F

A Comprehensive Scoping and Assessment Study of Climate Smart

Agriculture (CSA) Policies in Lesotho

Report

30 April 2014

By

Patrick Gwimbi; Puseletso Likoetla; Kanono Thabane; Puleng Matebesi

Food Agriculture, Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network

FANRPAN

Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) Physical address: 141 Cresswell Road, Weavind Park 0184, Pretoria, South Africa

Postal address: Private Bag X2087, Silverton 0127, Pretoria, South Africa Tel: +27 (0) 12 804 2966 or +27 (0) 12 804 3186

Fax: +27 (0) 12 804 0600 Email: policy@fanrpan.org URL: www.fanrpan.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction iv

1.1 Country overview on land, agriculture, and food security issues iv

2. Methodology v

3. Farming systems and CSA technologies and practices v

4. CSA Policy framework in the country xi

5. Conclusions and recommendations xvi

6. Annexes xviii

Appendix A FANRPAN Climate Smart Agriculture Workshop Report xviii

1. Introduction

Climate change adversely effects food production and livelihood assets in Lesotho. The challenges

climate change and variability pose are more daunting in the agriculture sector which is highly climate-

sensitive and yet the main source of livelihoods earnings in the country. In the face of such challenges,

climate smart agriculture that seeks to increase food productivity for the poor and to prevent the future

negative impacts of climate change requires attention.

This synthesis research report was prepared in collaboration with the Food, Agriculture and Natural

Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) in its endeavour to provide policy relevant Climate Smart

Agriculture (CSA) policies and dialogue in Lesotho. The report analyzes the gaps in the existing policy

frameworks and identifies relevant CSA programmes on the ground. The report is based on a

combination of document reviews and stakeholders’ workshop discussions among government

negotiators, experts, researchers and others involved and interested in climate change and agriculture.

With the above perspectives, this study focused on: conducting a comprehensive review of the existing

CSA policies in Lesotho; analysing gaps in the existing policy frameworks; identifying relevant CSA

programmes; and, developing and sharing CSA policy recommendations. These are critical elements of

CSA policy at the international level and in developing countries.

1.1. 1.1 Country overview on land, agriculture, and food security issues

Lesotho is a mountainous country with a total land area of 30,355 km2 and completely surrounded by

the Republic of South Africa. Its altitude ranges from 1,388 m above sea level on its south western

border to 3,482 m in its eastern mountains. The country experiences a temperate continental climate.

The country is divided into four geographical regions, namely the mountain region, the foothills region,

the lowland region, and the Senqu Valley. In total 60 per cent of the country's surface is taken up by

mountains and only 11 per cent of the country is suitable for cultivation. The population density is

highest in the lowlands and foothills.

The population estimated to be 1.8 million according to the 2008 census, is growing at about 2.6% per

annum. The average population density is 65 people per km2 spread in the four ecological zones,

highlighted above (MDP, 2000). More than 77% of the population resides in rural areas and depend on

agriculture for growing food and raising livestock for their livelihood. Notably, the population pressure

has resulted in increased landlessness currently estimated at about 60%.

Smallholder farmers whose farms are generally less than 1 ha in size dominate the agricultural

production in Lesotho. The major crops grown in Lesotho in the order of importance are maize,

sorghum, wheat, beans and peas. Other crops grown to a significant scale include potatoes and

vegetables (Ministry of Agriculture 1995). Maize is by far the most popular crop, accounting for some 60

per cent of the cropped area, sorghum between 10 and 20 per cent, wheat about 10 per cent and beans

a further 6 per cent.

Crop failures are common and exacerbated by climatic hazards such as hail and early frosts. Drought

chronically affects the country. The contribution of agriculture to the GDP less than 10% and this

perennially forces the country to appeal for assistance from the international community, thus

illustrating the vulnerability of the agricultural sector. Pastures are limited by intensive cultivation and

relatively dense human settlement. The restricted grazing areas within the lowland zone are heavily

used and significantly degraded.

1. 2. Methodology

This research report is based on a desk review of the relevant literature on climate smart agriculture

policies and programmes in Lesotho and stakeholders workshop consultation. The key stakeholders

identified for consultation included government ministries (agriculture, economic development, natural

resources, communication, Lesotho Meteorological Services, Bureau of Statistics), Lesotho National

Farmers’ Union, UNDP, World Vision, Private Sector Foundation of Lesotho, National and international

NGOs, National University of Lesotho, Research organisations and the media in Lesotho.

2. 3. Farming systems and CSA technologies and practices

The term climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is fairly recent and therefore not contained in Lesotho’s

climate smart agriculture technologies and practices. However, the tenets of CSA are embedded in the

country’s food security policies and programmes. Currently, six farming systems are practiced in

Lesotho, namely: conservation farming, block farming, homestead and or key hole gardening, improved

livestock production, land conservation and improvement and crop diversification, and the Machobane

Farming Systems.

In order to understand the farming systems, the study undertook an in-depth analysis of each farming

systems. Each farming system response to the challenges posed by climate change in different ways.

Conservation agriculture (CA) is a farming system that has been practiced in Lesotho for about 30 years

(Marake, 2008). The system is commonly called “likoti”, a Sesotho name for “basin agriculture”. The

method involves digging potholes that are approximately 20 cm across and 15 cm deep in a 75 x 75 cm

grid-like pattern. Seeds are directly planted into each pothole along with some inorganic or organic

fertilizer. In the following season, seeds are planted again in the same pits. Crop residues are retained

and staple crops are rotated and/or intercropped. The likoti system has shown promise as a means of

increasing yields and conserving soil and water resources (Silici, 2011).

Likoti is now promoted by various organizations in Lesotho, including the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO), World Vision Lesotho (WVL), Growing Nations, CARE-Lesotho, Serumula, Send a

Cow Lesotho, among many others. World Vision Lesotho for example, operates in seven of the ten

districts of the country, including Maseru, Botha-Bothe, Mafeteng, Leribe, Berea, Mohale’s Hoek and

Quthing (Mokitimi et al., 2009). Its main activities include promoting agricultural extension workers, soil

and water conservation techniques and measures, advocacy in land distribution, health, nutrition and

education (Mokitimi et al., 2009). Growing Nations in liaising with Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Security (MAFS) is conducting some CA trials in Maphutseng in Mohales’hoek and Qacha’s nek. Send a

Cow Lesotho in collaboration with FAO and MAFS; Serumula and GROW are implementing CA in

Mmuela, Katse and Mohale Catchments affected by Lesotho Highlands Development Area (LHDA). FAO

is also supporting vulnerable households through CA with cover crops of wheat or fodder through

resource centers covering all districts of Lesotho. CARE-Lesotho is engaged in the teaching communities

and supporting CA implementation in Quthing and Mokhotlong. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and

Caritas are implementing the Mountain Integrated Conservation Agriculture (MICA) supporting

conservation agriculture in the districts of Quthing, Mohale’s hoek and Mafeteng. The Rural Self Help

Development Association (RSDA) is supporting CA and livestock integration where fodder cover crop is

used for feed formulation.

