Meat Naturally 
Performance Evaluation 
Ecorangers and Communal Grazing Systems in South Africa 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD
AUGUST 2019
Prepared By: Army Payazi, M.Sc. in Agriculture at the University of South Africa 
The Kaizen Company | Contract #: AID-OAA-C-15-00011 
www.securingwaterforfood.org | securingwaterforfood@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 3
BACKGROUND 5
Gender 6
Farm Size 8
Farmer’s Experience 9
Other Occupations or Sources of Income 10
Family Size 11
METHODOLOGY 13
Sample Selection 14
RESULTS 17
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATION 18
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION 20
Agricultural Activities Benefits 20
Water Benefits 21
Livestock Benefits 23
Income Benefits 24
Poverty Reduction Benefits 26
Sales 28
Expenses 29
Change in farming practices due to climatic variability 32
Comparison between latest Innovator M&E and latest SWFF M&E 33
DISCUSSION 35
Usage/Availability 37
Livestock Yield/Survival 38
Changes in Income 39
Impact on Poverty 39
Benefits of Innovation on Community 40
Other Benefits 40
Comparison of latest innovator M&E statistics with latest SWFF M&E statistics 40
CONCLUSION 41
ANNEX 1 43
2 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Meat Naturally Pty Ltd (MNP) is a for-profit organization based in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. The 
organization collaborates with non-profit organizations to manage communal grazing land in three regions 
around South Africa with the purpose of conserving grassland and improving rural livelihoods. MNP partners 
are Implementing Agents (IA), they include Conservation South Africa (CSA), LIMA Rural Development 
Foundation (LIMA), TransKinira Trust (TKT), Environmental and Rural Solutions (ERS), and others. Generally, 
IA’s are responsible for the planning, facilitation, and monitoring and evaluation of activities in line with MNP 
objectives relating to the ecorangers management and rotational grazing. However, the capacity and projects 
of each organization influence its scope of work in collaborating with MNP and, therefore, the end results. 
The work of MNP was evaluated using a questionnaire that investigated the farmer, farm, income and 
expenditure, and farmers’ perceptions of the innovation. Six locations were visited with a total of 65 
customers participating. All 65 interviewed farmers participated in MNP auctions by selling cattle. A 
significant number of farmers acknowledged the role of MNP as paramount in helping them sell their cattle, 
thereby improving their income and reducing poverty. MNP and the partners positively contributed to 
grassland restoration with farmers acknowledging a change in livestock health and their herd increasing 
with no mortality as a result of overgrazing. 
Overall MNP and its partners (including the EcoRangers) are reviving the grazing land of Umzimvubu and the 
practice of communal farming by involving farmers and community members and subsequently improving 
their livelihoods. This has yielded positive results so far. However, for sustainability, the EcoRangers need 
to do more to help farmers positively embrace rotational grazing, understand the dynamics of pricing per 
kilo, and know the value of different breeds. Also, MNP should reach out to make farmers further realize the 
impact of climatic variability.
ABSTRACT
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 3
INTRODUCTION
4 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Communal farming is an old practice that is still common in rural areas of Africa and developing 
countries (Mmbengwa et al., 2015). Food security is one challenge that most developing countries 
face, and South Africa is no exception. Livestock production significantly contributes to South Africa’s 
food security, economy, and social activities. It is estimated that over 50 percent of total South 
African livestock is in the hands of small-scale producers and communal farmers. However, they only 
contribute five percent of the total annual meat consumption (Rust et al., 2019). This is because of low 
levels of nutrition, climate variability, and poor management in communal grazing areas. This causes 
farmers to be frustrated with the value of balancing summer grazing and winter grazing, as they are 
accustomed to having their cattle suffer in winter and overgraze in summer for immediate recovery, 
making it difficult for them to be consistent or reliable suppliers. Farming in unprotected and shared 
grazing spaces is challenging, but it is even more difficult if there are no developmental programs 
that offer guidance on practices and help farmers with challenges or limitations, such as inadequate 
resources and market access. 
In the Eastern Cape the geographical landscape is considered to be 90 percent suitable for 
livestock grazing, nature conservation, and game ranching (De Wet & Van Averbeke, 1995). 
However, in communal farming spaces the value of the land is hardly realized because of poor 
management and the persisting climatic variability that affects water sources in a dry country, 
ranked 30th globally. In the Eastern Cape this is exacerbated by the abundance of alien plants in 
the country. The erratic rainfall further affects the vegetation and/or grassland, thereby exposing 
the soil to erosion and land degradation.
In the Umzimvubu region where MNP is based and well established, the value of livestock farming in 
poverty reduction is of great importance. This is because of the presence of rangelands/grasslands, 
the absence of industries, and 35 percent unemployment in the province (Stats SA, 2019). MNP is one 
initiative that seeks to develop a sustainability cycle that protects the environment from degradation 
and simultaneously promotes the involvement of the communal livestock producers in the supply 
chain of red meat without negatively impacting their production capacity. The approach of MNP and 
its partners is that healthy rangelands will produce increased quantity and quality of livestock, which, 
with improved market access, will improve returns for rural livelihoods. It also provides a positive 
feedback loop for better rangeland stewardship to support this stock, resulting in improved basal 
cover and grassland biodiversity with improved ecosystem services. MNP, as a consortium, achieves 
this through collaborating with partners such as Conservation South Africa (CSA), LIMA Rural 
Development Foundation (LIMA), TransKinira Trust (TKT), Environmental and Rural Solutions (ERS), 
and others. Generally, the role of the partners is planning and facilitating the rangeland work, including 
formation and support of grazing associations within communities, conservation agreements, 
identifying rest areas with associations, auction preparations, and M&E of all areas.
Therefore, it is the purpose of this study to evaluate the performance of MNP in promoting sustainable 
grazing, the participation of communal farmers in the red meat supply chain, and improvement 
of income of rural livelihoods. The study is made up of interviewees that have participated in MNP 
activities, mainly auction. The interview covers general farmer information, farm, income and 
expenditure, and farmers’ perceptions of the innovation.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 5
The survey was conducted in the Eastern Cape, one of South Africa’s largest provinces in terms of 
livestock populations. MNP is a CSA founded independent for-profit company that is well established 
in the province with its head offices based in the same province. With more than 10 locations in the 
province where MNP operates, six of the locations were selected as representatives of the survey 
mainly because of the diversity that exists in the different locations. All six locations have had the 
activities of MNP, but not all have had the services of its partners (Table 1). The different MNP partners 
are Implementing Agents (IA) and act as main supporters for MNP activities. The different partners 
are established organizations in their respective communities that implement projects that are in 
line with MNP. Their selection is based on CSA merit criteria with the purpose of advancing MNP 
objectives, helping to develop MNP as a brand, and gaining farmers trust in MNP over time. The 
scope of work for each IA is affected by its capacity and projects. CSA is the main MNP support 
structure and an IA organization, and it covered most of the work that is linked to MNP. The different 
CSA tasks included community engagement campaigns in holistic planned grazing, alien vegetation 
awareness and bush clearing, community water sources (through One Health), livestock health, 
ecoranger skills training, and maintaining ecorangers salaries among others. The tasks for the other 
IA’s are: (LIMA)-improved grazing management, community exchanges, and livestock auctions among 
others; (ERS)-grazing planning support, ecoranger skills training for herders, and livestock husbandry 
support and tagging; and, (TKT)-improved grazing management.
