains (59%) (Cauley, 1986). Currently, approximately 9% of its land area isarable and with the highest population pressure (Bureau of Statistics andPlanning, 2007).
The lowlands areas are significantly drier and crop failure from drought is very
common. The northern and central lowlands of the study area are alsocharacterized by large deposits of rich volcanic soils, while the southern lowlands
are characterized by poor soil and low rainfall. The foothills, on the other handconsist of very fertile land that is associated with high agricultural productivity.
The soils of the Senqu River valley on the other hand remained the most
unproductive in the region (Cauley, 1986).
Rainfall occurs mainly during the summer season but is extremely variable inquantity and time due to climate changes. Lesotho usually receives 85% of its
annual rainfall between the months of October and March. The mountains andfoothills usually receive higher rainfall and may favor the animal farming. The
cropping season is much shorter due to the early outset of frost. The 30-year
average rainfall distribution reportedly shown to decrease (57%) in September
2006, the beginning of the planting season, and decreased dramatically during
February and March 2007 (EM-DAT, 2008).
Currently, there are six farming systems practiced in Lesotho, namely: block
farming (IRIN, 2009), mono-cropping (traditional farming), conservation farming
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 25

(SWaCAP, 2001), keyhole garden (Taylor, 2008), double digging [a 24 inch (610mm) deep trench] and the Machobane Farming Systems (Machobane andRobert, 2004). Data depicting the percentage of farmers engaged in each farming
system are not available. The farming systems are promoted with the obvious
goal of assisting the rural livelihoods, conserving the environment, andgenerating income. However, their response to climate change impacts,
adaptability and resilience property remained a crucial factor for consideration of
the farming systems as a best farming practice in the rural livelihood of Lesotho.
The Machobane Farming System (MfS) is one of the farming systems in Lesothowith high adaptability and resilience to climate change. It was developed longtime ago by Dr Machobane for its convenient practice and disseminative
traditional knowledge to the farmers using natural resources that existing around.

26 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

7. Research Methodology
7.1
Fieldwork data collection and preliminary analysis
For fieldwork data gathering, informally structured questionnaires were used forinterviewing people in the four agro-ecological zones (Fig. 1). Selection ofhouseholds for interview was made based on their activities and experience incultivation of crops.
7.1.1 Objective (i) - (iii): Focus Group Discussion
From each of the agro-ecological zones visited, 10 – 12 members of thecommunity were selected to form a discussion group. The selection criteria forthe participating farmers were based on their active participation in the farming
activity and recommendation from the Extension Department, Ministry ofAgriculture. The lead questions that were used for discussion were: type offarming system, disease and pest control mechanisms the community currently
using, climate change impacts to their farming system, adaptation strategies thatthey are using to climate change and collective measures to be under taken for
future adaptation were raised and discussed at various agro-ecological zones ofthe study area in Lesotho.
7.1.2 Soil sample collection
Undisturbed soil samples were collected from five districts [ThabaTsekaMants'onyane (Mountain), Leribe-Pitseng (Wet lowland), Buthat Bothe (Foot hill),
Quthing (Senqu River valley) and Mohale's Hoek (Dry lowland) of the four agroecological zones in Lesotho (Fig. 1). From each of the selected farmers' fields(Machobane and Non-Machobane) samples were collected from the mini-pits atthe depth of 0-20cm to determine the bulk density and water reaction (Klute,1986). Samples were collected according to pedological horizons based on
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 27

slope/ relief of the area. Data about type of vegetation around each mini-pit,
position of the mini pit on the slope, type of parent materials in the area and soil
texture was recorded according to USDA method.
7.2