The Government of Lesotho, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS) is also

conducting research across the four agro-ecological zones of Lesotho, analysing the agronomic

responses of maize under CA versus mechanized approaches. The National University of Lesotho is also

working with University of Tennesse (USA) doing CA research activities in Maphutseng: comparing CA

and conventional agriculture in carbon release and investigation of the cover crops that are adaptive to

local conditions.

The support given to CA by non-government organizations (NGOs), extension services and government

in Lesotho is based on its potential as a system in improving rural livelihoods through sustainable and

intensified food production (Silici et al., 2011). Previous studies on CA confirm that the system results in

increased household food security, economic and social wellbeing. Haggblade et al. (2003) for example

reported that CA adopters increased their crop productivity by 30 to 70%. Mapeshoane et al. (2005) also

concluded that CA is more effective in terms of soil erosion control, yield stability, reduced machinery

use and lower fuel costs compared with conventional tillage systems. In the face of climate change, CA

systems in Lesotho have been found to be relevant in addressing drought and environmental

degradation challenges.

The second farming system practiced in Lesotho and deemed climate smart is homestead or key hole

gardening (Box1). In Lesotho, communities, organizations and agencies are taking a joint and

complementary approach to promoting keyhole gardens that grow year round food and cash crops

despite the harsh mountain climate (Billingsley et al., 2013).

Box 1. Keyhole gardens

The basic keyhole garden is a circular, raised-bed made up of layers of soil, ash, manure and other

organic material that retains moisture and nourishes the soil, making it more productive than a

conventional garden, even during dry or cold months. The gardens can produce vegetables for a

family of five year round. In Lesotho, the garden is usually walled with local stone or brick that

retains daytime heat, alleviating low night time temperatures. The raised structure also makes

access easier for the chronically ill or elderly. Size can vary, but the basic garden measures 1m high

and 2m in diameter.

A keyhole-like ‘cut out’ or walkway design gives growers ‘arms-length access’ across the garden.

‘Grey’ water from household washing is added through a central composting basket, watering the

garden and continuously infusing the soil with nutrients. Once built, the garden requires little

maintenance and, if cared for appropriately, can produce food for up to five years.

Source: Billingsley et al. (2013: 2)

Keyhole gardens are promoted by NGOs and the government of Lesotho among populations vulnerable

to hunger and food insecurity throughout the country as a way to improve household resiliency to

external shocks, such as drought. NGOs such as Send–A-Cow Lesotho (SCL), World Vision Lesotho,

International Red Cross Lesotho and the Catholic Relief Services are engaged in improving household

food security through home gardens such as keyhole gardens and trench gardens which provide

vegetables to household and crop residue which are fed to animals. Send a Cow Lesotho through its

successful promotion of keyhole gardens and double-dug trenches for which it has gained a positive

national reputation.

The Government of Lesotho through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security is also promoting the

block farming system. In block farming, farmers cultivate their fields as a group to reduce overall costs

and to offer support across the crop-growing spectrum. This is a form of intensified and mechanized

farming system aimed at increasing food production both at household and national level. The farming

system was introduced by the government in the 2006/2007 cropping season.

In addition to supporting block farming, to counteract the effects of low rainfalls, irrigation low-cost

gravity irrigation was given priority by the government. The intention is to optimise utilization of the

available water resources that Lesotho is endowed with. To achieve this objective donor funding was

sought as costs of developing the relevant irrigation infrastructure are very high for farmers and the

government alone.

Given the importance attached to block farming by the government of Lesotho, in 2006/2007 the

Ministry of Agriculture was allocated M106.1 Million (US$ 9.8m) while in 2007/2008 it got M141.1

Million (US$ 13.2m) and extra M59 Million (US$ 5.4m) was allocated to finance agricultural project,

including irrigation crop production to offset the negative impact of repeatedly increasing drought and

supported the block farming with loans of up to M105 Million (US$ 5.5m) (Ministry of Finance, 2008).

Block farming has however not performed according to the expectations. The poor performance has

been attributed to the non implementation of some of the farming practices such as liming and ripping

as well as the failure by the majority of the farmers to repay their loans.

The FAO Report (2005) indicates that in the past there have been several irrigation projects in the

country with almost all of funded by external donors. Public sector irrigation development in Lesotho

has however been largely unsuccessful due to a top-down and supply-driven approach on the part of

government and donors with little consultation with, or participation by, farmers (FAO, 2005). Currently

irrigation is mostly used in small schemes mostly on vegetables using surface and sprinkler irrigation

systems. The failure of the irrigation system is recognized by the Government, which is now focusing on

farmer demand irrigation policy based on small-scale schemes provided for and managed by the farmers

themselves. But, farmers are anxious to expand irrigation schemes, however financial constraints

remain the major obstacle.

Machobane Farming System is one of the farming systems in Lesotho with high adaptability and

resilience to climate change (See Box 2). The Machobane Farming System was developed in the 1970s,

after 13 years research on the agriculture management techniques that Basotho smallholder farmers

were using.

Box 2 Machobane farming system

The Machobane farming system is an intensive cropping system, using crop rotation, relay cropping,

and intercropping practices with the application of manure and plant ash (Mekbib et al. 2011). The

system provides resources to poor farmers with a sustainable system that do not require expensive

inputs, easy to implement, and supplied them with food all year around. To reduce the likelihood of

total crop failure, and increase productivity the Machobane Farming System takes the following

basic technical applications into account:

The use of organic fertilizers.

Perennial vegetation cover.

Cropping pattern adequate to the varying climate.

Natural pest control.

Relay harvesting allowing for almost year-round harvest. The philosophy behind Machobane farming system include self-reliance without external assistance,

farmers appreciation of their own resources available, readiness to work hard, practical learning and

teaching on the field and teaching other neighbour farmers for spreading the technology.

The System promotes organic fertilisers such as animal manure, ashes and organic waste, mixed in

different proportions depending of the crop, to build and maintain soil fertility. It insists on having at

least one animal in the household, which provides manure and food (milk, eggs, and meat).

Machobane System uses crop rotation, inter-cropping (mixing different crops) and rely-cropping

(planting the same crop at different times, so is harvested at different times). It introduces species

and varieties, adapted to different weather conditions, such as winter wheat, peas and carrots.

Source: Arnalte (2009)

Machobane farming system has been promoted by NGOs in Lesotho, with a special focus on the Rural

Self Development Association (RSDA) the Machobane Agricultural Development Foundation (MADF)

since the 1950s. The Machobane farming system has been supported by the International Fund for

Agricultural Development (IFAD), and other NGO’s such as RSDA and MADF promote and adopt

Machobane farming practices, despite dwindling resources from donors.

The Government of Lesotho (GOL) has been concerned about the degradation of rangelands for a

considerable time now. With support from a number of donor organizations, they have introduced a

variety of measures to control numbers of livestock. The GOL has received assistance with rangeland

management in various forms over the past twenty years. Most of the assistance packages have

included training of staff at various levels.