TABLE 1. MNP & PARTNERS INVOLVEMENT IN THE VISITED AREAS 
COLANA LUYENGWENI MAFUBE MPHARANE MZONGWANE ONR
MNP involved Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Main support 
partner/s TKT MNP LIMA & ERS NONE ERS CSA
Agreement Formal/Informal Informal Formal Informal Formal Formal
A total of 65 farmers from six different locations (Table 2) were interviewed using a SWFF 
questionnaire that was uploaded to an application called Fulcrum. The application allowed a profile 
for every interviewee so their responses could be uploaded for sharing and referencing purposes.
BACKGROUND
6 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The questionnaire covered the:
• farmer’s information/details, participation in MNP, livelihood and ownership;
• farm and farmer’s involvement in farming and changes as well as access to water personally and 
for livestock purposes;
• farmer’s income and expenditure questions that intend to share the farmers’ livelihoods and 
farming challenges; and
• the perception of farmers toward the innovation and its value in their space or lives.
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF INTERVIEWEES PER LOCATION
(N=65)
COLANA LUYENGWENI MAFUBE MPHARANE MZONGWANE ONR
Total 
interviewees 15 6 16 4 13 11
Percentage 23.08 9.23 24.62 6.15 20.00 16.92
Gender 
South Africa’s population is approximately 59 million, with males making up about 49 percent of 
the total population (Stats SA, 2019). The Eastern Cape Province, where the study was conducted, 
ranks as the third most populated province, and has 53 percent and 47 percent female and male 
population, respectively. However, in the current study of 65 interviewees, 74 percent (48 of 65) were 
male (Figure 1). This is in agreement with the findings of a study of cattle farmers in the same province 
by Marandure (2015).
FIGURE 1. FARMERS GENDER
(N=65)
74%
26%
FARMERS GENDER
Male
Female
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 7
The population participating in the survey consisted of different age groups, and gender between 
groups was consistently dominated by males. The majority of livestock owners/beneficiaries was 
35 percent (23 of 65) between ages 61 and 70. This is the pension age or retirement age in South 
Africa. The youth age group was the second lowest group to be presented with a total of just over nine 
percent (6 of 65) (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2. FARMERS GENDER AGE DISTRIBUTION
(N=65)
25
15
20
10
5
FARMERS GENDER AGE DISTRIBUTION
(N=65)
NUMBER OF FARMERS
8
5
5
1
31-40
6
1
41-50
2
0
17
6
61-70
10
4
71-80 81-90
0
21-30 51-60
AGE GROUPS
0
Male Female
8 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Farm size 
Cattle farming is a capacity per head practice, especially if sustainable grazing is to be achieved. The 
current study evaluated livestock farming practiced in communal farming; however, land ownership 
in size was also evaluated to determine the distribution and potential ownership purposes and 
associated benefits. The 64 respondents gave varying responses, ranging from zero to 300 hectares. 
Most of the farmers do not own any land, and the majority of those who own land are male. Just 
above 56 percent (36 of 64) of the total population does not own land, or they own land less than a 
hectare. Of the 56 percent, 39 percent (14 of 36) are female. Only three percent of females in the total 
population (2 of 65) own over one to three hectares of land. About 11 percent (seven of 65) of males 
of the total population own land greater than 10 hectares (Figure 3). 
FIGURE 3. FARM SIZE
(N=64)
25
15
20
10
5
FARM SIZE
(N=64)
NUMBER OF FARMERS
14
0-1
22
2
1.01-3
12
0
3.01-5
3
0
5.01-10
4
0
>=10
7
HECTARES
0
Female Male
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 9
Farmer’s experience 
Cattle farming in the Eastern Cape Umzimvubu region has been practiced for decades from previous 
generations. Most of the cattle owners are successors or beneficiaries of their grandparent’s or 
parent’s livestock because they are herdsmen in their family and community, male children, female 
widows, sole female children in their families, and, to a lesser extent, beginners. Before MNP, the 
farmer’s markets for livestock were at most dependent on local social events and unfortunate events 
such as death. However, for some farmers, especially male farmers, cattle were, and still are, sold 
to auction events in neighboring communities hosted by other organizations that have existed for 
decades. One farmer shared that they have an organization that has been conducting auctions since 
the 1980s. Unfortunately, most of these auctions are hosted far from most of the communities and 
have higher commissions.
All 65 farmers were able to remember their first year of participation in the innovation activities. 
About 54 percent (35 of 65) of the total surveyed population participated in the first year of the 
innovation auction by selling one or more cows . The second year auction(s) showed a decline with 
only 20 percent (13 of 65) of the total population participating as new members. This was followed 
by a slow increase in the 2018/19 season, whereby only 26.15 percent of new farmers participated. 
Nevertheless, the participation of females has shown positive growth from the 2016/17 season. In 
the 2017/18 season, the increase in females was less than one percent, but this was followed by a 
massive increase in the 2018/19 season of 12 percent (Table 3).
TABLE 3. FARMERS INTAKE AND PARTICIPATION BY GENDER IN INNOVATION
(N=65)
FIRST YEAR OF 
PARTICIPATING 
IN INNOVATION
NO OF 
FARMERS
PERCENTAGE 
OF TOTAL 
POPULATION
NO. OF 
FEMALE 
FARMERS
FEMALE 
PERCENTAGE
NO. OF 
MALE 
FARMERS
MALE 
PERCENTAGE
2016/17 35 54 8 23 27 77
2017/18 13 20 3 23 10 77
2018/19 17 26 6 35 11 65
10 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Other occupations or sources of income 
A total of 80 percent (52 of 65) of the respondents accepts farming as their primary occupation, 15.38 
percent (10 out of 65) source their primary income from wage labor, just over three percent (2 out of 65) 
source their income from their established small enterprise (local supermarkets), and only one does not 
have an occupation although her source of income is from the government pension (Table 4). 
TABLE 4. FARMERS PRIMARY OCCUPATIONS
(N=65)
FARMING AS PRIMARY 
OCCUPATION
WAGE LABOR AS PRIMARY 
OCCUPATION SMALL ENTERPRISE OTHER
52 10 2 1
80% 15% 3% 2%
The value of the different sources of incomes varied, especially for the individuals who have more than 
one occupation or depend on the government pension/social grants. Therefore, the participants were 
categorized for the value that their sources of income have over the other. A total of six sources of 
income was common among the farmers. The government social grant was by far the most significant 
source of income at 66 percent (44 out of 65). Farming income was the fourth/fifth significant source 
of income at three percent (two out of 65) with small enterprises (Figure 4).
FIGURE 4. FARMERS MAJOR SOURCES OF INCOME
15%
3%
2%
3% 11%
66%
FARMERS MAJOR SOURCES OF INCOME
Pension/Government grant as primary 
source of income
Farming primary/sole source of income
Wage labor
Small enterprises
Sand transportation
Other (husband/child/invesgtments/
retirement packages)
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 11
Family size 
The 65 respondents represented 395 dependents or family members, with a minimum of one, 
maximum of 18, mean of 6.28, median, and mode of six for both. Males presented in the survey 
accounted for 299 of the total family size, and females were 96. On gender differences, males 
accounted, on average, for 6 and females 6 people. The difference in maximum number of 
dependency between males and females is two, at 18 and 16 for both genders, respectively. On the 
contrary, every female had a person to account for, unlike males whereby one is living alone (Table 5).
TABLE 5. FAMILY SIZE FREQUENCIES AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
(N=65)
OVERALL FAMILY SIZE FREQUENCIES
FAMILY SIZE TOTAL AVERAGE MEDIAN MODE MIN MAX
395 6 6 6 1 18
OVERALL FAMILY SIZE FREQUENCIES
TOTAL AVERAGE MEDIAN MODE MIN MAX
Male 299 6 6 5 1 18
Female 96 6 4 2 2 16
12 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 13
METHODOLOGY
14 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Sample Selection 
MNP operates in three regions around South Africa (Map 1). Each region covers one or more 
provinces: specifically, the Umzimvubu region is in the Eastern Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal, the 
Namakwa region is in the Northern Cape, and the K2C is in Mpumalanga and Limpopo around the 
Kruger National park borders. 