Laboratory work and data preliminary analysis

7.2.1 Objective (iv): Soil physico-chemical analysis
Air dried samples were used to determine the proportion of gravel (>2mm) in thesoil. The <2 mm fraction were determined using hydrometer method as an index
of soil micro-aggregate stability. The total N, organic carbon, available P,
exchangeable cations and micro-nutrients, soil pH and cation exchange capacity
were determined using the method described by (Badamchian, 1984).
7.2.2 Objective (v): Soil microbiota analysis
Soil samples from different agro-ecological zones of Lesotho were collected fromfive locations of Machobane and Non-Machobane farming plots using (A4 size)brown paper bags. The samples were kept at 4°C in the fridge until processing.
As good indicator for soil fertility, the population dynamics of Bacillus strains asplant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and strains of non-symbiotic
nitrogen fixing bacteria (NfB) were determined using the methods described byFoldes et al. (2000) and Kennedy et al. (2004), respectively.
7.3
Objective (vi) and (vii): Meteorological data analysis
Metrological data mainly of rainfall and temperature were collected from Lesotho
Metrological Service (LMS) that covers over a long period of time between 1800s
and 2000s. Data was analyzed using SAS statistical package as described in 3.3.
7.4
Statistical analyses
Summary statistics – CV, standard errors, skewness etc. were used to summarize
all soil data collected. Student t-tests were used to compare the difference
between the soil properties at each section of the slope positions using the PROC
Means of the Statistical Analysis Systems. The subsets of topography and soil
fertility data were analyzed and summarized by the principal component analysis(PCA) using the PRINCOMP procedure of SAS. Principal components (PC's)
were calculated based on correlation matrix. For all laboratory soil tests, themean separation analyses were conducted using SAS Version 8 by Duncan'sMultiple Range test at P<0.05.
28 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

8. Results
8.1

Fieldwork Data and Preliminary Analysis

8.1.1 Focus Group Discussion
During the discussion time, different types of farming systems were mentioned
and their uses were thoroughly discussed. Different farming systems practiced indifferent areas were visited by the team members.
8.1.2 Objective (i) - (iii): Comparison between farming systems
When Machobane Farming System (MfS) was compared to conservation farming
the focus group observed that they were the same in terms of yield. However, in
the application of MfS to large scale farming system they also observed that MfS
require more work as compared to other farming systems like conservation
farming system and moldboard plowing. It was also observed that MfS was labor
intensive and required a lot of input such as animal dung, ash and a special
planter.
Majority of farmers consider the MfS the best because of variety of products that it
accommodates. Although the farmers are aware of the known drawbacks of the
moldboard farming system (MBfS), such as lack of soil conservation and the cost
involved, they still practice it because of fear of risk in changing to a new system
as against the traditionally practiced method and they have never come together
to compare and discuss the advantages of available farming systems.
Participants also mentioned the reason for quitting MfS was not due to othermotivation provided by others, but it was mainly due to lack of training given on its
principles. They also mentioned that other systems which offer practical training
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 29

