-----------------------------
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DROUGHT 
HAZARD: A CASE OF KOTI-SE-PHOLA COMMUNITY COUNCIL, 
THABANA MORENA, MAFETENG DISTRICT IN LESOTHO. 
By 
Bernard Moeketsi Hlalele 
2010094395 
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree 
Masters in Disaster Risk Management 
In the 
Faculty ofNatural and Agricultural Sciences 
(Disaster Management Training and Education Center for Africa) 
At the 
UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE 
Study Leader: Mr Johannes Belle 
2014 
DECLARATION 
I Bernard Moeketsi Hlalele hereby declare that the work in this dissertation is the original 
product of my own efforts. All sources used and discussions made have been acknowledged with 
complete references. This work is submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master's Degree in 
Disaster Management and I also declare that this work has never been submitted in any form or 
anywhere else for any degree. 
Signature J3::M:ffialele Date 0I/02/2015 
BERNARD MOEKETSI HLALELE 
ii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
I thank my supervisor Mr Johannes Belle for his advice, encouragements and guidance 
throughout this study. 
I thank my wife, Malithebe Malahleha-Hlalele who supported me throughout this work even in 
times when we had family problems that could have hampered the progress of this dissertation. 
Thanks to Mr and Mrs Teboho and Matshele Seeta and Mr Moeng Cucu respectively for making 
it possible for me to complete this degree through their profound assistance in keeping and 
collecting my daughter from school. Special thanks to Mr Tsilo Mangana under whose influence 
this degree was followed. Thanks again to Ms Marie Engelbrecht for profound help in editing my 
dissertation. 
Special thanks to my mother and father Mateti Josphina and Tefo Nimrod Hlalele, who fought 
endlessly in my youth to ensure that I go to school and become what I want in life. 
Thanks to Mr David Kiwanuka for his special support in ensuring my schooling in the early 
years of my school life. 
iii 
DEDICATION 
This is dedicated to God Almighty, for His grace in providing me with passion and strength to 
complete this degree. To my lovely wife, daughter and son, Malithebe Malahleha-Hlalele, 
Sebabatso Precious and Kamohelo Einstein Hlalele respectively, who were my reason for 
studying this degree to inspire them. 
iv 
-----------
ABSTRACT 
Over 80% of Lesotho populations' livelihood is dependent on rain-fed agriculture, and during 
droughts communities suffer most from the drought impacts. This study's main focus was to 
assess vulnerability to agricultural drought at Koti-Se-Phola Community Council (CC) in order 
to determine the conditions of vulnerability and who and what is exposed to drought, to examine 
coping mechanisms used against drought and to provide relevant decision makers with 
information on drought for effective interventions. The study followed both quantitative and 
qualitative methodology where 5 villages were sampled in the study. The selected sample 
comprised of both working and non-working respondents. The total sample size considered in 
this study was 102. Questionnaires were distributed to household heads. An interview was held 
with agriculture official at Agriculture Project at Ha Bofihla for an expert opinion and to validate 
responses from household members. Data was entered in Microsoft Excel for analysis and 
SPSSV16 for reliability testing, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was found to be 0.764. From the 
selected drought indicators, a composite vulnerability index was established. 
Main findings of this study were that this community council was found to be vulnerable to 
drought with emerging issues such as high unemployment, elderly residents whose alternative 
income is old-age pension at M450 a month. Government responses to drought were found to be 
inadequate. Very few livestock especially cows were used for draught power in ploughing. 
However, many have devised means to cope with drought, through stockpiling of maize stalks, 
feeding of lekhale and torofeiye as well as chicken droppings to cows during droughts. Socially, 
some members have been sent away for job seeking and others picked up piece jobs as shepherds 
to reduce food consumption and pressures in the families. The general Agricultural Vulnerability 
Index was 0.4874. Suggestions were made by the respondents that employment-generating and 
poverty alleviation projects be put in place such as, the installation of irrigation systems at 
Makhaleng River and agricultural conservation projects to harness soil erosion. Given the current 
drought vulnerability situation, the researcher strongly recommends diversified livelihoods such 
as increased agricultural conservation where unskilled community members would earn a living 
in dry spells. 
KEY WORDS: Agricultural drought, Vulnerability, disaster, coping capacity 
v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
PAGE 
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................. .ii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................. iii 
DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................................... iv 
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... vi 
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. x 
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... xi 
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... xii 
CHAPTER 1: ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY ........................................................................ 1 
I. I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH .................................................................................. 2 
1.3 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................................. 2 
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ......................................................................................... 3 
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................. 5 
1.5.1 Main objective .................................................................................................................... 5 
1.5.2 Sub-objectives ..................................................................................................................... 5 
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 5 
1.6.1 Research Design ................................................................................................................. 5 
1.6.2 Population and sampling .................................................................................................. 6 
1.6.3 Data collection .................................................................................................................... 6 
1.6.4 Data analysis ....................................................................................................................... 7 
1.7 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 7 
1.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 8 
1.9 CHAPTER OUTLINE ............................................................................................................... 8 
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .....•••••••.... 10 
2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 10 
2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS ....................................................................................................... 10 
2.2.1 Drought. ............................................................................................................................. ! 0 
Meteorological drought ............................................................................................................ 10  
vi 
Hydrological drought ............................................................................................................... 11 
Agricultural drought ................................................................................................................ 11 
Socio-economic drought ........................................................................................................... 11 
2.2.2 Hazard ............................................................................................................................... 12 
2.2.3 Vulnerability ..................................................................................................................... 12 
2.2.4 Susceptibility .................................................................................................................... 13 
2.2.5 Exposure ............................................................................................................................ 13 
2.2.6 Coping capacity ................................................................................................................ 14 
2.2. 7 Adaptive capacity ............................................................................................................. 14 
2.2.8 Resilience ........................................................................................................................... 14 
2.2.9 Preparedness .................................................................................................................... 15 
2.2.10 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 15 
2.3 DROUGHT VULNERABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ..................... 15 
2.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISASTER RISK, HAZARD, COPING CAPACITY AND 
VULNERABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 16 
2.5 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO VULNERABILITY TO DROUGHT ........................... 17 
2.6 DROUGHT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 18 
2.7 EXPOSED AND SUSCEPTIBLE ELEMENTS TO DROUGHT ........................................ 19 
2.8 COPING CAPACITY AND MITIGATION AGAINST DROUGHT ................................. 21 
2.9 DROUGHT RISK MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 23 
2.9.1 Drought preparedness and planning ............................................................................ 23 
2.9.2 Land use planning ........................................................................................................... 24 
2.9.3 Risk mapping .................................................................................................................... 25 
2.10 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND LEGISLATIONS .................................. 25 
2.10.1 International drought management, policies and legislations ................................ 25 
2.10.2 Lesotho drought policies aud legislation .................................................................... 29 
2.1 lINTERNATIONAL IMP ACTS OF DROUGHT .................................................................. 32 
2.12 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT IN LESOTHO .................................................................... 35 
2.13 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (BBC VULNERABILITY MODEL) ........................... 37 
2.14 APPLICATION OF THE BBC MODEL TO THE STUDY AREA (MAFETENG 
DISTRICT) ...................................................................................................................................... 39 
vii 
2.14.1 Hazard ............................................................................................................................. 39 
2.14.2 Exposed and vulnerable elements ............................................................................... 39 
2.14.3 Coping capacities against drought in Mafeteng district ......................................... .41 
2.14.4 Drought preparedness measures ................................................................................. 41 
2.14.5 Emergency management .............................................................................................. 42 
2.14.6 Intervention System ...................................................................................................... 42 
2.15 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 43 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 45 
3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 45 