CSA programmes are also supported by research activities through institutions such as the National

University of Lesotho (NUL) which provide technical information regarding crop and livestock varieties

that are resistant to pests and diseases, or tolerant to drought, and have improved nutritional value as

well as vaccines against priority livestock diseases. The National University of Lesotho for example has

been implementing the NUL-Roma Valley Orphaned and Vulnerable Children Programme which is

funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (Mokitimi et al., 2009). The main activities of the programme are

to supply Orphaned and Vulnerable Children with garden tools, vegetable seeds, and provision of

psychosocial support. Lesotho’s Agricultural Research Department has been active developing drought

resistant crops and cultivars although adoption by farmers remains a formidable problem (Machepha,

2010).

Lesotho’s development partners are also implementing gender related programmes on the ground.

Some of these include those offered by Women and Law in Southern Africa (WILSA) Lesotho focusing

on:

Sensitising female farmers of the Land Act of 2010 and giving them information on their rights

provided under this law

Training workshop to empower women and others when accessing courts of law and relevant

authorities.

Designing, developing and producing booklet information on simplified property and inheritance

laws in Lesotho. These simplified laws have been translated into the Sesotho language since most of

the target groups under this project can only read, write and understand Sesotho. The aim is to

ensure that all beneficiaries are able to articulate legal issues covered in this booklet so that they

can use it as a tool for claiming and accessing their human rights which are provided for under the

said laws.

Funding for the majority of climate smart agriculture programmes is largely donor driven, raising fears

regarding financial capacity of the GOL to implement the farming system innovations on its own. Thus

Lesotho’s ability to implement climate change adaptation policies and strategies will continue to depend

on the support the country gets from the donor community (Machepha, 2010).

3. 4. CSA Policy framework in the country

The government of Lesotho acknowledges that climate change is a serious and global issue (GOL, 2007).

To show its commitment to addressing climate change challenges, the country signed and ratified the

UNFCCC and acceded to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The country submitted its First National

Communication of the UNFCCC in 2000 and its Second National Communication of UNFCCC in 2013).

The First National Communication to the UNFCCC details climate change impacts and adaptation options

in eight sectors deemed vulnerable to climate change, namely: water, agriculture, rangelands, forestry,

soils, health, biodiversity, and Basotho culture. In 2006, the country was also among the group of

countries that embarked on the preparation of the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)

against climate change (GOL, 2007). Eleven priority climate change adaptation areas which are

highlighted in the NAPA Report include increasing livestock and crop production; securing water supply;

enhancing food security; improving flood prone areas and wetlands; improving early warning climate

disaster systems; and policy reform to integrate climate change into development (GOL, 2007).

The GOL further endorses regional CSA related principles such as the Southern African Development

Community (SADC) declaration on gender and development adopted by heads of state in August 2007;

the convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) and the

protocol to the African Charter for Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (GOL,

2007); Policy and Strategy for Environment and Sustainable Development, and the African Ministerial

Conference on Environment (AMCEN), and other similar programmes.

At national level, the term Climate Smart Agriculture per se does not feature in Lesotho policies.

However as far as the contents of CSA are concerned the policy environment offers support. Section 36

of Lesotho's Constitution for example clearly articulates Government's commitment to sustainable

development by stating that:

Lesotho shall adopt policies designed to protect and enhance the natural and cultural environment of

Lesotho for the benefit of both present and future generations and shall endeavour to assure to all

citizens a sound and safe environment adequate for their health and well-being.

The constitution recognizes the need to shape the path to sustainable development by embracing

principles of climate-smart agriculture, environmental protection, sustainable natural resource use and

conservation of biodiversity. There is therefore room for successful advocating that CSA be incorporated

into policies and implementation programmes.

The Lesotho State of the Environment Report is one of the barometers used to assess the progress made

towards achieving this daunting challenge (Chakela, 2007). The Lesotho State of the Environment Report

accords every citizen a right to know what is happening to the resources of the country and what needs

to be done to either enhance positive changes or combat the negative ones (Chakela, 2007). From this

understanding several CSA sectoral policies have emerged as discussed in sections that follow.

Section 18 (4) (c) of the Constitution of Lesotho is however anti climate smart agriculture as it

discriminates against women in terms of access and use of land (Land Commission Review Report, 2000;

African Development Report, 2005). Makoa (1997), the African Union Report on Gender and Equality

Report (2006), the African Development Bank Report (2005) confirm that some aspects of Basotho

culture incorporated into customary law place women under the perpetual custody and protection of

men.

Land is a major economic resource in Lesotho. The land policy is key when it comes to climate change

and adaptation given the fact that all activities related to adaptation have to be implemented on land. In

Lesotho, land is limited, with (more than 75 percent of the country’s land area being mountainous) and

diminishing through soil erosion, worsened by the contradictory legal framework affecting gender

access and use of land (Johnson, 2013). The tenure regime in Lesotho also needs to assure farmers of

right of ownership of land where they have to invest in CSA. The tenure system determines access to

land, livelihood access and natural resources. For instance problems which come along with females not

inheriting land under customary law.

The new Land Act of 2010 establishes greater land tenure security for all land occupants and helps to

protect against arbitrary land seizure, enhances gender equity in land ownership and land transactions,

and establishes a simplified framework for systematic land registration. In addition, the new legislation

establishes a new land administration authority (“LAA”) that is autonomous in its operations, self-

sustaining, and provides efficient and cost-effective land administration services to public and private

users.

A gap identified in land policy is that there is conflict between some statutes that deal with issues of

land. As it is, The Land Act of 2010 does not discriminate. The new Act provides for equal title to land for

both men and women. However, according to the Deeds Registry Act of 1968, no land can be registered

in the name of a married woman in community of property. This law discriminates against women on

the basis of gender. Unless this gap is filled, girl children will always have a problem of acquiring and/or

inheriting land.

Lesotho’s agriculture and food security policy signifies that agriculture is critically dependent on

environmental resources such as land, water, forest, and air (GOL, 2005). Within the policy, replenishing

soil fertility and increasing the use of high yielding crop varieties and improved livestock breeds are

priorities. The policy shows that climate change has serious impacts on agriculture and livestock sectors

and that CSA could reduce the impacts of climate change.

The tenets of CSA such as increasing agricultural productivity, conservation agriculture, block farming,

homestead gardening, improved livestock production, land conservation and improvement and crop

diversification are all highlighted in the food security policy (See Box 3 for details).

Box 3 The Food Security Policy of Lesotho (2006)

Pillar 1: Promotion of Conservation Agriculture (CA) with aid of development partners through:

Activities include (i) Conducting and adopting technologies suitable to the local conditions; (ii)

Offering specialized CA training modules to Extension staff and farmer groups and; (iii) Introducing

subsidies for input for innovative approaches to CA.

Pillar 2: Promotion of block farming to increase food production

The Objectives of Pillar 2 are: facilitating (not directly involved in operations) the promotion of block

farming throughout the country; supporting Agriculture extension system; offering incentives

through subsidies for innovative approaches preferable for innovative investments (irrigation

equipment, tractors etc in line with agricultural subsidy policy); Reforming the land tenure.

Pillar 3: Promotion of homestead garden production (include keyhole gardens, trench gardens, and

bag gardens that use organic fertilizers)

Pillar 4: Promotion of livestock production and improvements in range management

Activities include (i) Supporting the combating of livestock theft Supporting rangeland productivity;

(ii) Promoting small stock production for poor vulnerable households (iii) Promoting intensive

livestock and milk production in peri-urbans

Source: GOL (2006)

The CSA policies are implemented through assistance from local and international development

partners such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international donors. Several climate-

smart programmes already exist in the country, though these could be scaled-up. A wide range of are

supported by the country’s development partners as shown in Boxes 3.