attracted farmers, especially the once provided by proponents of the keyholegarden. In general, participants have rated MfS and Key hole garden the best
methods, but have also mentioned that the scale over which these methods areapplied is limited; hence the reluctance to practice these methods on a large
scale.
8.1.3 Community understandings of climate change and their adaptation
strategy
Participants from all areas visited have noticed that climate is changing. Long
period of drought, exceptionally heavy rain fall and drought have been noticed by
all focus group participants. In the mountainous area of Mantsonyane, farmers
used to experience early frost but, due to climate changes, which some thought
could be due to the construction of Mohale dam, such problem is now a bit
improved. In the other agro- ecological zones, farmers have noticed the change
in climate by a shift in sawing season, early frost, wet and dry seasons andextremely high temperatures. Too much rain has made weeding impossible.
The eminent shift in planting season has excluded certain crops like peas andbeans in the mountain areas. The changing climate has also decreased yield
because of poorly developing buds; pest infestation, drought, flooding and hailstorms. In the mountains and the foothills villages Machobane Farming System
noticed to be less affected by a climate change. Sustainance of fertility from thesoil that slowly release nutrients to the farm and conservation of the moisture
content in Machobane Farming System make its resilience to climate change
noticeable. In the Senqu River valley, participants noticed that no particular crop
was resistant to climate change.
8.1.4 Adaptation strategies made by the communities to environmental
changesSpecific measures taken against changing of climate conditions have varied fromone village to the other. In the mountains some participants mentioned that they
were running trials to find out as to which crops would be more suitable to theshifting and short growing period. In the dry Senqu River valley, mulching andreturning residue on to the fields was observed to be the best way of conserving
moisture. They have also proposed water harvesting and construction of small
dams for irrigation during dry period as an effective adaptive measure towards
climate change.
30 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in LesothoIn the foothills at Pitseng village participants mentioned several adaptive
measures such as:> Plowing the land while the plant residue is still there.
> Avoid burning of plant residues in order to conserve soil moisture and not
destroy the nutrients.
> Establishment of appropriate sawing season for different crops in response to
the shifting sawing season to cope with a climate change.
> Farmers used to saw maize in August but, due to climate variability, they haveestablished the sawing season for maize to be towards the end of Julyinstead.
> Farmers still run trials for other crops and vegetables.
There have been no unique (innovative) measures implemented in Senqu Rivervalley agro-ecological zones. In the mountains and foothills, on farm trials by
farmers are ongoing to establish appropriate crops that can cope with shifting
sawing season.
8.1.5 Future Measures (Collective Measures) to be implemented
Education and guidance of farmers by Government and Non-government tofacilitate the use of organic farming through Machobane Farming System (MfS)
and Conservation Farming was viewed to be an important future policy direction
to adapt to changing climate conditions. Community based discussion forum toseek solutions to impacts of climate change was also considered an importantmilestone towards building adaptive measures towards climate change. Supplyof special seeds that would resist drought and disease by government and NGOs
has been viewed as another approach to overcome the problems imposed byclimate change.
8.2

Objective (iv): Soil physicochemical analysis:

8.2.1 Soil texture
Silt and clay contents of the soil were found to be the most important fractions ofsoil texture. The silt and the clay contents of the soil determine the nutrient
retention capacity of the soil. These sites can be grouped into two categories
those with silt contents of > 40% (i.e. PMfS, PNMfS & TNMfS) and those with silt
contents < 30% silt contents (i.e. MHNMfS, QNMfS, QMfS, TMfS, MHMfS, BBMfS& BBNMfS). The sand content from all sites tested can be grouped into threeclasses: those with sand contents >50% (i.e. MHMfS, BBMfS & BBNMfS); those
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 31

with sand contents between 35-48% (i.e. QMfS, TMfS, TNMfS, QNMfS) and thosewith sand contents ≤35% (i.e. PNMfS, MHNMfS & PMfS).
8.2.2 Soil pH
Generally, the soil pH can be grouped into two classes. Those with pH >6.0 (i.e.
TNMfS, QNMfS, MHMfS, MHNMfS, TMfS & QMfS) and those with pH < 5.0 (i.e.
PNMfS, BBMfS, BBNMfS & PMfS). These sites had significantly different levels of
acidity & alkalinity.
8.2.3 Organic Carbon
The organic “C” can be grouped into two classes. Those with org C < 1% (i.e.
BBNMfS, PNMfS, BBMfS & QNMfS). In addition others had org C > 1.5%. Thesesites had significantly different levels of organic carbon.
8.2.4 Available Phosphorus (P)The available P were generally low and these could be grouped into two classes.
Those with available P of >10mg/kg (i.e. BBNMfS, MHMfS & QMfS) and theothers had <5mg/kg of P. These sites had significantly different levels of available
P.
8.2.5 Lime rate
Results showed that sites can be grouped into two categories based on their lime
requirements. These are sites with lime rate >1,500kg/ha (i.e. PNMfS, BBMfS,BBNMfS & TNMfS) and those with lime rates < 10,000kg/ha (MHNMfS, QNMfS,
MHMfS, TMfS, QMfS & PMfS).
8.3
Objective (v): Soil microbiology analysis
In soil microbiology analyses, the total count of both Bacillus spp and Nitrogen
Fixing Bacteria (NfB) found to be higher between (1.96 x 105 - 5.4 x 105 cells/ml)
in almost all Machobane Farming System practicing plots (Fig. 5 and 6). Soils richin nutrients and carbon sources, not only increase number of microbial
population, but also diversity of microorganisms (Colin, 2002; Carlos and Gabor,
2005). An increase in number could also be associated with the ability of the
Bacillus spp to fix nitrogen as in nitrogen deficient soils (Colin, 2002) and has anover all ameliorative effect to the soil.