MAP 1. GOOGLE MAPS: 
LOCATIONS OF MNP OPERATIONAL REGIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
Nevertheless, the area of interest and with the most activity is the Umzimvubu where the innovation 
is well established. In the Umzimvubu area, more than 10 locations with small villages allow work 
with MNP in both formal and informal agreements. In fact, both locations with formal and informal 
agreements were included in the study to evaluate the differences. Also, locations under MNP and 
partners, such as CSA, LIMA, TKT, and ERS, were included in the study because of the role they play in 
the different locations where they are involved.
A cluster sampling method was applied to conduct the survey. A total of six locations (Map 2) was 
selected, and in each sample units were randomly selected for individual interviews. From the six 
locations, 65 farmers were selected. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 15
MAP 2. GOOGLE PRO: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS OF PLACES 
VISITED FOR SURVEY INTERVIEWS AT THE UMZIMVUBU REGION.
The selection of farmers was limited to individuals who have participated in MNP, specifically through 
the sale of cattle in innovation auctions. Large data sheets with farmer’s details and information on 
the various locations MNP operates in were provided by the organization. Farmers were contacted 
by telephone to schedule interviews. Initially, the total number of sample units per location depended 
on the total customer population of an area. This was changed and depended on the availability of 
farmers on the scheduled day of the interview. The interviews were conducted in the local languages 
of isiXhosa or seSotho. Since the field evaluator was fluent in these languages, an interpreter was 
not needed for the interviews. The interviews were conducted using a standard questionnaire from 
SWFF. The questionnaire was uploaded to Fulcrum, a mobile phone application. Every interview was 
recorded on a portable voice recorder, except for one that was only recorded for just over two minutes 
at the farmer’s request.
The selected individuals were contacted by telephone one day before to schedule an interview on 
the following day or two days later. Individual interviews were the target, but in three instances an 
interview involving a spouse or child was allowed because the other spouse or the child was more 
involved on the ground but was not the listed customer.
16 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Some end users on the random list agreed to be interviewed and some did not because they weren’t 
willing or available since their primary occupation is outside the listed location. On the first day of the 
survey, a random list of potential interviewees was difficult to reach since people were confused about 
the purpose of the survey from MNP and/or its partners because their relationship was a business 
transaction that was completed. However, the few end users who were interviewed shared challenges 
in the community relating to livestock safety that would make some uncomfortable participating in a 
survey related to livestock in general. Due to a slow start and because people were not at ease with 
conducting interviews, another plan was strategized and implemented. Less often, in locations where 
a customer would allow for the first interview, a request was made to have a local young person 
accompany the interviewer to some of the people on the list that had agreed to have an interview 
without informing them prior to the visit. However, it should be stressed that verification of identity 
through a call at the presence and with the knowledge of the interviewee was done. Also, it should 
be mentioned that the farmers welcomed the strategy, and there was no risk to the young people 
or jeopardizing of the survey. Other participants warmly welcomed the interviewer from a basic 
introduction because they were previously informed of a possible visit. (Editorial Note: SWFF was not 
informed in the proposal phase, the implementation phase, or after the implementation phase that 
minors would be involved in this study. Though the families gave consent, SWFF did not approve in 
any form the involvement of minors in the Field Evaluators Activity and notes that the Field Evaluator 
involved minors without the knowledge or approval of SWFF.)
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 17
RESULTS
18 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Farmers acknowledged the role and contributions of the innovation in their locations, with most 
having more than one positive impression. A total of 92 percent (60 of 65) of farmers realized that 
the presence of the innovation in their areas is very helpful in reducing costs involved in transportation 
of cattle to other locations that host auctions. Another 91 percent (59 of 65) observed a decrease in 
labor required to get their cattle to the marketplace where they can be sold. farmers shared that the 
presence of the innovation locally allows them to attend the auction. Unlike having a herdsman to herd 
their cattle a day before or early in the morning to go to the auction facilities that are far from their 
location. About 74 percent (51 of 65) acknowledged the inclusion of and equal treatment between 
genders during auctions by the innovator, and 85 percent (55 of 65) acknowledged special effort put 
forth in accommodating women (Figure 5).
FIGURE 5. FARMERS VIEWS ON INNOVATION CONTRIBUTIONS
(N=65)
56
60
52
48
62
54
58
50
46
FARMERS VIEWS ON INNOVATION CONTRIBUTIONS
(N=65)
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Help women
farmers as
well as men
51
They made
special effort
to include
women
farmers
55
Increase my
yield through
timely
forecasts
50
Helps by
lower cost
of inputs
60
Improves
health and 
strength of 
livestock
51
Helps reduce
labor
59
44
When asked if they will use the innovation in the future (five to 10 years), 95 percent said they will use 
the innovation going forward. Only 5 percent (three of 65) said they are not going to continue using 
the innovation (Figure 6).
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATION
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 19
FIGURE 6. FARMERS VIEWS ON USING INNOVATION IN FUTURE
(N=65)
60
40
20
50
70
30
10
FARMERS VIEWS ON USING INNOVATION IN FUTURE
NUMBER OF FARMERS
No
3
Yes
62
0
Farmers were asked why they would continue using the innovation and had one or more reasons 
for continuation. The majority of the farmers at 52 percent (32 of 61) shared they will use the 
innovation for sourcing income used for supporting their families as a main source of income or for 
supplementary income for their projects (building, debts, etc.). Only 2 percent (one of 61) stated they 
will use the innovation because the commission is low compared to other organizations that offer 
auctions for cattle sales. Of the 61 farmers, two sets of 15 percent (nine of 61) said they will use the 
innovation for sourcing emergency funds and sell their cattle to save them from death and theft. Just 
under one-third (33 percent) felt they will continue using the innovation auction because they are 
hosted locally (Figure 7).
FIGURE 7. FARMERS REASONS FOR USING INNOVATION IN FUTURE
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
FARMERS REASONS FOR USING INNOVATION IN FUTURE
REASONS FOR USING INNOVATION IN FUTURE
Lumpsum/
supplementary
income
32
Prevent 
livestock loss 9
Low
commission 1
Emergency
funds 9
Local
auction 20
0
NUMBER OF FARMERS
20 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Agricultural activities benefits
Agricultural benefits were realized by farmers from the different locations. Depending on the extent 
of MNP and partner engagement or individual engagement by MNP, the results varied significantly. 
The most common and widely regarded benefit was selling cattle to the innovation auctions, at 94 
percent (61 of 65). Customers acknowledged cattle selling as the main benefit from the innovation. 
The second most recognized benefit was improved grass cover and increased water retention at 
52 percent (34 of 65). The least considered benefit was free cattle feed at 2 percent (one of 65). 
This farmer acknowledged free cattle feed referenced as a salt lick that was offered by MNP’s 
implementing partner to help their cattle with appetite.
The value of selling cattle during the innovation auctions is unambiguously of great importance; however, 
during the interviews, farmers shared the importance of other progress noticed in their livestock, including 
a decrease in the mortality rate of their cattle. The reasons included medications or vaccinations that 
seasonal veterinarians offered through MNP and its partners. Some farmers appreciated the knowledge 
of understanding the different seasonal commercial feeds they have gained from MNP and its partners. 