Gender is a critical factor in understanding vulnerability to climate change in Lesotho. Gender based

inequitable use and access to land and resources, and decision-making structures based on customary

laws constrain women’s ability to take action against climate change (GOL, 2001; 2007; Mokobori, 2009;

Koetlisi, 2013). Female farmers, most of them unemployed are the most affected by climate variability

and change (Koetlisi, 2013).

The National Gender and Development Policy of Lesotho of 2003 draws its mandate from Chapter II of

the national constitution and states that every citizen has fundamental human rights and freedoms

(GOL, 2003). Relevant policy objectives include achieving equal access to education, training and health

services. Crucially, the policy calls for equal access to and control over resources such as land and credit.

The policy advocates the allocation of land in accordance with availability, not in terms of gender.

The country, however, faces challenges in trying to translate its gender policy into reality for a variety of

reasons. First, while the constitution of Lesotho prohibits discrimination of any kind, it gives priority to

customary law which relegates women to being legal minors: under their fathers, husbands and sons or

male relatives. The 2000 Land Commission Report (GOL, 2001), The Legal Capacity of Married Persons

Act (2006) and Land Act of 2010 all provide for the removal of this minority status of women and girls in

the constitution, but it remains in place today disadvantaging women on paper in terms of access, use

and ownership of resources that enable them to adapt against climate change.

Second, the Land Act of 2010 ensures that all Basotho regardless of gender can own land. The main

challenge however is that this law is in conflict with national constitution which gives customary law

more power over all other laws. Consequently, in rural areas where majority of women live cultural

attitudes dictate that a family is headed by a man and that he has control over family property. As a

consequence a woman’s access to land (and associated livestock and implements) is mainly through her

husband. Women are not able to inherit land once their husbands are deceased as according to

common and customary law “heir” only refers to a male and excludes women (GOL, 2007).

The National Environmental Policy 1998 provides the framework for water policy development in the

country. The policy recognizes the periodic prolonged drought and scarcity of water for agriculture and

pollution of land and water courses in its preamble, and advocates providing access to portable water

for all people (GOL, 2001). GOL also sees irrigation as a key avenue for increased agricultural production

and household food security. This is because irrigation as it would enable farmers to intensify and

diversify their crop production base. The irrigation policy of 2002 calls on private sector involvement in

supporting small holder irrigation schemes. Irrigation policy also promises to address the specific

difficulties which women face in irrigation.

Lesotho’s National Forestry Policy encourages communities and individuals to participate in forestry

development to help alleviate shortages of fuel-wood, building materials, and animal forage, and to

protect against water and wind erosion (GOL, 2009). The nation aims to cut its carbon emissions in half

through undertaking soil and forest development works. Lesotho also supports smallholder forest

plantation management, and poverty reduction, and productivity improvement and poverty reduction

programs in rural areas.

Lesotho is also a participant to the SADC reduced deforestation/forest degradation (REDD +) programme

whose goal is to contribute to the sustainable management of the forests of the SADC region and

contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable development and mitigate climate change. Although

Lesotho has not started formal preparation for a REDD+ mechanism, it is responding to challenges of

GHG emissions by improving pasture-land and supporting reduced tillage practices on crop-land

together with improved crop breeding, and promoting afforestation.

The Disaster management policy also acknowledges that more than 90 percent of disasters in Lesotho

are related to climatic change. Drought, floods, snowfall, strong winds and landslides are physical

processes that impact and are in turn impacted by the environment (GOL, 2011). To this effect, the

policy commits to provide a framework for effective planning and implementation of disaster risk

reduction in the country. Through the Disaster Management Act of 1997, the country has a fairly well-

established multi-sectoral disaster management system in place. Disaster Management Authority carries

out annual vulnerability assessments throughout the country through a multi-sectoral and multi-

disciplinary Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee (LVAC). Much of LVAC activities focus on

drought and food security.

A number of Lesotho’s policies that are designed to reduce vulnerability against climate change have

been found to be very appropriate as measures to assist the country to adapt to the impacts of climate

change. Climate smart national aspirations of the country are however limited by some challenges such

as:

1. the country does not have a climate change policy in place. Yet climate change policy is needed to

integrate climate change in different government developmental plans to ensure that decisions on

climate change measures are consistent.

2. The country also has limited human, finance and technological resources capacity to adapt to

climate change and implement programs due to lack of human capacity. This has resulted in the

Government's failure to fully implement the adaptation prioritized actions. In the same vein, there

has been limited periodic evaluation and monitoring of environmental programs and activities.

3. Financial resource constraints and the weak institutional framework. The success and sustainability

of many measures is therefore largely dependent on the availability of donor funding.

4. There seems to be lack of coordination regarding climate change research and other activities.

Those highlighted in this report cannot be confirmed to be exhaustive, as there seem to be other

scatter climate change related works.

4. 5. Conclusions and recommendations

Climate-smart agriculture offers some opportunities to tackle food security, adaptation and mitigation

objectives in Lesotho. The recommendations put forward below focus on some key issues that can be

implemented to improve CSA policies and programmes in Lesotho:

A broad range of stakeholders should be involved in climate change policy-making, including civil

society, government sectoral departments and senior policy-makers. There was a strong concern

among stakeholders in respect to how government should deal with the climate change issue as well

as engage with the public. There was a feeling that climate change required genuine buy-in from the

community. As such, stakeholders felt that more should be done to promote two-way

communication between government and the grassroots farmers about climate smart agriculture.

Many participants felt that climate change adaptation should be informed by successful ground-

level experiences in vulnerability reduction, hence the need to involve people on the ground in

formulating climate change policy. NGOs, in particular should play a key role in building awareness

and capacity building at the local level.

Capacity building in climate data collection and management, seasonal forecasting of weather, and

developing climate driven simulation models was viewed as critical. There should be greater

investment in new water management technologies. Research and development was a key topic of

discussion for stakeholders. Given that a significant percentage of Lesotho’s households are headed

by women (36%) there is need for deliberate policies to increase their participation in CSA decision

making structures especially at farmer level.

Given that a significant percentage of Lesotho’s households are headed by women (36%) there is

need for deliberate policies to increase their participation in CSA decision making structures

especially at farmer level.