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGNS ........................................................................................................... 45 
3.3 SELECTION OF INDICATORS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS ............................. .45 
3.4 SAMPLING .............................................................................................................................. 47 
3.5 DAT A COLLECTION ............................................................................................................. 48 
3.5.1 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ........................................................................................... 48 
3.6 DAT A ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. .49 
3.7 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ........................................................................................... 49 
3.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................ 50 
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 51 
4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 51 
4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE RESPONDENTS ..................................................................... 51 
4.3 EXPOSED ELEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 53 
4.4 COPING CAPACITY .............................................................................................................. 62 
4.5 ADAPTIVE COPING MECHANISMS ................................................................................ 68 
4.6 DROUGHT INTERVENTION SUGGESTIONS .................................................................. 69 
4.7 AGRICULTURAL DROUGHT VULNERABILITY INDEX ............................................. 71 
4.8 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 77 
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................. 79 
5. I INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 79 
5.2 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 79 
5.2.lExposure to drought ......................................................................................................... 79 
5.2.2 Coping capacities ............................................................................................................. 79 
viii 
5.2.3 Vulnerability conditions to drought ............................................................................. 80 
5.3 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 80 
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 81 
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT ........................................................... 81 
5.6 DIRECTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES .............................................................................. 81 
5.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................................... 82 
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 83 
APPENDIX A: A permission Jetter to conduct the study ................................................................ 92 
APPENDIX B: Ethical clearance letter ............................................................................................. 93 
APPENDIX C: A Letter from the editor ........................................................................................... 94 
APPENDIX D: Questionnaire ........................................................................................................... 95 
ix 
LIST OF FIGURES 
PAGE 
Figure 1.1: Mafeteng District Community Councils .............................................. 4 
Figure 2.1: Relationship between hydrological, meteorological and agricultural drought ... 12 
Figure 2.2: BBC Vulnerability Model ............................................................... 38 
Figure 4.1: Home Language ......................................................................... 51 
Figure 4.2: Household size distribution by frequency ............................................ 53 
Figure 4.3: Households with agricultural field ...................................................... 54 
Figure 4.4: Main source of water ................................................................... 55 
Figure 4.5: Education level.. ......................................................................... 56 
Figure 4.6: Waterborne diseases ..................................................................... 56 
Figure 4.7: Loss of human life in dry periods ...................................................... 58 
Figure 4.8: Employment status ..................................................................... 59 
Figure 4.9: Loss of income due to droughts impacts .............................................. 60 
Figure 4.10: Water quality ........................................................................... 62 
Figure 4.11: Drought warning to the public ....................................................... 63 
Figure 4.12: Conservation agriculture methods implemented ................................... 64 
Figure 4. I 3: Other sources oflivelihood other than rain-fed agriculture ....................... 65 
Figure 4.14: Planting of drought-tolerant crop cultivars ......................................... 66 
Figure 4.15: Good rangelands management system ............................................... 67 
Figure 4.16: Community members struggling for water from taps 
at Ha Konote, Thabana Morena ...................................................................... 67 
Figure 4.17: Fodder stockpiling from different villages at 
Koti-Se-Phola Community Council (CC) .......................................................... 68 
Figure 4.18: Mr Matea's cabbage field at Ha Bofihla Thabana Morena ........................ 69 
Figure 4.19 :Abandoned community Vegetable Project at Ha 
Ngoae ........................................................................................................................ 69 
Figure 4.20: Eroded fields between Ha Ngoae and Khubetsoana, 
Thabana Morena and Maralleng respectively .......................................................... 70 
x 
LIST OFTA BLES 
PAGE 
Table I.I: Chapter outline ............................................................................... 8 
Table 2.1: Sectors and people most at risk of drought. ............................................ 20 
Table 2.2: Lesotho vulnerable sectors and associated vulnerability ................................ 21 
Table 2.3: Sectors in Lesotho and their adaptation measures to climate change ................ 31 
Table 2.4: Drought impacts across the world and their consequential damages ............... 32 
Table 2.5: Adaptation measures in Lesotho in various sectors ................................. 36 
Table 2.6: The percentage distribution of the economically active population by 
District, Employment Status and Sex- 2011/2012 CMS .......................................... 40 
Table 4.1: Distribution of gender by age ........................................................... 51 
Table 4.2: Marital status ................................................................................. 52 
Table 4.3: Distribution of main animal population ............................................... 54 
Table 4.4: Migrated household members to other places ........................................ 57 
Table 4.5: Water conflicts during dry periods ...................................................... 57 
Table 4.6: Animal feed price increase over last two years ....................................... 58 
Table 4.7: Household income level per month .................................................... 59 
Table 4.8: Food production decline over 2 years .................................................. 60 
Table 4.9: Serious soil erosion in the communities' fields ....................................... 61 
Table 4.10: Loss of traditional medical plants ..................................................... 61 
Table 4.11: Public awareness by government ..................................................... 62 
Table 4.12: Government response to drought and the extent ofresponse ...................... 64 
Table4.13: Livestock insured against droughts impacts .......................................... 65 
Table 4.14: Summary of both coping and intervention strategies at Koti-Se-Phola .......... 70 
Table 4.15: Normalisation vulnerability equations ................................................ 71 
Table 4.16: Selected drought indicators and their description ................................... 73 
Table 4.17: Raw selected indicators data per village and their functional 
relationships vulnerability .............................................................................. 75 
Table 4.18: Normalized indicators scores .......................................................... 76 
Table 4.19: Various stages of vulnerability ......................................................... 77 
xi 
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
ADVI Agricultural Drought Vulnerability Index 
AI A CC Assessment oflmpacts and Adaptation for Climate Change 
BOS Bureau of Statistics 
DMA Disaster Management Authority 
DRM Disaster Risk Management 
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation 
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross 
IPAL Integrated Project in Arid Land 
IRIN Integrated Regional Information Networks 
ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 
LDC Least Developed Country 
LMS Lesotho Meteorological Services 
LVAC Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee 
NDF National Drought Fund 
NDMP National Disaster Management Plan 
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation 
NSDP National Strategic Development Plan 
UN United Nations 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme 
UNDPCC United Nations Development Programme Climate Community 
UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
xii 
UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund 
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 
WFP World Food Programme 
WHO World Health Organisation 
xiii 
CHAPTER 1: ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY 
1.1 INTRODUCTION 
Drought and desertification are serious challenges ahd threats that are facing sustainable 
development in Africa and these have far-reaching negative consequences on human health, food 
security, economic activities, physical infrastructure, natural resources and the environment 
(UNECA, 2008). In 2011, the Horn of Africa needed humanitarian assistance following drought 
that affected 13 million people (Action Aid, 2011). Lesotho has not been an exception and 
although Lesotho's per capita income has increased, poverty is still one of the major challenges 
facing this country, which is attributed to adverse effects of drought on agricultural production 
since agriculture is the backbone of Lesotho's economy (African Development Bank Group, 
2013:8). 
In a report by the Lesotho Department of Planning (2008), whose title was "the Compilation of 
Crucial Information for the Mafeteng District'', Koti-Se-Phola was found to be a community 
council with the highest percentage, namely 7.8%, of people that needed food aid (Department of 
Planning, 2008:12). This council has 2 754 households with an average size of 7 people per 
household. In terms of the number of the households that have Agricultural plots, it ranks 
number three with 2158 plots in total and with an average plot of 1.6 hectares per household in 
the district (Department of Planning, 2008: 12). This council is one of the largest in terms of 
agricultural land ownership which, when hit by drought is likely to affect people in large 
numbers. The current study aims at assessing drought vulnerability in Koti-Se-Phola, Mafeteng, 
Lesotho, using both quantitative and qualitative methods ofresearch in order to; provide relevant 
decision makers and NGO's with information; and to determine groups at risk and the coping 
mechanisms of communities and to suggest strategies to improve on the current coping 
mechanisms on drought. This chapter presents the significance of the study, background and 
research problem, description of the study area, objectives, research methodology, research 
design, population and sampling, data collection, data analysis, limitations and ethical 
considerations. 