Some were happy with their decision making and valued the innovation’s presence as the reason 
because they are now able to sell their cattle if they show signs of dilapidation (Figure 8).
FIGURE 8. FARMERS AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS
(N=65)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
FARMERS AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS
(N=65)
Sustainable
grazing 6
Cattles hearded
by ecorangers 27
I benefit by useful livestock
management knowledge 5
Livestock
breeding 2
I benefit by
medication/vaccination 4
I benefit by
selling my cattle 61
I benefit by improved grasscover
and increased water retention 34
I benefit by
free feed 1
0
NUMBER OF FARMERS
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 21
Although the role of ecorangers was recognized as a benefit by 42 percent (27 of 65), farmers have 
their own description of ecorangers. According to the farmers, the ecorangers are not cattle herders 
but rather grazing field guards. They described them as people who protect certain portions of the 
grassland reserved for winter grazing. In the process, some shared that they were not happy with the 
system. Farmers felt that ecorangers should rotate the livestock on their behalf in the different grazing 
spaces because ecorangers now know the fields better than the herdsman. On the same subject, two 
farmers appreciated the benefit of ecorangers and rotational grazing, noting that it dates back to an 
old practice that has helped them or their relatives in the past so they would like it to be restored to 
accomplish sustainable grazing.
Water benefits 
One of the least acknowledged benefits by the farmers was water. The contribution of MNP and its 
partners in water for the communities is indirect and hard to quantify for farmers because of the 
scientific and technical nature of the activity. However, according to MNP, CSA and its partners claim 
to have reallocated 100,575 liters and 259,175,000 liters on year 1 and 2 respectively back into the soil 
because of reduced erosion and the removal of invasive species that would have consumed that much 
water as compared to local grasses. Farmers that acknowledged a change in water access for cattle 
mainly referenced the removal of alien plants in the vegetation around the rivers and, to a lesser degree, 
the removal of dead plants and debris that prevent the cattle from drinking water from a stable position. 
Lastly, the removal of blockages of the free flow of the river was also acknowledged as a reason why 
there is a realization of change in cattle accessing water. On the contrary, there was an unfortunate and 
isolated incident that one farmer associated with the removal of alien plants. The farmer shared that his 
neighbor lost her goats due to slipperiness and a landslide that fell on the goats due to the removal of 
the plants that held the soil together. A total of 54 respondents believed there isn’t a change in the way 
the cattle access water post participation or in involvement of MNP and its partners in their community. 
Only 17 percent acknowledged a change in the way cattle access water (Figure 9).
FIGURE 9. CHANGE IN WATER ACCESS FOR CATTLE
60
40
20
50
30
10
CHANGE IN WATER ACCESS FOR CATTLE
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Had improved access
to water for cattle
11
Had no change in
access to water
54
0
22 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
A total of 21 percent (14 of 65) of the respondents regarded water as a severely scarce resource. 
Scarcity was further supported by 62 percent (40 of 65) that felt water is fairly scarce in their area. 
However, 17 percent (11 of 65) felt there’s no water scarcity problem (Figure 10). 
FIGURE 10. COMMUNITY WATER SCARCITY
(N=65)
17%
21%
62%
COMMUNITY WATER SCARCITY
Yes severely
Yes
No
The water sources for the communities are limited to river water for both human and livestock use 
(see photo below). However, Mzongwane has a solar powered borehole that supplies the community 
with groundwater. River water is supplied to community street taps or households using diesel 
powered generators. The cattle drink water directly from the river. It was shared that the cattle are 
herded to the river generally twice a day in the winter because they graze far from water sources. In 
the summer, the cattle are kept on the flat surfaces and are free to reach water sources.
Mkhemane River, community and cattle water source
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 23
Livestock benefits 
The cattle of the surveyed farmers were significantly regarded as strong and healthier at 77 percent 
(49 of 64) (Figure 11). According to farmers, their herds are increasing. More than 50 percent 
acknowledged growth in their herds. The availability of grassland during the winter was one of 
the factors that is appreciated as beneficial to livestock (see photo on page 34). Only one farmer 
acknowledged an increase in their livestock but disagreed or does not recognize an improvement in 
his livestock health and or physical state as a result of the innovation. 
FIGURE 11. LIVESTOCK BENEFITS
60
40
20
50
30
10
LIVESTOCK BENEFITS
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Herd increasing
35
Cattle strong
and healthier
49
0
Distribution of cattle in the Umzimvubu region varied. The top two locations are those locations 
where MNP and its partners are fully operational. Mafube was presented by 16 farmers, who on 
average each owned 13 cattle. This is the second highest after Mzongwane, where each farmer 
owned 67 cattle. In Colana, 14 farmers owned 177 cattle, averaging 13 with a median of 9. The least 
presented location was Mpharane, where four farmers owned 5 cattle each on average. Although the 
Mzongwane numbers are heightened by the one farmer who owned 600 cattle, the location’s totals 
without his consideration still are high. Without considering this farmer, the total is 269, the average is 
22, and the median is 18 (Table 6).
24 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
TABLE 6. CATTLE OWNERSHIP
(N=65)
CATTLE OWNERSHIP
LOCATION COLANA LUYENGWENI MAFUBE MPHARANE MZONGWANE ONR
Average 12 11 13 5 67 12
Median 9 10 12 4 18 10
Sub total 177 64 203 21 869 130
Total 1,464
Income benefits 
Farmers’ income from cattle is affected by several factors that are interlinked, such as price per kilo, 
physical appearance, and age, which affects meat quality. Farmers shared their experience on income 
from the innovation, before the innovation, and on prices generally. Before participating in the innovation, 
only 20 percent (13 of 65) of farmers stated they were making more income per head of cattle. On the 
other hand, 78 percent (49 of 65) believe they are making more money from selling their cattle through 
the innovation in comparison to selling to other avenues (mainly to a community member). Only 2 percent 
(one of 65) believe they are making the same amount through the innovation or other avenues. Finally, 
4 percent (two of 65) are perplexed or have not justified the difference between the innovation and 
using other avenues (Figure 12). It should be noted that, despite their criticism of MNP’s price/kilo, the 
alternatives to MNP would not lead to higher price/kilo. This is important as the criticism of the price is 
strongly articulated and the benefit of MNP here needs to be established. In addition, that appreciation 
of price is in comparison to instances where the farmers did not have a plan or guaranteed market to 
sell to, but could only hope that someone might come and buy. The presence of the innovation has given 
them hopes and expectations, which are exacerbated by predetermining prices for their cattle without 
considering (lack of knowledge) factors that influence price at a time.
Nguni cattle breed winter grazing
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 25
There was one example of a farmer interviewed who was from a meeting (organized by one of the 
partners) that shed light on livestock pricing and breeds. The farmer was happy and hoped that many 
people would have attended because he now has a basic understanding of the innovation pricing.
FIGURE 12. HOW MUCH WERE YOU MAKING BEFORE AND AFTER INNOVATION
60
70
40
20
50
30
10
HOW MUCH WERE YOU MAKING BEFORE AND AFTER INNOVATION NUMBER OF FARMERS
More Less Don’t know
2
Same
1
49
13
49
13
0
Before After
During the interview, most farmers shared that they sell their cattle to community members for 
social events or unfortunate events, such as death. They said pricing is difficult because there is a 
sentimental element. Secondly, the price would be affected by the use of credit to help the person in 
need fulfill social rituals or respond to an emergency situation. In comparison to the innovation, the 
price agreed upon is paid in full and on time, with no sentimental consideration. Another factor is that 
more cattle can be sold at once, with the innovation thereby increasing income.