Identify and promote best practices/success stories for mitigation of greenhouse gases from

agriculture, especially from livestock activities and land use management

5. 6. Annexes

2.1. Appendix A FANRPAN Climate Smart Agriculture Workshop Report

FANRPAN Climate Smart Agriculture Workshop held in Maseru, Lesotho in February 14, 2014 at

Maseru Sun Hotel

Proceedings compiled by

Thope Matobo

Masootho Lephoto

Mamahloko Ntsapi

Acronyms and Abbreviations CA Conservation Agriculture CC Climate Change CEDAW Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women CSA

Climate Smart Agriculture EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPCSA Evidence-Based Policies on Climate Smart Agriculture FANRPAN Food Agriculture Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network FAO FOOD Agriculture Organization FSRP Food Security Resilience Project GOL Government of Lesotho LENAFU Lesotho National Farmers Union MAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security MSC Master of Science NAP National Action Plan NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NEAP National Environnemental Action Plan NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NORAD Norwegian Agency on Development operation NUL National University of Lesotho REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation SECCAP Strengthening Evidence-Based Climate Change Adaptation Policies UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organisation WV World Vision

1.0 Introduction

Chair: FANRPAN Lesotho Coordinator: Thope Matobo

FANRPAN is implementing two main CSA projects in Lesotho. These are the Strengthening Evidence-

Based Climate Change Adaptation Policies (SECCAP) and the Evidence-Based Policies on Climate Smart

Agriculture (EPCSA). The National University of Lesotho (NUL) and Food Agriculture Natural Resources

Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) held a one day workshop in Maseru on February 14, 2014 at Maseru

Sun. This one day workshop was held with the specific aim of validating the results of the climate smart

agriculture (CSA) policy scoping study that was conducted by a team of consultants from the National

University of Lesotho, under the EPCSA project; and to solicit more inputs from the stakeholders. It was

used to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to add value to the research process and take

ownership of the research outputs. It was also held to disseminate information to the stakeholders of

the studies that were conducted on strengthening evidence-based climate smart agriculture by MSC

students at the university. FANRPAN further used the workshop to engage with the stakeholders to

explore potential ways to institutionalize data and outputs generated from the SECCAP project which

was about to phase out.

The workshop was chaired by FANRPAN Lesotho Coordinator who welcomed all participants, stated the

purpose of the workshop and called on the representative (Dr. M.N. Mokhothu) of the Vice Chancellor

(Professor Mafa Sejanamane) to further welcome the participants and open the workshop. After the

welcoming address, participants the chair asked the participants to introduce themselves and the

agenda was introduced.

1.1 Welcome remarks by Motlatsi Mokhothu (PhD)

Advocated that climate change already has an impact on agriculture and food security as a result of

prevalent stream of increased unpredictable weather patterns, saying they affect the global food prices.

He explained that developing countries, small scale farmers and pastoralists are being hard-hit by the

changes.

He said many of the small scale producers are already faced with a degraded natural space, lack of

knowledge on potential options for adapting their production systems and have limited asserts to assess

and use technology and financial services.

He said that enhancing food security while contributing to the mitigation of climate change effects and

preserving the natural resource systems requires efficient use of inputs which have less variability and

greater stability in their outputs and be more resilient to risks, shocks and long term climate variability.

Furthermore, Dr Mokhothu said more productive and more resilient agriculture therefore requires a

major shift in the way land, water, soil nutrients and genetic resources are managed to ensure that

these resources are used more efficiently. He highlighted that making this shift requires considerable

change in: national and local governance; Legislation; policies; and financial mechanisms.

He said the transformation also involves improving producers’ access to markets by reducing

greenhouse emissions. He explained that they are already using technology to overcome climate

change, hence being resilient is very vital.

Looking at Climate Smart Agriculture he maintained that it is not a single specific agricultural technology

or practice that can be universally applied but an approach that requires site specific assessments by

identifying suitable agricultural production technologies and practices, expressing that it has several

connotations which,

1. Addresses the complex interrelated challenges of food security, development and climate change,

and identifies integrated options that create synergies and benefits and reduce trade-offs;

2. Recognizes that these options will be shaped by specific country contexts and capacities and by the

particular social, economic, and environmental situation where it will be applied;

3. assesses the interactions between sectors and the needs of different involved stakeholders;

4. identifies barriers to adoption, especially among farmers, and provides appropriate solutions in terms

of policies, strategies, actions and incentives;

5. seeks to create enabling environments through a greater alignment of policies, financial investments

and institutional arrangements;

6. Strives to achieve multiple objectives with the understanding that priorities need to be set and

collective decisions made on different benefits and trade-offs;

7. should prioritize the strengthening of livelihoods, especially those of smallholders, by improving

access to services, knowledge, resources (including genetic resources), financial products and markets;

8. Addresses adaptation and builds resilience to shocks, especially those related to climate change, as

the magnitude of the impacts of climate change has major implications for agricultural and rural

development;

9. considers climate change mitigation as a potential secondary co-benefit, especially in low-income,

agricultural-based populations;

10. Seeks to identify opportunities to access climate-related financing and integrate it with traditional

sources of agricultural investment finance.

He further acknowledged that FANRPAN is implementing a number of Climate Smart Agricultural

projects to generate CSA research based evidence and address knowledge gaps and also support the

uptake of CSA practices. He listed the counties in which CSA scoping studies are being undertaken as:

Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius,

Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

1.2 FANRPAN Climate Change Projects

Presenter: Dr. Sepo Hachigonta

Dr. Hachigonta presented information on the following projects:

1. The Strengthening Evidence-Based Climate Change Adaptation Policies (SECCAP) and

2. Evidence-Based Policies for Climate Smart Agriculture (EPCSA) which is the objective to validate on.

EPCSA on Climate Smart Agriculture is a two year initiative funded by Norwegian Agency on

Development operation (NORAD) and under this program FANRPAN seeks to conduct comprehensive

reviews of existing policies at local and regional levels.

Dr Sepo Hachigonta (from FANRPAN) also elaborated on what FANRPAN deals with, which is formulating

of policies. He also explained that last year FANRPAN engaged a scoping study on Climate Smart

Agriculture to understand what mechanisms are being done in terms of Climate Smart Agriculture in

Lesotho and come up with research that speaks to the communities. He pointed out that challenges in

agriculture encapsulate among others climate change adding that the challenges can be overcome by

sharing information amongst institutions and or NGOs and farmers.

What innovations are needed to come with in order to alleviate food scarcity in order to uplift

communities? He said this was the topic under discussion for a convention he attended before that of

EPCSA in Maseru. He said it should be understood that there is always a tele-connection around the

globe (Climate variability) when for example floods occur as they also affect other parts of the world

hence we should always be on watch out on what happens so that we could try and apply some

preventative measures to ease anything that can possibly have a negative impact on us (Lesotho).

Climate Change is a change in weather over a long period of time e.g. 10 years to 15 years. That is, it is

climate change based on what we are used to. For instance, an increase of temperatures from 28 to 35

degrees Celsius and are foreseen to change in the coming next 5 to 10 years. He mentioned the pillars

of climate change on crops as: Mitigation (how we alleviate/mitigate the effects of climate change);

Resilience (to the effects of climate change); and Productivity.

What policies are there to support Climate Smart Agriculture?

Dr. Hachigonta further explained the procedure that led to the undertaking of the various scoping

studies in the different countries. He indicated that countries in the Eastern and Southern African

countries have started working on Climate Smart Agriculture and was advertised and questions were

handed out in order to learn how such countries operate in terms of Climate Smart Agriculture or what

policies are in place. Questions and recommendations were invited from the participants on what had

transpired, and below are some of the representatives who responded.

1.2.1 Recommendations and questions

UNDP said climate change needs to be explained in such a way that even those unlearned community

members can fully comprehend what is meant and link it to their lives.