32 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2

a

a

c

d

d

c

d

f

FS
M
PN

PM

FS
M
N
Q

M
Q

N
H

FS

FS
M

FS
M

M

H

M

FS
M
N

BB

BB

M

FS

FS
M
TN

TM

FS

g

h

FS

Bacillus total count (log/ml)

The availability of humus (organic material) in the Machobane Farming Systemsoils on the other hand serves as a very good source of carbon, which favor andenergize the Nitrogen Fixing microorganisms including Bacillus spp to beefficient and increase in number. Bacillus spp as they are endospore producing
bacteria, they are tolerant to heat, desiccation and ultra –violet radiation so areable to survive for longer period of time in the soil (Gnanamanickan, 2003).

District farm sites

Fig. 5. Total Bacillus count. Mean with the same letter are notsignificantly different by Duncan grouping at (P<0.05).
Legend: Acronyms stands for the following representation: BBNMfS = Butha Bothe Non
Machobane Farming System, BBMfS = Butha Bothe Machobane Farming System, MHMfS =Mohale's Hoek Machobane Farming System, QMfS = Quthing Machobane Farming System, TMfS =ThabaTseka Machobane Farming System, TNMfS = ThabaTseka Non Machobane Farming system,QNMfS = Quthing Non Machobane Farming System, PNMfS = Pitseng Non Machobane Farming
System, MHNMfS = Mohale's Hoek Non Machobane Farming System, PMfS = Pitseng Machobane
Farming System.

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 33

b

5.6
d

d

5.4

d

e

5.2

e
g

h

h

5
4.8

PN

M

FS

FS
PM

FS
Q

Q

M

NM

FS

FS
HN

M

FS
M

FS

HM
M

NM

BB

BB

M

FS

FS
M
TN

FS

4.6
TM

NF bacteria total count (log/ml)a5.8

District farm sites

Fig. 6. Total Nitrogen Fixing Bacteria (NfB) count. Mean with thesame letter are not significantly different by Duncan grouping at(P<0.05).
8.4
Objective (vi) & (vii): Metrological data analysis
The amount of precipitation and percentage change over years (1923 – 2006) inLesotho is depicted in Fig. 7 and 8 below. The highest precipitation was recorded
between 1954 and 1962 and this fluctuated irregularly as from 1963 to 2006 (Fig.
7 and 8). Results of the decadal change in rainfall were highest for periods of
1944-1953 and this trend decrease successively over years to the lowest
between 1974 and 1983. The lowest precipitation change was recorded between
2003 and 2006 (Fig. 8).

34 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

900

800

Precipitation (mm)

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
19231933

19341943

19441953

19541962

19631973

19741983

19841993

19942002

20032006

Years
Fig. 7. Precipitation trend in Lesotho over years (1923 – 2006).

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 35

30

24.75

25

21.07

Change (%)

20

15.88
15

9.6

10

5.87
5.04
5

3.7
2.05

0
19231933

19341943

19441953

19541962

19631973

19741983

19841993

19942002

20032006

Years

Fig. 8. Percentage change of precipitation over years in Lesotho(1923 – 2006).