The role or value of income sourced from the innovation sale of cattle varied among farmer’s needs 
and state of life. Just over one-third (34 percent) (22 of 65) of farmers felt money from the innovation 
contributed very significantly to their income. Approximately one-third (32 percent) (21 of 65) felt the 
money contributed significantly to their income. Another 32 percent (21 of 65) felt the money does 
contribute to their income to some extent. Only 2 percent (one of 65) felt the money had no effect or 
contribution to income (Figure 13).
26 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FIGURE 13. INNOVATION CONTRIBUTION TO INCOME 
5 10 15 20 25
INNOVATION CONTRIBUTION TO INCOME 
Somewhat 21
Significantly 21
Not at all 1
Very significantly 22
0
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Poverty reduction benefits 
The total of the respondents (N=65) in the survey is mostly people who are categorized in the lowest 
annual household bracket (USD 0.00 to 59,550) and generally experience extreme poverty. Of the 
respondents, 77 percent (46 out of 65) are extremely poor, and the majority depend on social grants 
from the government. About one-fourth (19 of 65) of the surveyed population is categorized as low￾income (Figure 14). Those in this class are either retired individuals with few to no dependents or, to a lesser 
extent, the head of the family working for wage labor that comes more often and pays decent salaries.
FIGURE 14. FARMERS POVERTY RANKINGS
40
45
50
30
35
20
10
25
15
5
FARMERS POVERTY RANKINGS
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Extreme poor Low income
46
19
0
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 27
The trend of pro-poor in the program continued or was clear from the first season (2016/17), whereby 
the majority (69 percent) (24 of 35) of respondents were extreme poor individuals as compared to 
the low-income group. The high uptake of the extreme poor compared to low-income continued in the 
2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons, whereby 85 percent (11 of 13) and 68 percent (11 of 17) were achieved, 
respectively. Overall 70.77 percent (46 of 65) of the respondents are poorest (Figure 15). 
FIGURE 15. FARMERS INTAKE BY POVERTY RANKING IN THREE YEARS
30
20
10
25
15
5
FARMERS INTAKE BY POVERTY RANKING IN THREE YEARS
NUMBER OF FARMERS
24
2016/17
11 11
2017/18
2
11
2018/19
6
0
Extreme Poor Low Income
28 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Sales
Farmers shared the amount of income sourced in their respective last MNP auctions. They shared 
income differently based on how best they recalled, with some farmers giving the total income 
sourced from last auctions or approximate/exact figure for every cattle sold. The total or average of 
the total of multiple cattle was divided and presented as an average for every farmer. In total, 58 
farmers made ZAR 403,700 from their respective last auctions. The most common price or mode 
was ZAR 6,000, and the average price per cattle was ZAR 6,960. Using the overall farmers last sale 
average, the three year income was calculated and amounted to ZAR 1,600,800/USD 114,506.44 (at 
an exchange rate of USD 1 = ZAR 13.98 at the time) (Table 7).
TABLE 7. FARMERS CATTLE SALES
FARMERS LAST (AUCTION) CATTLE SALES (N=58)
ZAR USD
Total 403,700 28,876.97
Average 6,960 497.85
Median 6.600 472.10
Mode 6,000 429.18
LONG TERM SALE INCOME
TOTAL CATTLE SOLD 
IN THREE YEARS THREE YEARS INCOME
Total 1, 600, 800 114,506.44
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 29
Expenses
(I) USAGE OF INCOME FROM INNOVATION
Farmers had multiple uses for income from the innovation. A total of 58 farmers used their money to 
send their children to school and for social functions. Additionally, 56 used their money to improve their 
house. Only 23 farmers stated using a portion of the money for farming purposes, and four said they 
use their money for other reasons, specifically savings (three ) and buying medication (one) (Figure 16).
FIGURE 16. FARMERS INNOVATION INCOME USAGE
60
70
40
20
50
30
10
FARMERS INNOVATION INCOME USAGE
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Send/keep
children in
school
58
Social 
functions
such as 
weddings
58
On 
investment
in farming
23
Improving
house
56
Other
4
0
(II). OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
Cattle herding was the most common monthly expenditure for respondents. They spent a total of 
ZAR 25,200 per month on their herdsman and a total of ZAR 302,400 per annum. On average, 
a herdsman is paid ZAR 788 per month and ZAR 9,450 per annum. The lowest average is for the 
herdsman or cattle owners that own one to five cattle at ZAR 600 per month, and the highest 
average is from the sole farmer with more than 31 cattle at ZAR 1,500 (Table 8). 
30 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
TABLE 8. FARMERS EXPENSES ON HERDSMAN 
NO OF CATTLE
NO OF 
FAMERS
HERDSMEN 
MONTHLY 
SALARIES IN ZAR
HERDSMEN 
MONTHLY 
SALARIES IN USD AVERAGES
NO OF MALE 
FARMERS
1-5 5 3,000 214.59 600 42.92
6-10 9 5,700 407.73 633 45.30
11-20 12 9,300 665.24 775 55.44
21-30 5 5,700 407.73 1 140 81.55
>31 1 1,500 107.30 1 500 107.30
Total 32 25,200 1,802.57 788 56.33
Annual 
expenditure 302,400 21,630.90 9,450 675.97
Over 50 percent of the cattle farmers herd their livestock or have a family member who is responsible 
for looking after the cattle. In the case of famers with herdsmen, the monthly salary of herdsmen is 
complicated within the region. Most herdsmen are from outside the country (mainly Lesotho), and their 
salary is negotiated by treating or absorbing them as family members who are provided food and 
shelter. Some herdsmen herd more than one farmers’ cattle through an agreement with a group of 
farmers in which they are paid less money by each farmer, and the final sum is less than or equivalent 
to what is paid to an individual herding few cattle of a single farmer.
The second largest expenditure was cattle feed, which is generally used in winter or during the dry 
seasons. In total, the seasonal annual feed cost ZAR 50,155 at an average cost of ZAR 5.08 per kilo 
and at ZAR 253.95 per 50 kilogram, which is commonly purchased according to the farmers. In total, 
only 40 farmers buy feed over 9 tons annually (Table 9).
TABLE 9. ANNUAL WINTER/DRY SEASON FEED EXPENDITURE
(N=40)
ZAR USD
TOTAL COST 50,155.00 3,610.87
AVERAGE COST PER KG 5.08 0.37
AVERAGE COST PER 
50 KG BAG 253.95 18.28
MEDIAN 50.00 3.60
When asked whether the innovation was provided at a cost or free, 95 percent stated they were 
charged. However, the fee differed among farmers. Some were clear about the fees and the 
differences, while others were confused about the fee and the differences between farmers. Those 
who were clear about the fee said there is a six percent commission fee that is priced to 42 percent 
(27 of 65) for non-association members because they were not honoring sustainable grazing 
practices. Another fee was three percent that is charged to 52 percent (34 of 65) of association 
members who support the rotational grazing programs. Only 6 percent (four of 65) said they pay 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 31
nothing for the innovation (Figure 17). According to MNP, the commission fees are used to cover MNP 
operational costs and generate income for the innovation, which is further used to contribute to the 
community’s activities for alien plant removal.
FIGURE 17. HOW MUCH ARE YOU PAYING FOR INNOVATION
30
40
35
20
10
25
15
5
HOW MUCH ARE YOU PAYING FOR INNOVATION
NUMBER OF FARMERS
6%
27
3%
34
0%
4
0
COMMISSIONS
Farmers were asked if they would like to pay for the innovation, and if so, how much would they pay? 