1 
-------------------------------------·- - ·- -
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH 
PAO, (2011) shows that drought is considered the most severe cause of food shortages in 
developing countries, and most reports and research in Lesotho indicate Mafeteng as a poor 
district and the most vulnerable to climate change in the country. However, none of these studies 
are drought-specific and approach vulnerability assessment in this district from community 
council level. Vulnerability is said to be dynamic in nature varying from one place to another 
over a specific period of time (Birkmann, 2006:9). In the light of the above statements, the 
current study assessed the vulnerability conditions at Koti-Se-Phola community council since 
there is little information from the previous research studies on drought vulnerability assessment 
on this same community council. Moreover, results from this study can be used by government 
and authorities in planning against drought and building of community resilience to drought. 
1.3 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH PROBLEM 
In 2012, the Prime Minister of Lesotho Thomas Thabane declared a state of emergency due to 
food crisis in Lesotho and made an appeal to the international community for assistance (WPP, 
2012). It is reported that more than a third of the population was in a food crisis and about 230 
000 people were judged to be more vulnerable to hunger since the maize production, the 
country's staple food, was negatively impacted upon by drought; it was also estimated that 
domestic agricultural production would contribute less than I 0% of the annual national cereal 
requirements for the years 2012/2013 (WPP, 2012). In 2011 and 2012 Lesotho experienced more 
than a 70% drop in domestic agricultural production due to late rains and floods (UNICEF, 
2013 :2). The report states that Mafeteng was one of the four districts that were mainly affected. 
"I have come here today because we don't have enough food at home," says Masenate Bereng, a 
mother off our. "This is the second year in a row that we haven't had a good yield.from our land. 
This year the rains came too late." (WPP, 2012:1). Red Cross Food security officer, Debra 
Nkoane-Pokothoane said that a project in conjunction with the Ministry of Forestry and Land 
Reclamation and the District Disaster Management Team was initiated in Mafeteng district's 
worst affected villages which benefited over 800 people in the district. People were given food 
(50kg maize meal, four litres of cooking oil and 8kg beans every month) for work done by 
planting trees (Maphathe, 2013). This project lasted only four months (Maphathe, 2013). Despite 
2 
this intervention, the project provided a short-term relief to community members leaving a 
question of sustainable development, as to how these affected community members will sustain 
their livelihood throughout the prolonged drought period and beyond. The current study assesses 
drought vulnerability at Thabana Morena Constituency, particularly at Koti-Se-Phola community 
council, in Mafeteng District, in order to assess the drought vulnerability conditions of Koti-Se-
Phola community, determine groups at risk, analyze their coping mechanisms and suggest 
mitigation strategies to drought impacts. These will provide relevant decision makers and NGO's 
with information for improvement on systems or intervention to manage droughts in the area. 
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 
Lesotho is a lower-middle income country comprising an area of 30,000 km2 and it is ranked 
number 158 out of 186 countries according to 2012 UNDP Human Development Index. (WFP, 
2013). Lesotho is said to be one of the most vulnerable countries to drought with Mafeteng being 
one of the districts that is hard-hit by prolonged erratic seasonal rainfall patterns (WFP, 2013). 
Lesotho is divided into ten administrative districts; Maseru, Berea, Leribe, Butha-Buthe, 
Mokhotlong, Thaba-Tseka, Qacha's Nek, Quthing, Mohale's Hoek and Mafeteng (fig. I.I). 
Moreover, Lesotho is further categorized into four distinct agro-ecological zones namely: 
lowlands, foothills, mountains and Sengu River Valley. These zones are characterized by distinct 
differences in climatic and ecological conditions. Mafeteng district comprises mainly lowlands 
and only a small portion consists of foothills. In these zones, the top soil is sandy and susceptible 
to both wind and water erosion due to overgrazing (BOS, 20 I 0: I). Lesotho has a temperate 
climate with very cold winters and hot summers. Temperatures get down to -7 °C in the 
Lowlands in winter. The yearly precipitation is between 600 and I 200 millimetres in the 
Lowlands whereas the annual precipitation in the country is between 700 and 800 millimetres. 
This large variance in rainfall leads to periodic droughts (BOS, 2010:1). The districts are further 
subdivided into 128 district councils. Mafeteng District is subdivided into twelve community 
councils, namely; Koti-Se-Phola, Makaota, Makholane, Malakeng, Malumeng, Mamantsi'O, 
Monyake, Mathula, Metsi-Maholo, Qibing, Ramoeletsi,and Tajane. Koti-Se-Phola is found in the 
south of this district and is partly lowlands and foothills. Within this community council area, 
there is the Makhaleng River which runs in close proximity to Maholong and Ha Masupha 
villages. The secondary school enrolment in Mafeteng district in the years 2008, 2009 and 20 I 0 
3 
stood at I 0.4%, 11 .4% and I 0% respecti vely (BOS, 20 I 0: 26). In 201 1/2012 the unemployment 
rate in the second quarter for Mafeteng di stri ct was 16.1 % for people aged 15-64 (BOS, 2013:4). 
The majority of the communities in Lesotho depend on agriculture for a living, which when hit 
by drought leaves communities in food insecure conditions. Koti-Se-Phola is made up of 41 
vi llages from which the study sampled in formation (Department of Planni ng, 2008: 11 ). 
Mafeteng district has a population of about 192 977 out of which the Koti-Se-Phola communi ty 
council has a total population of 1239 1 people. In thi s community council, there are 61 19 and 
6274 men and women respecti vely. 7.8% of thi s population receives food aid. Members of the 
community receive agricultural support from the Ministry of Agricul ture and GO's (Red Cross, 
World Vision and Catholic Relief Services). In terms of trade and commerce, there are 48 cafes, 
2 supermarkets and 6 bars with no banking facilities (Department of Planning, 2008 : I I - I 8).The 
fi gure below shows the location of the study area. 
Political map of Lesotho 
Showing Lesotho administrative 
di stricts 
Figure I. I: Mafeteng District Community councils 
Source: Google map, 2014 
4 
--- ------------------------
I .5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 
The objectives of this study are such that there is a main objective and sub-objectives 
1.5.1 Main objective 
To assess the drought vulnerability conditions of Koti-Se-Phola community and suggest 
strategies to improve their coping capacities. 
1.5.2 Sub-objectives 
To determine what and who is exposed and susceptible to drought 
To determine and examine the effectiveness of the coping mechanisms of the community to 
drought conditions 
To provide relevant decision makers with information regarding vulnerability conditions for 
possible better interventions measures 
To determine the extent of vulnerability to agricultural drought at this study area through 
vulnerability index calculation. 
I .6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
Research methodology is defined as a way to solve research problems systematically and there 
are various logical steps involved (Young, 2014:30). Under this section the following sub-
headings are discussed; research design, population and sampling, data collection, data analysis, 
limitations and ethical considerations. 
1.6.1 Research Design 
This study followed a mixed-methods research design but was predominantly quantitative in 
nature. The quantitative research is advantageous in that findings can be generalised and 
replicated on many populations and predictions can be made from the information obtained. Data 
collection and analysis are relatively quick, when dealing with large samples (Anon., 2013). 
However quantitative designs are limited in terms of getting in-depth understanding of the 
phenomenon, therefore this will be coupled with qualitative design to cater for this gap. 