36 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

9. Conclusions & Recommendations
Lesotho has experienced the growing impact of global warming, as seen by theincreasing frequency of natural disasters, droughts, and emerging signs ofprogressive desertification, fragile characteristics of its soil and terrain, erratic
climatic conditions including changing patterns in rainfall periods and the risk ofshorter growing seasons, growing levels of poverty, and the relative deprivation of
the inaccessible mountain region which makes up more than 60% of the country.
In order to either take full advantage of new opportunities and potential that may
come with climate changes, or avert human sufferings that may be associatedwith its adverse effect, more robust national coordinated, mitigative and adaptive
development policies should be in place for the improved outcomes for the poor.
It is known that Lesotho has one of the most advanced soil conservation
programs in Africa that involve terracing, grass stripping, and the construction ofdams and irrigation canals to cope with the severe erosion problems. However,more effort has to be done with strength towards improvement of productivity by
way of several traditional and technological practices such as crop rotation, crop
diversification and intercropping, good and sustainable irrigation practices, useof improved seed, traditional and integrated pest management practices, a shift
in sowing season, the use of animal manure and ash are some of the good
agricultural practices to be applied sustainably.
9.1
Empowering mountain people to take part in local
government
People living in the mountains are less supported from central administrative andtechnical advice because of their geographical isolation. Empowering them totake part in the local government is crucial. Recently introduced local
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 37

government policies could be advantageous for mountain people. The NGOs
and other organizations should take advantage of this policy and train the people
in the mountain, the farmers, in administration and self-government, range land
use and livestock production so that they will develop strategies that come fromand are for the mountain communities.
9.2
NGOs, Regional and International Agencies
NGOs and other international agencies are playing important role in Lesotho ofaddressing the burning issues connected with poverty alleviation, HIV&AIDS, themanagement of ecology and the environment, among others. In these efforts, agreater role and concentration will be necessary not just to provide the urgently
needed goods and services, but also to assist with the tools and training to build
local capacity and support sustainability. This implies a greater role and visibility
for the technical agents and projects of NGOs, bilateral and multilateral agencies.
9.3
Science and Technology Policy
Biotechnology is one of the 'key technologies' that can benefit society in many
ways, for instance by increasing the availability and enhancing the nutritional
value of food grains, by eliminating the use of harmful pesticides, facilitating the
manufacture of cheaper, safer and more effective drugs, by improving the qualityof livestock, by increasing tree cover in the country and by treating material in asafe and eco-friendly manner. These benefits to society can extend to a wide
range of sectors, such as Agriculture, Health Care, the Processing Industry andthe Environmental Sector (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, 2006).
The Government of Lesotho through the Department of Science and Technology
should strive to facilitate the development of biotechnology in the country byerecting high quality infrastructure through the strategy of encouraging research
activities, developing human resources and establishing links between research
institutions, academia as well as industry, and initiate biotechnology curricula inschools, colleges and the university. By embracing biotechnology,
implementation of developmental goals towards alleviation of poverty, foodsecurity, and improving human health and job creation is possible.

38 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in LesothoReferences
Arnalte, L., 2006. A farming system for the mountains, [online]. Available at: web
address (http://base.d-p-h.info/es/fiches/dph/fiche-dph-7060.html). [Accessed
29th September, 2010].
Badamchian, J., 1984. Laboratory manual recommended soil test procedures forsoils of Lesotho. Ministry of Agriculture, Maseru.
Bureau of Statistics and Planning (BoSP)., 2002. Lesotho Agricultural production
survey. Maseru, Livestock report.
Bureau of Statistics and Planning (BoSP)., 2007. Lesotho agricultural situation
report (1982-2004). Maseru.
Carlos, R. and Gabor, P., 2005. Biodiversity and Ecophysiology of Yeasts.
Springer: Amazon.
Cauley, M., 1986. Benchmark soils of Lesotho: their classification, interpretation,
use and management. Office of Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Division Ministry ofAgriculture: Maseru.
Colin, H. R., 2002. Bacillus, Springer: Amazon.
Consolidated Appeal Program (CAP)., 2007. Lesotho drought flash appeal.
Maseru.
Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT)., 2008. The OFDA/CRED International
Disaster Database, Université catholique de Louvain: Brussels.
European Forum on Rural Development Cooperation (EFRDC)., 2002. Rural
development: country report, [online]. Available at: web address(http://www.ruralform.info/en/montpellier_2002). Accessed on the 11th October2010.