LENAFU stated that decisions are usually done without farmers’ institutions yet they also need to

understand the impacts and effects caused by climate change.

Private Sector said their observation is that in Lesotho climate change seems as though it is not a

priority, referring to budget speeches made by Ministers of Finance saying that they never utter

anything about climate change on any platform.

CARITAS, Lesotho Meteorological Services, Researchers and Department of Agriculture Research

implied that climate change in Lesotho is taken for granted recommending that information

dissemination is crucial and not only FANRPAN should partake the exercise but should be a collective

effort by all stakeholders.

MAFS- Department of Planning and Policy Analysis confirmed that researchers do not always meet the

interests of the public in as far as climate change is concerned in a simpler manner in order for it to be

understood by part of the intended audience (communities).

After the introductions and welcoming address participants adjourned for a morning tea and coffee

break.

2.0 FANRPAN CSA Scoping in Lesotho

Chair: Thope Matobo

Presenters: Consultant team: P. Gwimbi, P. Matebesi and P. Likoetla

A team of consultants was called to present on their study.

2.1 Scoping Study Objectives and outputs

The objectives of the study were stated as being the following:

To conduct a comprehensive review of the existing CSA policies;

To analyze gaps in the existing CSA policy frameworks;

To identify relevant policy recommendations;

To develop and share policy recommendations (briefs) at national and regional levels.

The expected outputs were stated as:

Evidence based policies and programmes on climate smart agriculture in Lesotho

Country-owned strategic framework on climate smart agricultural activities

He explained that their findings were based on future simulation, and challenges on climate change

revealed that people no longer plough because of change in climate brought by floods and extreme

temperatures etc.

In this study, climate smart agriculture was defined as agriculture that sustainably increases

productivity; increases resilience (adaptation); reduces / removes GHGs; and enhances achievement of

national food security and development goals. The best ways to achieve CSA were said to be

productivity/ income; reduced emissions (mitigation) and resilience/adaptation. Mitigation was defined

as tackling the causes of climate Change, while Adaptation meant adjusting and preparing for change.

2.3 Study Findings

2.3.1 Examples of climate smart agricultural practices

Crop management Livestock

management

Soil and water

management

Agro-forestry Integrated food

energy systems

Intercropping with

legumes

Improved feeding

strategies

Conservation

agriculture

Boundary trees

and hedge rows

Biogas

Crop rotations Rotational grazing Contour planting Nitrogen fixing

trees on farms

Production of

energy plants

New crop varieties Fodder crops Terraces and

bunds

Multi-purpose

trees

Improved stoves

Improved storage

and processing

techniques

Grassland

restoration and

conservation

Planting pits Improved fallow

with fertilizer

shrubs

Greater crop

diversity

Manure treatment Water storage Woodlots

Improved livestock

health

Alternative

wetting and drying

(rice)

Fruit orchards

Animal husbandry

improvements

Dams, pits, ridges

Improved

irrigation (drip)

All practices presented here improve food security and lead to higher productivity, but their ability to

address adaptation and mitigation varies

2.3.2 Lesotho in the international Policy Context of CSA

GOL is a signatory to a number of international Agreements on Climate Change, climate models:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) – Rio De Janeiro 1992- submitted

first National Communication in 2000

UNFCC Convention for the operation of the least developed countries fund – Marrakesh in 2001-

prepared National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) against climate change (GOL, 2007)

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 1985

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, 1987

United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), 2000

Ratified Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

Results of Marrakesh at national Level: Adaptation Initiatives (NAPA)

The NAPA process identified eleven options outlined in their order of priority:

Option 1: improve resilience of livestock production systems under extreme climatic conditions in

various livelihood zones in Lesotho

Option 2: promoting sustainable crop based livelihood systems in foothills.

Option 3: Capacity building and policy reform to integrate climate change in sectoral development plans.

Option 4: Improvement of an early warning system against climate induced disasters and hazards.

Option 5: securing village water supply for communities in the southern lowlands.

Option 6: Management and reclamation of degraded and eroded land in the flood prone areas (pilot

project of western lowlands.

Option 7: Conservation and rehabilitation of degraded wetlands in the mountain areas of Lesotho

Option 8: Improvement of community food security through the Promotion of Food Processing and

Preservation Technologies

Option 9: Strengthening and stabilizing eco-tourism based rural livelihoods.

Option 10: Promote Wind, Solar and Biogas Energy Use as a Supplement to Hydropower Energy.

Option 11: Stabilizing Community Livelihoods which are Adversely Affected by Climate Change through

Improvement of Small Scale Industries

2.3.3 Regional Level

Regional Climate Outlook Forums

SADC Vulnerability and Analysis Programmes

SADC reduced deforestation/forest degradation (REDD +) programme

SADC gender protocol

Researchers working on CC

2.3.4 National level: Constitutional Requirement

Section 36 of Lesotho's Constitution states that:

Lesotho shall adopt policies designed to protect and enhance the natural and cultural environment

of Lesotho for the benefit of both present and future generations and shall endeavour to assure to

all citizens a sound and safe environment adequate for their health and well-being.

Constitution recognizes the need for sustainable development

Embraces principles of climate smart agriculture & environmental protection

Sustainable natural resource use and conservation of biodiversity.

Section 18 (4) (c) of the Constitution:

Discriminates against women in terms of access and use of land

CSA Sectoral Policies: Gender dimensions

Women: 36% of households female headed(GOL, 2008)

CSA gender sectoral policies and instruments

Gender equality discussed in the NSDP

The gender and development policy (2003)

Gender policy

Agricultural Policy

Forestry Policy

Land Act of 2010

NUL & gender related projects

Customary laws

Customary laws are applied Section 18 (4) (c) of the Constitution of Lesotho

Despite improved sectoral policies:

Women are treated as minors and placed under the perpetual custody and protection of men

Women's lack of access to and control over resources in inheritance and marriage anti CSA

Forestry Policy (2008) & REDD-plus (REDD+)

REDD+ relating to

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation

Policy advocates for

Sustainable forest management

Combating land degradation through increased tree cover

Indigenous forest conservation

Forestry protection

Seedling production

Forestry research

Poverty reduction through forestry

Promotes ownership of forestry woodlots

Promotes non wood forestry products

Urban forestry

GOL recognises that trees, forestry contributes towards food security & poverty reduction

Promote planting of energy exotic plants

Environmental Policy (1998)

Background:

Commitment to environmental planning-1989: National Environnemental Action Plan (NEAP).

NEAP document provides for increased awareness of environmental concerns in sectoral planning

and programming

National Action Plan (NAP) to implement Agenda 21 launched in May 1994

Policy advocates for:

conservation of environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future

generations

Halting of environmental degradation, and to restore, maintain and enhance the ecosystems and

ecological processes essential for the functioning of the biosphere and to preserve biological

diversity.

Environment Act, No 15 of 2001: EIAs

Food security policy (2005)

Food Security Policy (2005) of MAFS captures aspects of CSA

Policy advocates for:

Conservation Farming

Block farming

Homestead gardens

Irrigation

Promotion of livestock management and improvements in range management

Land conservation and rehabilitation

Conservation Farming

-A minimum tillage technology introduced in Lesotho by Church based organization with FAO support

-In the policy MAFS advocates that it will implement that with the relevant stakeholders

MAFS, Ministry of Education and partners (FAO, WFP, UNDP, WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF) providing

primary school teachers in the districts of Maseru, Mafeteng, Mohale s’ hoek and Quthing for them

to impart knowledge to pupils.