According to Creswell et a/.(2011 :70), qualitative research is an inquiry process of 
5 
understanding where the researcher develops a complex, holistic picture, analyses words, reports 
views ofinformation, and conducts the study in a natural setting. The authors continue to say that 
the goal of qualitative research is to explore and understand a central phenomenon, which is the 
concept or process explored in a qualitative research study. This study needed an in-depth 
understanding of drought vulnerability conditions in Koti-Se-Phola community council in 
Mafeteng Lesotho and thus applied qualitative approach as well. 
1.6.2 Population and sampling 
Probability sampling was used in this study in which all elements in the population has a known, 
non-zero probability of being chosen, and the selection of these elements was purely random 
(Creswell et al. 2011 :172). Cluster sampling was used where all 41 villages that fall under Koti-
Se-Phola community council were considered as clusters, and was followed by simple random 
sampling to select the sample in terms of the villages. From the villages, an equal number of 
households were selected for data collection. Five (5) villages were randomly selected and from 
each village 21 household heads were also selected for the study. This council consists of2 754 
households out of which 98 are statistically appropriate to be 90% confident at 5% significance 
level. However, I 02 households in total were selected to cater for a non-response rate. Out of 
102 households two (2) respondents came from Thabana-Morena Agricultural Project and 
Sehlabeng, from a commercial farmer respectively for an expert opinion. Details of how the 
sample size was determined are reflected in Chapter Three. 
I.6.3 Data collection 
Data was collected by means of closed-ended questionnaires which enabled the researcher to 
easily analyse these data statistically in a short space of time. With closed-ended questions, Jess 
literate respondents were not at a disadvantage and there are fewer irrelevant or confused 
answers to questions (Anon, 2014). Moreover, because of financial constraints this method of 
data collection was the most appropriate to this study area since villages are spatially distanced 
from each other. Another method that was used for data collection was through observations. 
The strength of observations was that it gave the researcher direct access to social phenomena 
under study because they allow a researcher to observe and record the social behavior in order to 
avoid problems such as improper answering of questions (University of Strachclyde, 2014). 
6 
Interviews were also used in the collection of data. Dapzury and Shrivastava (2014), state that 
qualitative research interviews are aimed at describing the meaning of the main themes of the 
subject under consideration. The main aim of the interview is to understand the meaning of what 
interviewees say (Dapzury and Shrivastava, 2014). These interviews were only used to validate 
responses from respondents. Therefore only questionnaires and observations were used in data 
collection. A few open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire to capture qualitative 
data. 
1.6.4 Data analysis 
The collected data from questionnaires was analysed by descriptive statistics data analysis 
methods in which frequency and percentage distributions were used to display data. Data was 
analysed by using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. The collected data had been generated from 
drought vulnerability indicators chosen by participatory-relevant criterion, whose basis is on easy 
understanding and interpretation by policy and decision makers. This criterion asserts that 
indicators must be understood by users and be easily interpreted by common users since the 
majority may not be experts on the subject matter (Birkmarm, 2006: 11 ). The indicators from the 
three spheres of vulnerability to drought were chosen based on the BBC model, and as well as 
those of coping capacity. Moreover, qualitative data was analysed in themes that arose from the 
answers by respondents. 
1.7 LIMITATIONS 
Mafeteng district is divided into twelve community councils one of which is Koti-Se-Phola and 
consists of 41 villages in all. This study was therefore limited to only Koti-Se-Phola community 
council because of financial constraints and spatial location of the villages. The study was 
therefore further limited to only five (5) villages that were randomly selected from a population 
of 41 villages. Finally, the selected drought vulnerability indicators were given equal weighting 
in which case there is a likelihood of bias in the results. Due to the above-stated sampling, the 
results are only indicative not definite. 
7 
1.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
The researcher asked for permission from the community leaders and village chiefs to conduct 
the study in the chosen communities. The project was verbally explained to both leaders and 
community members. The researcher also stressed that participation was not compulsory and 
participants could withdraw at any stage. Privacy and confidentiality was maintained to ensure 
that all information obtained during the study was not released to the outsiders where it might 
have had embarrassing or damaging effects. The identity of the household members was not 
under any circumstances revealed. Plagiarism was avoided through proper referencing. 
J .9 CHAPTER OUTLINE 
Table: 1.1: Chapter outline 
CHAP CHAPTER TITLE CHAPTER CONTENT OVERVIEW 
TER 
I This chapter gives the study background which 
Orientation of the study 
includes: Introduction, statement of the problem, 
Significance of the study, Description of study area, 
Objectives, Research Methodology, Research 
Design, Population and sampling, Data collection, 
Data analysis, Limitations and Ethical 
considerations. 
2 This chapter presents a literature review from text 
Literature review and 
books, internet, research reports, journals and other 
conceptual framework (BBC 
Vulnerability model) publications on: drought definitions and its types, 
definition of terms, drought vulnerability and 
sustainable development, relationship between 
disaster risk, hazard, coping capacity and 
vulnerability, factors contributing to drought 
vulnerability, drought vulnerability assessment , 
exposed and susceptible elements to drought, coping 
capacity and mitigation against drought, drought risk 
8 
management preparedness, drought management, 
conceptual framework (BBC vulnerability model) 
and application of the BBC model to study area. 
3 This chapter presents a detailed description of 
Research methodology 
sampling methods, data collection, data analysis, 
validity and reliability and ethical considerations and 
a selection of drought indicators. 
4 This chapter presents data analysis procedures used 
Data analysis 
and details of the findings of the research. The 
findings are interpreted and data explained with the 
help of tables, frequencies and statistical 
information. 
5 This cha pt er gives the summary of the findings, 
Conclusion and 
draws conclusions based on both the literature 
recommendations 
review and the empirical investigation and makes 
relevant recommendations 
9 
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL 
FRAMEWORK 
2.1 INTRODUCTION 
In this study the literature review was organised thematically with the purpose of reviewing the 
research done to date on this topic and establish the gaps that are needed to be filled by the 
current study. This review focused on research methodologies used in past research, that is, 
whether qualitative or quantitative methods were used in order to situate the current study. 
Vulnerability is said to be dynamic in nature, it varies with time and location, therefore the 
researcher found it necessary to review the research work in different locations at various times 
(Birkmann, 2006). The areas covered under this section include: definitions of terms related to 
the study, drought and sustainable development, relationship between disaster risk, hazard, 
coping capacity and vulnerability, factors contributing to drought vulnerability, exposed and 
susceptible elements to drought, coping capacity against drought, impacts of drought on 
communities, effects of drought on food security, drought vulnerability reduction measures and 
international drought policies to mention but a few. At the end of each theme reviewed, a 
conclusion was drawn that links the reviewed literature with the current study through the gap 
identification. The BBC framework for assessing vulnerability was discussed and applied to the 
selected study area. 
2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS 
2.2.1 Drought 
Drought is broadly defined as a deficiency in precipitation over a specific period of time leading 
to water shortages for some activities, groups and environmental sectors (UN/ISDR, 2007:5). 
However, drought is also defined further according to meteorological, hydrological, agricultural 
and socio-economic criteria. 
Meteorological drought 
Meteorological drought is defined as a short period of drought or dry spell when precipitation is 
far below the normally expected (Spasov et al, 2006:8). In a rain seasonal forecast conducted by 
10 
Lesotho Meteorological Services (LMS) in May to September 2010, Mafeteng district recorded 
the lowest cumulative rainfall compared to Qacha's Nek (Lesotho Meteorological Services, 
2010). In December 2013, Mafeteng also had the lowest average number of rainfall days 
compared to the rest of the other districts in the country (Lesotho Meteorological Services, 
2013). 
Hydrological drought 
Hydrological drought is defined as lack of runoff water into rivers, other surface water resources 
and into groundwater resources (Spasov et al, 2006:9). In 2007 springs and boreholes in 
populated areas in Lesotho dried up and the Department of Rural Water Supply showed also that 
about 60% of the boreholes dried up as a result of drought in 2007 (Consolidated Appeal 
Process, 2007). 