Of the farmers, 43 percent (28 of 65) were not willing to pay. Only 35 percent (23 of 65) of the paying 
farmers were happy with the fee. Among paying farmers, 20 percent (13 of 65) felt the price should 
be reduced by one-half (Figure 18).
32 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FIGURE 18. HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR INNOVATION
30
20
10
25
15
5
HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR INNOVATION
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Not willing
to pay
28
Innovation 
is free
1
50% less
13
Same as
what I pay
23
0
Change in farming practices due to climatic variability 
In the past, rural farmers depended on rain to supply their grassland with water for growth. However, 
variability in the climate has made it difficult to depend on rain for sufficient grass growth because the 
normal average rainfall is reduced and sporadic. Farmers were asked if there are changes in their daily 
operations in managing their livestock, and, if so, how. A total of 73 percent (43 of 59) stated they are 
affected by climatic variability but their operations have not changed. Another 27 percent (16 of 59) 
shared the effect of the climate caused them to change their normal way of doing things (Figure 19).
Farmers changing their operational ways in managing their livestock had a combination of practices. 
The dominant practice was buying feed, followed by keeping the livestock deep in the mountains for 
longer periods than in the past and being more welcoming of rotational grazing from MNP and partners.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 33
FIGURE 19. CHANGE IN LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS
50
30
10
40
45
25
15
35
20
5
CHANGE IN LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS
NUMBER OF FARMERS
No change
16
Change
43
0
Comparison between latest Innovator M&E and latest SWFF M&E 
The MNP report to SWFF in year 1 showed that the farmers’ average income from cattle sale is USD 
508.57. In year 2, MNP reported an increase with farmers averaging USD 1,254, which is more than 
double the previous year. For further comparison, averages were presented as cumulative averages 
for the two-year period. Using the MNP report, the two-year total was USD 1,762.56. On the contrary, 
the current report showed farmers with the exact or average figures obtained from their respective 
last sales from year one to year three. Using their last cattle sale income, farmers recorded an 
average of USD 497.85 for their different years of last cattle sale. The farmers’ three-year cumulative 
average was USD 1,974.30. This translated to a cumulative annual average income of USD 658.08 
for 230 cattle sold (Table 10). 
TABLE 10. INCOME COMPARISON BETWEEN REPORTS 
MNP
TOTAL INCOME(USD) TOTAL CATTLE SOLD ANNUAL AVERAGE
Year 1 89,000 240 508.57
Year 2 1,254
2 YEARS CUMULATIVE 1,762,57
CUMULATIVE ANNUAL 
AVERAGE 881,285
SWFF-M&E
TOTAL INCOME (USD) TOTAL CATTLE SOLD
THREE YEAR 
CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE ANNUAL 
AVERAGE
11,4506.4 230 1,974.3 658.08
34 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
MNP results on gender differences are consistent with the findings of the current report, with more 
active males than females. Also, with regard to females, their intake is positively increasing year over 
year (Table 11).
TABLE 11. GENDER COMPARISON BETWEEN REPORTS
YEAR 1
PERCENTAGE
YEAR 2
PERCENTAGE
YEAR 3
PERCENTAGE
MNP SWFF-M&E MNP SWFF-M&E MNP SWFF-M&E
Men 79 77 74 77 70 65
Women 21 23 26 23 30 35
Farmers suggestions and requests
Many farmers were aware of the business nature of MNP and its partners and did not shy away from 
expressing their views or requests on how the innovation can serve them better individually and as a 
community (Table 12).
TABLE 12. FARMERS SUGGESTIONS AND REQUESTS
FARMERS SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO MNP
1. Reduce or cancel the commission fee
2. Help users understand the innovation pricing system
3. Bring in more buyers
4. Offer breeding bulls/calves for fully grown cattle
5. Buy small stocks, pigs, horses and wool
6. Inform people in advance to have more sellers on auction day/involve farmers on deciding auction dates
OTHER FARMER REQUESTS/RELATING TO MNP AND PARTNERS
1. Provide/help with cattle feed
2. Help with preventing livestock loss from theft
3. Help with veterinary services/medication
4. Help with planting crops, especially maize
5. Help with water for human consumption
6. Inform people in advance to have more sellers on auction day/involve farmers on deciding auction dates
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 35
DISCUSSION
36 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
During the survey, it was clear that the farmers had a lot to share about the innovation. They made it 
clear that they are happy with the innovation’s presence within their reach but not satisfied with the 
pricing of cattle/meat per kilogram. For some, frustration was caused by a lack of knowledge. For 
others, it was the fact that they know they can sell their cattle elsewhere for a better price. Still, others 
felt someone’s cattle are bought for a higher price than theirs, but based on physical appearance and 
age, they felt theirs can sell at a better price. The lack of knowledge in determining the value of their 
cattle was another challenge that farmers had, which led them to believe their system of pricing was 
outdone by the innovation scale system that “robs” them of the predetermined potential selling price 
of their cattle.
Accepting the grazing systems from MNP and its partners was easy for the individuals that live with 
people who are close to personnel of either MNP or its partners (such as ecorangers), but it was 
difficult for farmers who are not. Generally, farmers argued that rotational grazing would work with 
camps or having demarcated plots that are protected by neutral individuals. Some farmers felt 
ecorangers made it difficult for their cattle to recover in the summer and autumn because of limited 
grazing space. They also avoided forcing them to move their cattle to deep areas in the mountains 
close to the border of Lesotho because their cattle are exposed to theft in those areas.
The commission fee was another issue farmers noted as in need of change. Most of the farmers 
referred to the commission fee as a tax. Association members are priced a commission fee of three 
percent, and non-members are charged six percent because of non-compliance. Some association 
members felt that the commission fee is not fair because they comply with the grazing systems or 
rotational grazing, so a commission fee shouldn’t be charged to their cattle’s price after the final 
bidding price. In some instances, farmers shared they will continue using the innovation but will 
consider selling their cattle elsewhere because the commission reduces their income. A few farmers 
also shared they were never told of the commission fee until they received less money in the bank. This 
is a result of not paying close attention to the receipt they receive that details the sale.
Another issue of interest was confusion on how the innovation can be improved and work better for 
the communities. When asked this question, farmers would ask what they can do or state that they 
needed a price increase. Farmers felt that the role of MNP is to buy their cattle and there’s nothing 
binding the innovation to contribute to their community in any way. The dissociation of MNP from 
its partners was clear among farmers. Although some farmers are clear on the MNP vision and 
approach, the confusion could still be due to a lack of communication from MNP and its partners 
about the importance of the linkage of all organizations. According to MNP, farmers’ meeting 
attendance is poor, which could be one factor contributing to the lack of effective communication
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 37
Usage/Availability
MNP’s establishment as a profit organization was successful from the farmers’ perception. The 
farmers felt the innovation is fair by giving them the freedom to accept pricing of choice. From the 
surveyed group of 65, only three farmers were dissatisfied and felt they would not continue with the 
innovation. The reason behind their decision to quit is because of poor pricing. Of the three dissatisfied 
farmers, two were female and one was male. Only one of the females was categorized below the 
poverty line or extreme poverty, and the other two were categorized under the low income bracket. In 
addition, two of the farmers are based in Colana where the main support structure is MNP and there 
have not been intensive conservation interventions from IAs. Although TKT is involved, it has not yet 
impacted change that farmers expect or other sites under different IAs are experiencing.
Farmers also were happy with the ease of uptake and stated that the innovation informed farmers 
of possible auctions and requested farmers, specifically non-association members, to register. 