World Vision promoting CA through ADP’s in seven districts of Botha Bothe, Leribe, Berea, Maseru,

Mafeteng, Mohale’s hoek and Quthing

Send-a-Cow in collaboration with FAO and MAFS; Serumula and GROW implementing CA in Mmuela,

Katse and Mohale Catchments affected by LHDA

FAO supporting vulnerable households through CA (Basin) with cover crops of wheat or fodder

through resource centers covering all districts.

CARE-Lesotho training communities and support CA implementation in Quthing and Mokhotlong;

RSDA supports CA and livestock integration where fodder cover crop is used for feed formulation.

WV through Food Security Resilience Project (LFSRP) implementing CA in the districts of Quthing

and Mohale’hoek

Homestead gardens

Crops usually vegetables are grown around yards using harvested or household water. This can also be

done in combination with milk goats, rabbits or poultry. Crop residues can be used for animal feeding

and household refuse and animal dung as fertilizer.

MAFS calls for collaboration with relevant stakeholders in implementing Homestead

gardens.

Examples of activities on the ground:

MAFS and CARE in the four southern districts of Lesotho

CRS and Ministry of Social Development through the Lesotho Food Security and Social Support

Protection Project (LFSSP) conducting a research to assess the impact on livelihoods of the non-

granted but growing vegetables on keyholes with those getting grants but without keyhole gardens.

Send A Cow in the districts of Berea, Maseru, Mafeteng, Mohales’shoek and Quthing promotes

homestead gardens(keyholes, trench gardens, bag gardens)

CRS and Ministry of Social Development through the Lesotho Food Security and Social Support

Protection Project (LFSSP) conducting a research to assess the impact on livelihoods of the non-

granted but growing vegetables on keyholes with those getting grants but without keyhole gardens.

WVL in ADPs within seven districts of Botha Bothe, Leribe, Berea, Maseru, Mafeteng, Mohale’shoek

and Quthing promotes homestead gardens (keyholes , trenches)

Catholic Relief Services, Rural Self- Help Development Association (RSDA), Serumula, Caritas, World

Vision Lesotho, and CARE through a Lesotho Food Security and Resilience Program (LFSRP), a shorter

project geared towards reducing disaster risk that affect the communities in the southern districts

promote homestead gardens

Irrigation

• Government promotes small irrigation schemes where crops are grown under irrigated

• Conditions (also covered on Irrigation policy (2002) )

• Government advocates for collaboration of different stakeholders in implementing irrigation

activities

Examples of activities on the ground:

• MAFS is supporting gravity fed and sprinkler irrigation systems in various districts

He said Climate Smart Agriculture must be seen as solution to agriculture sustainability alluding to the

pillars of climate change on crops (Mitigation, Resilience and increase in productivity). He elucidated

that unfortunately Lesotho at the regional level it always commits itself on paper but when it comes to

implementation, it does very little or nothing at all. A number of adaptation policies that have been

signed for are still not implemented with a few exceptions, referring to Forestry Policy, Environmental

Policy of 1998 and food Security Policy of 2005.

The government of Lesotho has introduced the following initiatives:

Block farming, homestead gardens, irrigation schemes, livestock improvement and range

management (where Ministry of Home Affairs promotes electronic marking and registration of

animals throughout the country).

Dairy section for breeding, poultry, piggery.

Animal health section.

Sustainable land use.

Livestock and Range Management Policy (1994)

In reference to the Lesotho industry policy is still considered Climate Smart despite lack of

implementation.

Introduced a fishery in Maphutseng and other places

With all the efforts there is still a setback which hinders progress. In some instances, there are

knowledge gaps especially in terms of climate change in government ministries and other sectors.

Despite all, a research conducted revealed that climate change impacts can be severe, and in most

cases only climate change impacts in Lesotho are taken into consideration and not solutions to it

hence there is a lot that still needs to be done.

There is also absence/ lack of natural policy/strategies in terms of financial support and gender yet

Lesotho has signed a number of international agreements to have that implemented but ironically

very little is being done.

The highlight was also on the constraints that are coupled with the above issues which encapsulate

cultural beliefs and low implementation of commitment from government.

2.4 Group Work

Three groups were formed to discuss the report and presentations from the consultants. Group

work based on the following questions:

1) Looking at the report and own experience, what is new?

2) Based on your experience, what else could be included and be highlighted in the report?

3) Based on the recommendations from the report and your own experience, what are the 3 to

5 key emerging policy recommendations?

4) What are some of the critical gender issues in the area of CSA and policies that need

attention?

5) Are there champions (individual/organizations) that you are aware of in Lesotho (either at

national or local levels, either known or unknown)?

In a plenary session, groups presented outcomes of their discussions.

Group A

1) Linkage to development policies to Climate Smart Agriculture approach is a new perspective and

needs to be developed even further.

2) Clearer articulation on food security to projects identified under CSA pillars as there is

insufficient link between CSA.

3) a) If we fail to link productivity with issues related to the we cannot go far.

b) If we also do not link the market with CSA we will not go far.

c) Lack of coordination, but information sharing and consultative forums are very significant between

various stakeholders.

d) Need for active of various policies that have been discussed as they are either in the paper and

have not been implemented. For instance, practicing of Machobane yet there is only one man seated in

office claiming he is implementing.

e) More research needs to be undertaken especially by institutions of higher learning such as NUL as

it is not taking a front role when it comes to national development agenda when it comes on policies.

4) There is more work that needs to be done on gender as the constitution that is being raised that

women are being discriminated against on the issue of land access hence needs to be looked because

it’s not as if men do not want women to have access to land and livestock but it is a complicated issue

that needs men to assist women.

5) NGOs are doing a wonderful job.

Group B

1) Did not comment because they did not have a thorough look at the report.

2) The report has been an inventory, there is still a need for communication analysis amongst

stakeholders.

3) Improve CSA related activities.

4) Gender does not play an important role in the CSA but rather in the ownership of the land.

5) FANRPAN is on the right track and plays championship role in as far as advocacy is concerned.

Group C

This is the first of its kind in as far as climate change is concerned and some of the policies did not pay

attention to the report but there is a need for improvement on CSA.

The report focused on major recommendations and tried to come up with ways on how to achieve those

recommendations instead of just making a shopping list of recommendations or policies.

a) The report is rather myopic (narrow-minded) because the report gives something at the point

whereas climate change is an ongoing thing.

b) The methodology as well is complex as there are various activities which have to qualify

something/someone to say it is climate smart looking at the baseline.

c) Who should write the policy? Are we just making policies and then turning away and have someone to

implement the policies? The policies need to have a milestone and time frame so that we gauge where

we are or where we are going in terms of achieving the policies.

4) In terms of gender, addressing this gender problem there was a consensus that it is traditional in

nature e.g. A lady lost the opportunity to acquire chieftainship as it was decided by the courts of law,

therefore there has to be certain interventions in such matters and not let it become a constitutional

matter, saying if it is tradition then it goes beyond policy.