Agricultural drought 
Agricultural drought refers to insufficient soil moisture to sustain plants and livestock resulting 
in impaired growth and reduced yields (FAO, 2008:6). In 2006/2007 the average yields of maize 
and sorghum in Lesotho decreased by 42% due to severe drought in that year (FAO, 2007). 
Socio-economic drought 
Socio-economic drought refers to when human activities are adversely affected by reduced water 
availability and precipitation (FAQ, 2013). Due to a severe drought experienced by Lesotho in 
the year 2006/2007, casual labour stopped and hence income earnings and opportunities to 
procure food from the markets declined FAO, 2007). 
From the above drought definitions, agricultural drought which is the focus of this study, is 
defined as lack of soil moisture to support agricultural activities (livestock and crop production). 
Figure 2.1 below shows the link between types of drought and their causes. 
11 
Natural Climate Variability 
Precip itation Deficiency High t.emp. high w inds, low 
(amount.. int.ensity. tim ing) relative humidity. geat.e r 
sunshine. less cloud cover 
Reduced infllt.rat.ion, runoff 
dee p percolation. and Increased evaporation 
gr ound wat.er recharge and trans iration 
Soil Wat.er Deficiency 
Plant. wat.er st.ress. reduced 
biomass and ield 
- - -- ---- -------
Reduced streamflow. inflow t.o 
reser voirs, lakes. and ponds 
reduced wet.lands 
wildlife habit.at 
Economic lmpact.s I Social Im acn I Environmental lmpact.s 
Figure 2.1: Relationship between hydrological, meteorological and ag ricultural drought 
Source: UN ISDR, 2009 
2.2.2 Hazard 
Hazard is de fi ned as a dangerous phenomenon, substance that may have a harmfu l effect on 
human life, cause damage to property, negati ve impacts on health, cause di sruption of social and 
economic activiti es and damage to environment as well as loss of li vel ihoods and services 
(U ISDR, 2009b). Drought i a natura l hazard but which can be ini tiated by improper human 
activiti es. The food cris is in Lesotho in 2009 was increased by amongst other issues periodic 
droughts which led to crop fa il ures, excessive soil erosion, decli ning rangeland condit ions and 
chronic poverty (IFRC, 2009: I). 
2.2.3 Vulnerability 
Vulnerability refers to characteristics or conditions of a community or a system or asset that 
make it susceptible to damaging effects of hazards and these can come fTom various aspects 
such as social , economic and environmental factors (UN ISDR, 2009b). According to IFRC 
(2008) vulnerabi li ty is defi ned as the di minished capacity of a group or individual to resist, cope 
with, and recover from adverse effects of natura l or man-made hazard. Vu lnerabil ity refers to an 
inab ility to resist a hazard or respond to disasters when they happen and this depend on severa l 
12 
-------------------~~~------- --------- - ------
2012:12). Soils have lost fertility through soil erosion brought about by drought in Lesotho in 
which Mafeteng district is one of the most adversely affected. Livestock is also exposed to 
dangers of drought in Lesotho. 
2.2.6 Coping capacity 
This refers to the ability of people, systems, and organisations to manage adverse effects of 
disasters with the available skills and resources and this requires continuing awareness, resources 
and good management at all times, during normal times and especially during crisis periods 
(UNISDR, 2009b). The Department of Agricultural Research and its partners in Lesotho are 
currently engaged in the promotion of conservation agriculture in which workshops were held 
for extension officers and farmers on the best practices, such as no burning of residues as 
firewood from the last years' harvest. Planting dates are also used as strategies in mitigating 
adverse effects of climate changes such as drought; the conservation of traditional livestock and 
crops, crop rotation and intercropping of leguminous crops as a source of nitrogen and 
production of drought resistant varieties and cultivars are the options considered (Ministry of 
Energy, Meteorology and Water Affairs, 2013). 
2.2. 7 Adaptive capacity 
Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability of a system to adjust to extreme climate changes to 
moderate potential damages in order to take advantage of opportunity or cope with the 
consequences (Care, 2001). According to Mekbib et al. (2011:30) in a study in Lesotho, 
respondents showed that they used mulching as a way of moisture conservation and some 
constructed small dams for irrigation during dry periods as well as avoidance of burning plant 
residues in order to retain moisture. 
2.2.8 Resilience 
This refers to the ability of a system, or community exposed to hazard to resist, recover from, 
accommodate and absorb adverse effects of hazards in a timely and effective manner (UNISDR, 
2009b). Dorcas Aid International, (2013) called for proposals from other NGO's that work on 
alleviation and reduction of vulnerability to droughts to work in Lesotho and three South African 
14 
provinces to help in decreasing vulnerability to drought through increasing drought preparedness 
and resilience. 
2.2.9 Preparedness 
Preparedness is defined as skills, capacities by government, professional organisations, 
individuals and communities to anticipate, respond to and recover from hazards or negative 
impacts (UNISDR, 2009b). After the 2012/2013 food crisis in Lesotho caused by floods 
following drought, volunteers and subsistence farmers were trained in preparation for any future 
droughts and communities in Mafeteng district were encouraged to use drought tolerant crop 
seeds as a measure to prepare for adverse effects of drought (IFRC, 2013). 
2.2.10 Mitigation 
Mitigation is defined as the lessening of adverse effects or impacts of disasters (UNISDR, 
2009b). The Department of Agricultural Research in Lesotho has embarked on conservation 
agriculture (CA), though at its infancy stage, that minimally disturbs the soil as a strategy to 
mitigate adverse effects of drought on people's livelihoods (Ministry of Energy, Meteorological 
and Water Affairs. 2013). 
2.3 DROUGHT VULNERABILITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 
Disasters have a potential to destroy development inputs in a very short period of time, which 
have been made over a number of years and can also delay future development due to loss of 
resources. These resources may need to be shifted to places of emergencies for response thereby 
retarding investment (Reed, 1997:15). Developments on the other hand, can increase 
vulnerability to disasters, for instance: when developments occur, population density increases, 
thereby increasing development of hazardous sites, environmental degradation, technological 
failures and imbalance of pre-existing natural or social systems (Reed, 1997:15). However, 
disasters do not only have negative effects but can also set a platform for new developments in 
that after disasters new buildings that adhere to building codes may be erected, hence creating a 
political and social atmosphere of acceptance for change. International aid is focused at the 
affected areas by disasters that finally results in development. In Kenya, after prolonged drought 
periods in the 1970s and 1980s national and international efforts were directed towards former 
15 
pastoralist populations in Marsabit district by organisations such as Catholic Church and Africa 
Inland Mission in settling nomads and developing small towns, while international efforts were 
effected by UNESCO's Integrated Project in Arid Lands (IPAL) through focusing on a range of 
conservation and improvement of livestock marketing. The sedentarization of pastoralists led to 
better access to education, health care and other social services as well as contributing to rural 
proletarianization and economic differentiation. Currently the situation in Kenya is such that the 
local economies are a combination of subsistence pastoralism, livestock marketing and wage-
Jabor showing the process of sedentarization (Fratkin, 2007). In a study by Peduzzi et al. (2009) 
on global exposure and vulnerability towards hazards in which drought was amongst the selected 
hazards, it was found that human vulnerability had a direct link with a country's development 
and the quality of the environment. In Lesotho, the British Red Cross, in collaboration with 
Lesotho Red Cross, provided help to Basotho who were in desperate need of food; such 
assistance lasted for two days, in four districts in which Mafeteng district was one of districts 
affected (British Red Cross, 2013). One of the Lesotho government development goals in 
"Lesotho's Vision 2020" objectives is that, Lesotho shall have a healthy and well-developed 
human resources base, a well-managed environment, a strong economy as well as an established 
technological base. In his inaugural speech the Prime Minister Thomas Thabane affirmed that the 
government will commit itself to the goals as set out in the National Strategic Development Plan 
(NSDP); two of which are the reduction of vulnerabilities and reversing environmental 
degradation and adapting to climate changes (World Bank, 2014). From the above it can be 
deduced that Lesotho focuses on short-term responses rather than seeking a permanent or close 
to permanent solution to disaster response, which in turn may result in social development, 
through creation ofj obs and other economic activities for sustainable development like countries 
such as Kenya. 