The innovation’s availability and accessibility were not limited to certain community members, 
and all farmers had access if their location is in the agreement with the innovation formally or 
informally. Farmers also were happy with the acceptance of all cattle regardless of age and physical 
appearance. There was one instance where one farmer felt that she was discriminated upon by 
being expelled from selling with MNP by the local association for reasons she doesn’t know. When the 
interviewer pressed for answers, there seemed to be a miscommunication about compliance with the 
association rules and lack of willingness by the farmer to participate in meetings.
38 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Livestock yield/survival
MNP helped farmers through its partners to realize the existing potential of sustainable grazing for 
the health and physical condition of their cattle. Farmers made it clear their livestock is struggling in 
winter and during long dry seasons. However, the little effort and minimal changes were significantly 
acknowledged, with over 50 percent of farmers acknowledging the benefit of grass cover in their 
locations. Farmers accepted that this contributed to the better conditions of their livestock. A farmer 
also added there has not been a loss of cattle in the last five years because of drought and attributed 
this to the grazing program.
Some farmers (four) were happy with the help of medication or veterinary services. A few went 
on to justify the impact of such services with the decline in mortality and general difficulties they 
experienced with their livestock in the winter. However, some farmers felt there isn’t a clear impact 
from the innovation on their livestock’s health and physical appearance because there has been a 
clear variation in the past and variability in the climate currently. Farmers felt there are clear changes 
and transitions in a year with favorable weather, while in poor weather conditions, they struggle as in 
the past or must buy feed to sustain their livestock whereas MNP and its partners are present.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 39
Changes in income
MNP has contributed significantly to improving the farmers income. Farmers acknowledged the 
increase in income from selling their cattle to MNP. Their reasons varied from better price and low 
commission fee to guaranteed cash purchase. Unlike selling their cattle through credit to people who 
are desperate and needy, farmers feel they make sensible business decisions over sentimental ones. 
Another interesting factor they shared was the presence of the auction in their communities. Farmers 
value the freedom of having to refuse bidding prices and still have no extra costs to incur because the 
auction is local and their decision making is not affected by the fear of losing money from labor costs 
for unguaranteed sales. 
About one-third of farmers felt the money they get from MNP was somewhat important to their 
income and cited price per kilogram as the reason that shadows the value of the money. Also, the 
only farmer who did not see any difference in their income was a result of low price per kilogram. 
This farmer’s reason for selling was that the cow was troublesome in the community. The lack of 
involvement by the farmer on her cattle might have contributed to the cattle’s low mass.
With regard to change on inputs cost, farmers shared there is not much difference in the money they 
put on farming investments. Most do not spend money on farming inputs because there is no money 
and when they get money from sales it is for pre-determined purposes. Additionally, the money they 
earn or sourced from their savings is mostly for paying the herdsman. However, they did acknowledge 
that in a good year or with good sales they do buy medicine and feed. Feed was generally bought for 
winter or during the dry season, and the quantity was affected by the farmer’s financials and, to a 
lesser extent, by the longevity of the dry season. A total of 40 farmers spend an annual total of USD 
3,610.87 from mostly their savings and, to a lesser extent, from the innovation sales profits. Among 
the 40 farmers, 63 percent (25 of 40) depended solely on their own savings. However, the 38 percent 
(15 of 40) of farmers that allocate money for feed and medication from their cattle sales income 
spend USD 3,426,32. Most farmers did not know the medication they bought, although a few farmers 
mentioned using Epsom salt to treat external abscesses, drugs such as acaricide for treatment 
against ticks on the skin of cattle, and ivomec for small stock.
Impact on poverty
Poverty reduction was another factor the innovator accommodated significantly. Of the respondents, 
71 percent (46 of 65) are extreme poor individuals, and most are pensioners or depend on a 
pensioner and government grants. The money from the innovation was mostly used for basic needs, 
such as contributing to the home, sending or keeping children to or in school, and social functions. 
Among money spent on social functions, most was to celebrate the return of young males from the 
traditional circumcision practice. The money further allowed the 15 poor/low-income farmers to invest 
in their farming inputs, specifically for feed and medication.
40 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Benefits of innovation on community
MNP and its partners are well appreciated in the communities in which they work. The work they put 
into helping with livestock is valued significantly. The jobs they create for ecorangers and people who 
remove alien plants are all appreciated and contribute significantly to the livelihoods of community 
members. During the interviews, contracts from MNP and its partners were on hold or lapsed due to 
speculated reasons for off-season and financials. Some interviewees asked about the potential return 
or continuation of contracts with MNP and its partners for the community members who participated. 
In addition, some farmers shared that the farmers are happy with the proposals of the organizations 
to involve the local youth because they have a negative perception of agriculture.
Other benefits
Communal farming allows for access to land and water sources by farmers and the public without 
limitations. This benefited farmers with free access to water and eliminated the costs of fencing 
and watering equipment. As much as the innovation found the practice in place, its value was 
deteriorating. Its involvement revives it, and farmers are valuing it. However, it should be stated that 
farmers are fencing their plots or portions of land owned for maize farming.
Comparison between latest Innovator M&E and latest SWFF M&E 
The existing variation between latest innovator M&E and latest SWFF M&E is the average income per 
farmer from year 1 to the recent year’s report. According to the results of the latest innovator M&E and 
latest SWFF M&E, there is a significant difference at USD 881,285 and USD 658.08, respectively. This 
can be justified because farmers gave approximate figures for the current study and the comparisons 
are limited to cumulative income.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 41
CONCLUSION
42 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Over the years, the practice of communal farming has made it possible for farmers to participate in 
numbers and with freedom in livestock farming for food security reasons. With climatic variability, this 
practice has been questioned and eliminated in developed countries, such as England and Germany. 
Although the practice is threatened in South Africa, MNP and its partners have made it relevant and 
valuable in the Umzimvubu area of the Eastern Cape. Farmers increasingly are participating in MNP 
auctions. The majority of the participants are pensioners who are breadwinners. Just over 70 percent 
are male; however, the accommodation of females is promoted by male participants, and their intake 
is positively increasing. Most of the female customers are widows and wives whose husbands are 
away for work.
Since most of the overall customers are pensioners and extreme poor or living on a low income, the 
money they earn from the innovation is significant. The money sourced from the innovation mostly is 
used for family needs, thereby reducing poverty and making the innovation a very essential contributor 
to the farmers’ livelihoods. Because of the innovation, farmers are able to receive money on time and 
in a lump sum, thereby making a huge difference in their livelihood. Interestingly, farmers noted the 
increase in income from selling their cattle through MNP, but farmers still believe their cattle are worth 
more than what MNP offers, with the most common suggestion being an increase in price per kilogram.
Due to the scattered and isolated layout of rural areas where livestock farming is practiced in 
communal land, market access is difficult for farmers. MNP hosts auctions in farmers’ locations, 
making it easier and affordable for farmers to participate, especially female farmers. The involvement 
of MNP and its partners in the different participating communities makes it practical to engage 
farmers on matters relating to sustainable grazing. Empowerment of communities also is made 
possible through job creation and education.
Communal farming does not require a lot of farming inputs in contrast to commercial farming. This is 
evident by the elimination of the costs of fencing and watering and few to no complaints from farmers over 
such important inputs in farming. One of the few requests related to fencing was cattle loss, which is one 
of the challenges that was noted and is very concerning, since farmers associated it with distant grazing 
areas. This forces farmers to overgraze the safe grazing spaces as a way of protecting their cattle. 