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 39

Flannery, R.D., 1977. Erosion phenomenon in Lesotho. Lesotho Agricultural
College: Maseru.
Foldes, T., Banhegyi, I., Herpai Z., Varga, L. and Szigeti, J., 2000. Isolation of
Bacillus strains from the rhizosphere of cereals and in vitro screening forantagonism against phytopathogenic, food-borne pathogenic and spoilage
micro-organisms. Applied Microbiology, 89, 840-846.
Gnanamanickan, S. S., 2003. Biological control of crop diseases. CRC press:
Amazon.
Hazell, P and Hadded, L., 2001. Agricultural Research and poverty reduction. A
paper presented in food, agriculture and environment discussion, IFPRI:
Washington DC.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)., 2001. Rural report 2001:
the challenge of ending rural poverty. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN)., 2009. Lesotho: a mountain ofchallenges, [online]. Available at: web address(http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=86910). Accessed 14th May,
2010.
Kennedy, I, R., Choudhury, A. T., Keeskes, M. L., Roughley, R. J and Hien, N. T.
2004. Non symbiotic bacterial diazotrophs in crop farming systems: can theirpotential for plant growth promotion be better exploited? Biological Nitrogen
Fixation, Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment. 271 - 272.
Klute, A., 1986. Methods of soil analysis. Physical and meneralogycal methods,(2nd ed). American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Lesotho Meteorological Service (LMS)., (2001). Climate change in Lesotho: a
handbook for practitioners. Maseru, Lesotho.
Lesotho Meteorological Service (LMS)., 2004. Adaptation to Climate Change
Technology Needs in Lesotho: Energy and Land Use Change and Forestry.
40 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in LesothoMachobane, J. J. and Robert, B., 2004. Drive out hunger: the story of J. J.
Machobane of Lesotho. Jacana: Johannesburg.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MoNR)., 2007. Lesotho's National Adaptation
Program of Action (NAPA) on climate change. Submitted to the UNFCCC
Secretariat.
Pender, J., Gebremedhin, B., Benin, S. and Ehui, S., 2001. Strategies forsustainable agricultural development in the Ethiopian Highlands. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(5), 1231 - 1240.
Philip, D., Barry, S., Webb, P. and Winslow, M., 2007. How do poor people adapt toweather variability and natural disasters today? Human Development Report:
Maseru.
Robertson A. F., 1994. Popular scientist: James Jacob Machobane and Mantsa
Tlala, African affairs, 93, 99-121.
Soil and water Conservation and Agro-forestry Program (SWaCAP)., 2001. Soiland water conservation and agro-forestry project, Lesotho.
Taylor, P., 2008. Lesotho's keyhole gardens: sustainable urban farming that feeds
the community. Posted on Mother City Living: living green in Cape Town. [online].
Available at: (http://www.mothercityliving.co.za/20080624/lesothos-keyholegardens-how-urban-farming-can-feed-communities/). Accessed on 12 May
2010.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
Science Policy Studies., 2006. Lesotho science and technology policy 20062011, Stella srl, Trieste, Italy.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)., 2007. Adapting toclimate variability and change: a guidance manual for development planning, US
Agency for International Development, New York.

Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho | 41

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)(UNFCCC)., 2000. United Nations Framework Connection on Climate Change
first national communication to the conference of parties on climate change,
Maseru, Lesotho. [online]. Available at: (http://www.lesmet.org.ls). Accessed on
20 January 2011.

42 | Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in Lesotho

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

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

Science, Technology and Innovation
for African Development

ISBN: 978-9966-030-16-0