2.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISASTER RISK, HAZARD, COPING CAPACITY AND 
VULNERABILITY 
From the equation below, it can be seen mathematically that only the presence of both hazard 
and vulnerability constitute disaster risk. This further says that hazard is directly proportional to 
disaster risk as well as vulnerability, which means that an increment in hazard and vulnerability 
results in a greater disaster risk. Hazard is said to normally include latent conditions that 
16 
represent future conditions that threaten and are of different origins ranging from geological, 
hydro-meteorological, biological and human induced (ISDR, 2002:96). Capacity has an inverse 
relationship with disaster risk; increased capacity has a reduced effect on disaster risk. Finally 
reducing vulnerability reduces disaster risk, which is the focal point of this study through 
vulnerability assessment to sensitize authorities to intervene through resource mobilisation and 
sustainable strategies in view of improving the quality of life of community members. 
Disaster Risk= Hazard x Vulnerability/Coping Capacity (ISDR, 2002) 
2.5 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO VULNERABILITY TO DROUGHT 
Drought leads to both water and food shortages which finally is likely to have adverse effects on 
the economy, environment and health impacts on the population (WHO, 2014). The following 
are factors that influence drought impacts: demographic pressure on the environment, food 
insecurity, agricultural dependent economic systems, poor infrastructure (irrigation, water supply 
and sanitation systems), poor health status of communities before disasters, time of the year (the 
most critical being before the harvest), lack of warning systems, population displacement and 
other concurrent situations such as political instability, economic crises and conflicts (WHO, 
2014). According to Reed (1997:100), drought is more severe in dry areas that have a limited 
amount of rainfall. There are also physical factors such as soil moisture retention, timing of the 
rain that influence the degree of crop loss during drought periods. Vulnerability is also increased 
by dependency on rain-fed agriculture, livestock-dependent communities with limited grazing 
territories and exhaustion of coping mechanisms that may lead to population displacement. 
Similarly, UNFCCC (2011 ), states that there is a lack of adaptive capacity and stable prosperous 
economy to respond to natural hazards in the Least Developed Countries (LDC). In a study under 
taken by Swain and Swain (2011 :55) in Western Orissa in India it was found that factors that 
contributed to drought vulnerability were amongst others, categorized into biophysical and 
socioeconomic with biophysical including rainfall variability, drought intensity and lack of 
water-holding capacity of soils; while socioeconomic includes low irrigation development and 
poor crop insurance coverage. The study again showed that there were lower coping capacity 
levels compared to levels of drought risk and vulnerability. Similarly, Lesotho is said to be 
chronically food-aid dependent with over 80% of the population dependent on rain-fed 
17 
-----------------------------------~- -----
agriculture for their livelihoods. The Department of Social Welfare is providing assistance to 
most vulnerable groups in the country, in which regular food transfers are made to school 
children, expectant mothers and lactating mothers, terminally ill individuals and chronically 
food-insecure people. This has been going on for a period of over 20 years (UNDP, 2014. 
Though vulnerability factors from various regions are almost the same, Lesotho's drought-
vulnerability contributing factors can be summarized as poverty levels, health wellbeing of 
individuals and dependency on rain-fed agriculture. 
2.6 DROUGHT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 
In his study, on drought preparedness, impact and response, Ngaka (2012) found that there was 
an inadequate support of the extension services with regard to early warning systems in the 
Eastern Cape and Free State provinces in South Africa. Vulnerability increases more in the 
absence of early warning systems, hence disaster risk. In another study, whose objective was to 
assess drought vulnerability in Western Iran, it was revealed that the farmers vulnerability was 
mainly influenced by economic, socio-cultural, psychological, technical and infrastructural 
factors, which are the main pillars in sustainable development (Kiumars et al. 2012:122).They 
further state that in comparison, some famers were more vulnerable than others, which suggested 
that they needed intervention prior to others. Though this study was only quantitative in nature 
similar to the proposed study, it was carried out in Iran in 2012, in which case the results from 
the proposed study are likely to be different because of the fact that vulnerability is dynamic in 
nature and time-specific. Similarly, in a study by Jordaan et al. (2011) on drought risk 
assessment for extensive farming in the Northern Cape Province, one of the findings was that 
climate change was not the cause of drought but poor management of natural resources, such as 
over-grazing. Charusombat et al. (2011) assessed hydrological vulnerability in India where 
quantitative methods were used in order to rank regions in terms of vulnerability indices found 
that other regions were more vulnerable than others. However this study only relied on 
quantitative methods which only lead to lack of in-depth understanding of the phenomenon 
under study. According to Anjum et al. (2012) who carried out a study in Pakistan on the 
assessment of vulnerability, the extent and characteristics of drought hazard results indicated a 
continuing vulnerability to drought that was brought about by lack of contingency plans. In order 
to reduce this vulnerability, an integration of the available drought monitoring tools was essential 
18 
for Pakistan. Moneo (2005) conducted a study on drought vulnerability in Spain and Morocco 
also with the aim of ranking them in terms of which one is most vulnerable and suggests 
measures for mitigation. The indicators used were selected from human, institutional, economic 
and environmental components of vulnerability. However, findings revealed Morocco more 
vulnerable than Spain. This study followed quantitative methods in which drought vulnerability 
were used to rank regions. All the above studies are similar to this study in methods though 
different in countries with different economic levels. Alcamo, (2008) and Wang et al. (2013) 
both carried out studies in China which had the same purpose of assessing drought vulnerability 
following quantitative methods using Environmental Policy Integrated Climate model (EPIC); 
however none of these studies assessed drought vulnerability using a BBC model, therefore the 
current proposed study finds its way both methodologically and in location. 
2.7 EXPOSED AND SUSCEPTIBLE ELEMENTS TO DROUGHT 
Kromker et al. (2008) found that Indian households were most vulnerable to drought compared 
to Russian households. However, a study undertaken in Western Iran showed farmers being the 
most vulnerable to drought impacts which were mostly influenced by economic, socio-cultural, 
psychological, technical and infrastructural factors (Zarafshani et al. 201 I: Zarafshani, & 
Sharafi, 2012). This is in agreement with a study undertaken in Maharashtra in India which also 
indicated that the most exposed and vulnerable elements to droughts and poverty are poorer 
households (Vatsa & Krishna, 2006). According to Dow (20!0), the following were recognized 
as susceptible and exposed sectors: agriculture, livestock, water supplies to tourism and 
recreation, businesses, manufacturing and households. Conversely, women and children were 
identified as susceptible elements, through their health and nutrition respectively compromised 
by drought (Rossi et al, 2005). In Lesotho, the Department of Social Welfare provides assistance 
to the most vulnerable groups: elderly people, war veterans, orphans, disabled persons and 
chronically ill people. The elders, assisted by a non-contributory universal old-age pension are 
those above the age of 70 years and many of these elders are caregivers to orphans (UNDP, 
2014). The above findings can be summarized as follows: 
19 
Table: 2.1: Sectors and people most at risk of drought 
What is exposed/susceptible element? Who is exposed/susceptible to drought? 