MNP has achieved a lot as an enterprise in reaching its goals and targets of improving farmers’ 
livelihood. Also, MNP and its partners are raising awareness and causing local farmers to reconsider 
their perceptions. Management practices to ensure long term sustainable grazing and access to 
water throughout the year is a daunting task that requires sophisticated and dynamic practical 
models that center farmers/livestock and the community as the main role players. Nevertheless, the 
integration of MNP and its partners had a positive impact, but more groundwork is needed to help 
farmers better understand long-term sustainable grazing and basic livestock value in a practical 
sense. Also, work is needed to align the way of life in the villages with the vision of MNP and its 
partners for farmers to embrace their practices.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 43
ANNEX I
44 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FARMER INFORMATION
NAME 
AGE 
DATE TIME 
GROUP INTERVIEW? o Yes o No
GROUP INTERVIEW NOTES
HOW MANY FAMILY MEMBERS LIVE WITH YOU? 
GENDER o Male o Female
WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
SIZE OF FARM (ACRES) 
NAME OF VILLAGE 
HOW MUCH LAND DO YOU OWN? 
HOW LARGE IS YOUR FARM/PLOT? 
o Large
o Medium
o Small
o Very Small
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 45
HOW MUCH IS LAND RENT? 
OTHER LAND NOTES
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN USING MEAT NATURALLY? 
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES THIS YEAR? o Yes o No
HOW HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN MNP? (TICK ALL THAT APPLY)
o I HAVE SOLD CATTLE AT A MNP AUCTION
o I HAVE IMPROVED GRASS COVER AND INCREASED WATER RETENTION
HOW MANY CATTLE DO YOU OWN? 
WHAT IS THE WATER SOURCE FOR YOUR LIVESTOCK? 
WHAT IS YOUR METHOD OF IRRIGATION FOR FEED? 
DOES YOUR COMMUNITY FACE WATER SCARCITY? o Yes o No
DO YOU GROW MAIZE OR VEGETABLES? 
FARM INFORMATION
HOW MUCH HAS YOUR WATER USAGE CHANGED SINCE USING MEAT NATURALLY, IF AT ALL?
USING MEAT NATURALLY HAS YOUR ACCESS TO WATER:
o Had no change
o Improved
o Fundamentally improved (Improved a lot)
o Other: 
USING MEAT NATURALLY HAVE YOU:
o Had no change in water access for your cattle
o Improved water access for your cattle
46 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DID YOU USE BEFORE MEAT NATURALLY?
FEED (KG)
WATER (L)
FENCING, FUEL (L)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS BEFORE MEAT NATURALLY? 
FEED (KG)
WATER (L)
FENCING, FUEL (L)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DO YOU USE AFTER MEAT NATURALLY?
FEED (KG)
WATER (L)
FENCING, FUEL (L)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON THE FOLLOWING INPUTS AFTER MEAT NATURALLY? 
FEED (KG)
WATER (L)
FENCING, FUEL (L)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EQUIPMENT BEFORE AND AFTER MEAT NATURALLY? 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON TRANSPORT AND STORAGE BEFORE AND AFTER MEAT 
NATURALLY? 
OTHER FARM NOTES (OPTIONAL).
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 47
INCOME AND EXPENDITURES
WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME? 
HOW MUCH INCOME DID YOU MAKE BEFORE MEAT NATURALLY? 
AFTER MEAT NATURALLY? 
HAS MEAT NATURALLY IMPROVED YOUR FAMILY INCOME? 
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME DO YOU GET FROM NON-FARM SOURCES? 
HOW MUCH PRODUCE DID YOU SELL FOR EACH OF YOUR CROPS IN THE LAST SEASON AND THE 
LAST YEAR? 
WHAT IS THE PRICE PER KILO YOU RECEIVED FOR EACH OF YOUR CROPS FOR THE LAST SEASON?
USING MEAT NATURALLY HAS YOUR ACCESS TO CREDIT:
o Not improved
o Improved
o Improved and have been able to repay over a short period
HOW DO YOU CURRENTLY FINANCE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES?
o Own savings
o Credit and savings scheme
o Other credit
HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY FOR MEAT NATURALLY? 
HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR MEAT NATURALLY?
o Nothing
o MEAT NATURALLY is free
o The same as what I pay now
o 50% less
o 50% more
o Other: 
48 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW HAVE YOU SPENT YOUR NEW INCOME?
o N/A (if no new income)
o Send children to school or keep children in school
o Social functions (like weddings)
o Investment in farming
o Improving house
o Other: 
OTHER INCOME NOTES (OPTIONAL)
PERCEPTIONS OF MEAT NATURALLY
WILL YOU USE MEAT NATURALLY IN THE FUTURE (5 TO 10 YEARS)? o Yes o No
WHY? 
HOW, IF AT ALL, HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES DUE TO MEAT NATURALLY?
o No change
o Introduced new crops
o Changed irrigation system
o Reduced water usage
o It helps me decide when to plant
o It helps me decide which crops to plant
HAVE YOU FACED ANY DIFFICULTIES OR PROBLEMS USING MEAT NATURALLY? o Yes o No
HOW CAN MEAT NATURALLY BE IMPROVED? 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 49
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT MEAT NATURALLY?
o Wealthy farmer
o Neighbor
o Innovation personnel
o Extension worker
o Other: 
WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCED YOU TO TRY MEAT NATURALLY?
o Demonstration from neighbor’s farm
o Innovation is free from extension services
o No alternative water source
o Other: 
DO YOU SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE SKILLS FROM MEAT NATURALLY WITH OTHERS? o Yes o No 
IF SO, HOW? 
WHAT DO YOU FEEL ARE THE BENEFITS OF MEAT NATURALLY? 
HAVE YOU BENEFITED FROM HERDING AND/OR AUCTION? o Yes o No 
IF YES, ARE YOUR CATTLE HEALTHIER AND/OR STRONGER?
IF YES, HAVE YOU RECEIVED A GOOD PRICE FOR YOUR CATTLE?
IF YES, HAVE YOU INCREASED YOUR HERD OF CATTLE?
HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT CLIMATIC VARIATION? HAVE CHANGES IN RAINFALL OR TEMPERATURE 
AFFECTED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES OR CROP YIELDS COMPARED TO YOUR HISTORICAL 
RAINY/DRY SEASON PERIODS? o Yes o No
PLEASE SPECIFY HOW. 
50 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW HAS MEAT NATURALLY HELPED YOU? PLEASE RANK THE TOP 3 AND EXPLAIN POSITIVES/
NEGATIVES.
 Makes water reusable 
 Helps women farmers as well as men 
 They made a special effort to include women farmers 
 Helps in producing more of our most important crop 
 Increases my yield through timely forecasts 
 Helps by lowering cost of inputs 
 Improves health and strength of livestock 
 Helps reduce labor 
 Reduces crop wastage 
 Helps me decide when to plant 
 Helps me decide which crops to plant 
 Other: 
WOULD YOU RECOMMEND MEAT NATURALLY?
o No
o Yes
o Yes, would strongly recommend
ARE THERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM MEAT NATURALLY IN THE COMMUNITY? o Yes o No
PLEASE EXPLAIN IF YES. 
IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS, HAVE EFFORTS BEEN MADE TO RESOLVE THEM? 
o Yes o No
EXPLAIN. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: MEAT NATURALLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 51
OTHER
INCOME/POVERTY NOTES
GENDER OBSERVATIONS
QUESTIONS/REQUESTS
OTHER NOTES
Securing Water for Food has sourced and invested in a portfolio of innovative 
solutions that aim to help farmers use water more efficiently and effectively, 
improve water storage for lean times, and remove salt from water to make more 
food. Our cohort of innovators are helping people in 35 low-resource countries 
with tools they need to produce more food with less water.
To learn more about Securing Water for Food, 
visit www.securingwaterforfood.org.