5) LMS, UNDP and others.

Dr Sepo Hachigonta also explained that the Consultant started work last year and is supposed to

complete the research in March /April but there has been an extension which will last until June this

year. And FANRPAN is doing is to have a package which shows which policies are Climate Smart because

what we all want is to achieve something in the end. He also disclosed that FANRPAN currently has 15

country nodes with the possibility of some upcoming countries.

3.0 Strengthening Evidence-Based Climate Change Adaptation Policies (SECCAP)

in Lesotho

Chair: Dr. M.N. Mokhothu

Presenter: KanonoThabane

The afternoon was devoted to SECCAP where the former students presented their studies with the view

to charting the way forward based on the outcomes of the studies. Only one study was presented by

Kanono Thabane. This session was chaired by Dr. Mokhothu who was the supervisor and chair of the

project at the National University of Lesotho.

The project wants to determine what the socio-economic feasibility of the recommended strategies is as

often strategies are recommended and to make sure that priorities in every country are adhered to. The

SECCAP in order to do this wanted to transfer knowledge to stakeholders for the implementation of the

policies in trying to address the challenges of climate change. Some of these can be achieved by

capacitating local scientists and the knowledge-based within this context.

Want to bring in some other adaptation strategies, for instance not recommend irrigation system, but

rather adapt and compare with other different adaptation strategies looking at the economic factors

and also engage the Evidence-Based Policies on Climate Smart Agriculture (EPCSA) in Lesotho hence

finding the most suitable technologies which will be of a greater benefit and also strengthen

partnerships and networking, while at the same time involving various stakeholders.

Project site: One of the project sites in Lesotho is Maphutseng as an area of development where this

project was piloted, monitored and implemented by World Vision Lesotho and has since been observed

to be a success though with challenges. The reason for choosing was come up with one comprehensive

result which divert from causing confusion such as when such research was done in various areas.

Based on climate and crop models FANRPAN wants to strengthen multi-stakeholders. In an attempt to

have certain crop models, first and foremost climate has to be understood and its impacts which will

ultimately ensure that certain crops can be acclimatized to different weather patterns or cannot, and

then try to find a way forward. That is, not to stick to the old ways of ploughing maize and sorghum only,

without considerations of other options to avoid bias in the adaptation models.

The results of the study revealed that depending on the variation in temperatures in different scenarios,

rainfall, recommended fertilizers and the season for it differs. The yields are certainly guaranteed to

show some noticeable and positive increase if climate smart agriculture is incorporated. In this regard,

a proper adaptation strategy has to be adopted in order to reduce the vulnerability of many households.

3.1 Way forward

Dr Mokhothu commended the presenter for having made a presentation that tried to bring the issues of

climate change at the household level and said if we continue doing that it will somehow answer and

come up with solutions that people will be able to understand. Of importance on the way forward

involved the dissemination of the studies to the wider public with different comprehension levels.

How can the study/research be disseminated?

To answer the question above the following implementation steps were suggested as a way forward:

Seminars for different stakeholders should be held, e.g. Finance, farmer Unions etc.

There is need to simplify the documents now that experts have undertaken research. More

experts who can re-write the documents for the audiences at different levels of comprehension

should be engaged. The documents should be repackaged in the form of policy briefs for policy-

makers and politicians; journal articles for students; brochures and magazines etc. for people at

different levels.

The document should also be translated into Sesotho for farmers to understand, as they are the

intended recipients. A translator who clearly understands the document and its jargon should

be engaged.

Radio and TV programs should also be set up where people can listen and watch and ask experts

questions that could be answered immediately.

Dramatization is also needed where climate change can be played and visualized for people to

understand the complex issue of climate change and other issues. Experts are required who can

read the document and re-write it into a script that can be played as another way of

disseminating the information.

It was concluded that because FANRPAN is an organization that advocates for issues of policy it will

engage in policy dissemination for policy makers and take it from there but the recommendation was

that the dissemination clusters should be down-sized due to financial constraints.

The workshop adjourned @ 1535hours

CSA Participant list, February 14, 2014

NAME SURNAME ORGANISATION POSITION E-MAIL

National University of Lesotho

1. Nthabiseng Thabane IEMS/ NUL Student Tisane.moahloli@gmail.com

2. Ntsekeng Monyeke IEMS/NUL Journalist nmonyeke@gmail.com

3. CH Paramaiah NUL Senior

Lecturer

chparamaiah@gmail.com

4. Bright Honu NUL Senior

Lecturer

Bright.honu@hotmail.com

5. Motlatsi Mokhothu NUL Senior

Lecturer

Mokhothum79@yahoo.com

6. Thope Matobo NUL Node

Coordinator

ta.matobo@nul.ls

CSA Consultant Team

7. Patrick Gwimbi NUL CSA

Consultant

pgwimbi@yahoo.com

8. Puseletso Likoetla NUL CSA

Consultant

plikoetla@yahoo.co.

9. Puleng Matebesi NUL CSA

Consultant

pmatebesi@gmail.com

Government Ministries

10. Relebohile Letele BOS Economist leteler@gmail.com

11. Charles Tseole LMS Meteorologist tseolecharles@yahoo.com

12. Nthapeliseng Nthama Environment EIA Officer nnthama@gmail.com

13. ‘Masootho Lephoto Ministry of

Communications

Editor Masootho.lephoto@gmail.com

14. ‘Mamahloko Ntsapi Ministry of

Communications

Editor mntsapi@msn.com

15. Motlatsi Molatela Agricultural

Research

Department

Research

officer

mmolatela@yahoo.co.uk

16. Mokoena France Lesotho

Meteorological

Services

Senior

Meteorologist

mokoenaf@gmail.com

17. Lefulesele Lebesa MAFS-

department of

Agricultural

Research

Chief

Research

Officer

lefulesele@gmail.com

18. Pheko Mashoai MAFS-

Department and

Policy Analysis

Senior

Economic

Planner

Pheko2000@gmail.com

19. Maboi Mahula MTEC Assistant

Economic

Officer

Maboi.mahula@gmail.com

UN Agencies

20. Limomane Peshoane UNDP Climate

change

specialist

Limomane.peshoane@undp.org

NGOs and CSOs

21. Bereng Mpaki Public Eye berengmpaki@yahoo.com

22. Khauhelo Kheethoa Caritas Lesotho Field Officer jkheethoa@yahoo.com

23. Mohau Seoela World Vision HVI analyst Seoela.mohau@gmail.com

24. Tsotelo Lebete World Vision tsotelo_lebete@wvi.org

25. Thabo Qhesi Private Sector

Foundation of

Lesotho

Director Thabo.qhesi@gmail.com

26. Motsau Khuele LENAFU CEO khuelemotsau@yahoo.com

27. Tsepiso Mokhothu RL Consultants Data Clerk tsepisomokhothu@gmail.com

FANRPAN Secretariat

28. Kanono Thabane FANRPAN

Secretariat

29. Sepo Hachigonta FANRPAN

Secretariat

30. Fedelis Zvomuya FANRPAN

Secretariat