Agriculture Women 
Children 
Businesses 
Farmers 
Water supplies to tourism and recreation Disabled persons 
Orphans 
Spring water sources Elders 
Ill persons 
Livestock 
Manufacturing firms/businesses 
Source: UNDP, 2014 
In addition to the above table, table 2.2 shows vulnerable sectors again but with associated 
vulnerability. 
20 
Table: 2.2: Lesotho vulnerable sectors and associated vulnerability 
Vulnerable Vulnerabilities 
Sectors 
Ground water resoun:es are negatively affected by shortened rainfull season. 
This will result in inadequate annual recharge of aquifecs, lower water tables 
Water Resources 
and drying up of springs. In the mountains, the wetlands are drying up 
affecting reliability of perennial streams. 
Crop production is adversely affected by reduced rainfall and frequent 
Agriculture drought occurrences. Drought and high temperatures exacerbate incidences of 
diseases and nests. Resultant crou failure<! lead to famine and food shortaires. 
Rmal communities depend on biomass fuels as a major energy source. The 
resilience and regenerative capacity of forest resources are negatively affected 
Forestiy 
by extreme climatic conditions. A decrease in forestry resources negatively 
imnacts on the stabilitv of sunnlies for both cookin~ and beatin~. 
Livestock production is deteriorating due to degradation of rangelands. The 
Livestock & net effect is increased livestock mortality rate and quality of livestock 
rangelands products. Extreme weather conditions are conducive to disease and pest 
incidences. 
The natural heritage and culture of the Basotho is closely linked to the 
Culture environment. Their housing. clothing. medicine and other traditions are 
affected by climate chanire. 
Health Frequent drought occurreoces result in limited availability and quality of 
water leading to disease outbreaks comoonnded by famine and malnutrition. 
Enerev Climate chanire induced drou11ht affects the ireneration of h, • wer. 
Climate change affects soil cover (range and forest resources) negatively. 
Soils Soil erosion, desertification and land degradation are increased by incidences 
of drought and flooding. The end result is loS1 of soil fertility. 
Source: Lesotho Meteorological Services, 2009:6 
2.8 COPING CAPACITY AND MITIGATION AGAINST DROUGHT 
According to Van Riel (2012) who undertook a study in 2012 in the Dr Ruth Segomotsi 
Mompati District Municipality of the North West Province in South Africa, it was found that 
commercial farmers sold older cattle in order to buy fodder and feeds to feed younger and 
stronger ones. However others used pots, buckets, bowls and baskets to harvest water for use in 
times of drought. He continues to say that others used the "Motopi" tree which was cut down and 
ground for feeding. Rotational grazing was one of the strategies used by some people and others 
21 
took water to the cattle instead of them walking over long distances to accessible water sources. 
Over and above these strategies, some participants got rid of foreign shrubs which had negative 
consequences on the environment. Erasmus et al, (2012) state that the following are mitigation 
strategies for drought: promoting diversified livelihood, communities must not only depend on 
livestock but other strategies such as trade markets. For instance, they report that Moyale district 
in the Eastern Province in Kenya has this kind of market that attracts regional and international 
customers because of its location at a cross-border point. This market infrastructure reduced the 
dependency of communities on livestock and livestock products. Poor pastoralists who did not 
have capital and were handicapped by long distances were not able to access these markets hence 
creating more vulnerability pressure on them. A switch to drought-resistant livestock is another 
mitigating strategy that was exercised at Moyale district in Kenya; camels, renowned for their 
drought-resistance ability were kept mainly for their nutrient-rich milk (Erasmus et al, 2012). 
Regarding rangeland management, communities understood the difference between different 
traditional grazing practices, such as controlled grazing that helps in avoiding trampling and 
destruction of grazing areas. For conflict mitigation, traditional peace committees were 
organized where members of the community discussed and agreed on solutions to the conflict. 
With regard to increment in water availability, in Kenya there is a Water User Association which 
regulates the use of water and has increased the number of dams and underground tanks for use 
in dry seasons (Erasmus et al, 2012). In a study by Ndlovu, (2011) on coping strategies to 
drought, it was found that some household members skipped some meals, reduced the amount of 
food they used to eat, spent the entire day without food, ate unusual fruits, fed on premature 
crops, adults skipped meals in order to spare for the children, and assets and livestock disposal in 
exchange for food. However not all the strategies mentioned above may apply in Lesotho 
because of its geographical location, for instance, "Mo top i" trees grow well in desert areas, in 
Lesotho there might be other trees, shrubs, and or vegetation that are used in times of drought 
such as prickly pear trees (torofeiye) and aloes. 
Livestock dependent communities diversify their herds, by increasing animal numbers in good 
time as insurance against drought. After the 1984-5 and 1987 drought-famine, Ethiopia 
developed a national disaster plan that incorporated disaster preparedness to sustainable 
development through capacity building of the nationwide network. Various disaster reduction 
22 
projects were initiated for members of the communities to have diversified sources of income 
(Reed, 1997:102). The above preparedness strategies are in line with those Ndlovu (2011) found 
in his research in Zimbabwe when people ate less than they normally consumed and sold their 
assets. During droughts prices may be stabilized and food subsidies be provided. Water shortage 
is addressed by water rationing or cubing usage for non-drinking purposes. Communities are 
assisted with food through supplementary feeding schemes (Reed, 1997: 103). The most 
dominant good practices in drought risk management are as follows: an integrated development 
approach that is centered around water/ land resources management practices, use of indigenous 
knowledge with communities, community awareness about drought-related issues, community-
Jed participatory approach and use of community organisations where farmers form groups and 
there are water user associations to deal with sustainable natural resource management and 
diversification of livelihoods that include crops and livestock varieties and other income 
generating activities (Venton, 2012:25). 
2.9 DROUGHT RISK MANAGEMENT 
This refers to practices to lessen or transfer adverse effects of drought hazards and some other 
potential impacts of disasters through activities and measures for mitigation, preparedness and 
prevention (UNDP, 2014).The following are some of the activities used in drought risk 
management: 
2.9.1 Drought preparedness and planning 
Droughts must be planned for, in order to prevent and reduce impacts rather than focusing on 
relief assistance. The planning should however, use the existing political and institutional 
structures. The first step into drought planning is the establishment of a National Drought 
Commission. This plan should have the following components: a monitoring component that 
assesses the present and future water availability and moisture conditions, an impact component, 
this component mainly determines the economic sectors mostly affected by drought and how 
assistance may be targeted; lastly, a mitigation and response component that designs Jong-term 
programmes to reduce vulnerability and adverse effects of drought (Reed, 1997:102). Pereira et 
al. (2009:60) stress that predictions or forecasts regarding future shortages of water leading to 
drought would be of great importance in helping water managers and users to adjust their 
23 
controls as well as their activities in conserving water before drought hits, which will result in 
water availability during droughts. They continue to say that even short-time predictions are 
helpful in alerting water managers and policy and decision makers to enforce preparedness 
measures both before and post-droughts. The key point in dealing with drought effectively is 
drought preparedness. Preparedness for droughts necessitates institutional capacity at all 
government levels as well as more efficient coordination between various levels of the 
government. On the other hand, preparedness has the ability to increase the coping capacity of 
both individuals and communities (Sivakumar & Wilhite, 2002). A I 0-step drought planning 
processes, which is used in the United States and can be used in any country at all levels of the 
state is as follows: 
• Appoint drought task force 
• State the purpose and objectives of the preparedness plan 
• Seek stakeholder participation and resolve conflicts 
• Inventory resources and identify groups at risk 
• Develop organizational structure and prepare the drought plan 
• Identify research needs and fill institutional gaps 
• Integrate science and policy 
• Publicize the drought plan, build public awareness 
• Teach people about drought 
• Evaluate and revise drought preparedness plan 
Source: National Drought mitigation Center, 2014 
2.9.2 Land use planning 
According to Reed (1997: I 02), drought puts pressure on the land which leads to soil erosion, and 
other environmental degradation effects. Land use must be properly planned for, planting of 
grass and leguminous crops greatly prevent soil erosion. Animal stocking rates must be kept at 
appropriate proportions to the availability of pastures and water resources. Communities must be 
encouraged to plant drought-resistant crops and develop water reservoirs. On the other hand, 
land use planning when well done is able to contribute to three of the millennium development 
goals namely; Goal I: Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, this is through ensuring that 
sufficient land is reserved for food production; Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower 
24 
women, land use planning gives a good opportunity for women to be involved in the planning 
and decision-making and thereby empowering them to take over responsibility in their 
communities and as a result, this is an effective contribution to sustainable development; and 
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability, land use planning ensures environmental protection 
and rehabilitation ofresources (Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 
2011). 
2.9.3 Risk mapping 
Regions should be mapped in accordance with their levels of vulnerability and coping capacitie~. 
This aids targeting of areas that desperately need food relief assistance (Reed, 1997:102). In a 
study in Guatemala villagers and municipal technicians were brought together in a workshop 
where risk-prone areas for disasters were identified as well as infrastructure and production areas 
identified and marked as risk areas. This information was then at the municipality's disposal to 
make appropriate planning of infrastructure and protective measures at large against disasters 
(Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 2011 ). 
2.10 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND LEGISLATIONS 
The following section focuses on drought management policies and legislation in vanou~ 
countries as well as those in Lesotho. According to FAO, (2014) drought management policies 
normally include the following sub-sections: drought resilience policies, early warning systems
1 
drought contingency planning, rehabilitation measures, relief measures and drought mitigation 
measures. 
2.10.1 International drought management, policies and legislations 
Drought policy can take various forms ranging from, legislative acts, planning documents and 
other related programmes, or just an informal understanding amongst collaborators (UNISDR, 
2009a:26). Policy drafted must have a clear set of principles, clear objectives and/-or guidelines 
for the purpose of risk mitigation, preparedness, livelihood rehabilitation, response and early 
recovery. With its clear operating guidelines, a drought policy should aim at governing 
mitigation and management of drought and its impacts towards a preparedness plan development 
in order to achieve the set objectives (UNISDR, 2009a:27). 
25 
According to a study by Ye et al, (2012), on China's drought disaster risk management, the study 
revealed that the policies were appropriate for responses but there was a need to put more focus 
on the prevention measures to ultimately reduce adverse effects of drought rather than focusing 
on responses and recoveries. 
In its history, India has experienced the most disastrous famine droughts and the following are 
some of the drought management practices that were used (Reeds, 1997:104): 
Operation of early warning system - rains from June to September are closely monitored, the 
conditions of reservoirs and groundwater levels are also monitored. Early warning systems are 
set to enable response to a drought long before indicators occur. 
Drought preparedness measures - communities are involved m the planning of drought 
management and relief Institutions such as health-care, veterinary care, water resources and 
disaster management assistance get ready to provide their services during droughts. 
Water conservation - India budgets for water during drought and additional water sources are 
developed for areas with chronic shortages. 
Stabilizing crop production - alternative plans are developed to save crops from dying out, 
through planting of alternative crops, use of seed reserves, measures set to improve production 
on irrigated areas as well as during non-traditional seasons. 
Assurance of access to food - surveys are conducted to identify areas and families with the 
greatest caloric deficiencies and hence food supplies are distributed to such families. The 
national Food Security System avails grain at reasonable cost and stabilizes market prices. 
Preservation off amers' assets - to help famers from selling their livestock, fodder is transferred 
from places with surplus to places with a deficit. The Indian Government creates employment 
generation schemes to the rural communities in order to stabilize incomes. 
In Australia, the national drought policy was developed in 1992, which focused on self-reliance 
hence minimizing government interventions through the promotion of pro-active risk 
management strategies. This policy put more focus on disaster preparedness rather than on 
disaster response. The Rural Adjustment Scheme (the main agricultural programme) was given 
26 
authority to decide when and which area needed financial aid and this scheme's focus was on 
improving risk management and encouraging farmers to have financial reserves in times of 
droughts (UNISDR, 2009a:32). 
In the United States, there has never been any drought plans post 2006; it was only in 2006 that 
thirty-seven states had drought plans. However, the majority of these plans focused on drought 
response instead of drought mitigations (UNISDR, 2009a:32). Regarding Mozambique, in 1980 
the government established a department of Prevention And Response to National Disasters that 
provided humanitarian assistance and coordinated disasters response and worked closely with 
provincial and local structures as well as NGOs and donors. There is still no formal drought 
policy in place as yet, the policy that guides the institutional arrangements and disaster 
management and other related issues is still under way (FAO, 2004). The majority of the above 
mentioned countries do not focus their efforts on drought preparedness and mitigation; however, 
preparedness and mitigation are proactive measures rather than reactive. The reactive measures 
result in huge amounts of costs in rehabilitation and reconstruction. Only the United States 
focuses on drought response, this is probably because of its stable economy and availability of 
resources. Moreover, Mozambique also focuses on drought response instead of preparedness and 
mitigation, in which case costs are likely to be higher than when focus was on preparedness and 
mitigation. 
According to UNISDR, (2009a:30) in Uganda, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and 
Management Policy shifted its focus from relief and was directed towards disaster preparedness, 
mitigation and response. Districts authorities and, institutional frameworks were capacitated and 
strengthened in order to assess, coordinate and respond to disasters. Drought risk reduction is 
given high priority as its adverse effects can negatively impact on the general economy and 
human social well-being. However, it was found that the National Disaster Risk Reduction 
Policy had some gaps, especially in preparedness, resilience and prevention. The Department of 
Disaster Management, (201 I :50) in Uganda also states that Uganda needs to strengthen both its 
disaster risk reduction (ORR) and disaster risk management (DRM) against climate change risks 
that include drought and the available legal and institutional framework for DRM is mostly on 
emergency response, not necessarily on risk reduction. It was during the 2010/201 I rainfall 
deficit that gaps in the framework were identified highlighting the need to increase 
27 
mainstreaming of DRM into policies and programmes at both local and national levels 
throughout all sectors. 
In 1995, the Namibian government established a task force to draw up the national emergency 
and long-term drought management policy which made several consultations from the year 1996 
until 2005 when the national drought policy was endorsed. The policy focused on developing a 
sustainable approach to drought management through shifting the responsibility from the 
government to farmers through financial assistance and food insecurity interventions only in 
extreme drought disaster cases (UNISDR, 2009a:3 l). The national drought policy in Namibia 
has drought-specific objectives against adverse effects of drought (UNDPCC, 2009). These 
objectives are as follows: 
• To ensure that household food security is not compromised by droughts 
• To support farmers and encourage them to be self-reliant to drought risks 
• To minimize natural resources degradation during droughts 
• To enable agricultural sectors and inhabitants a fast recovery from drought disasters 
• To protect Namibians' health status against effects of drought 
• To efficiently and effectively finance . drought relief programmes through the 
establishment of an independent and permanent National Drought Fund (NDF) 
• To preserve adequate reproductive capacity in livestock herds in affected areas during 
drought periods 
The above objectives in this study were used as benchmark of what drought-specific objectives 
are supposed to be. Much time was spent by the South African government in the development 
of a cohesive national drought policy that directed its focus on drought planning with several 
stakeholders, and as a result, a new drought policy was established, that strove for assisting 
farmers with finance, protecting natural resources and promoting the best use of resources for 
individual farmers. In this policy farmers are supposed to adhere to specific resource 
conservation measures such as grazing capacities, in order to qualify for financial assistance. In 
2002, agricultural risk insurance was developed in South Africa, the main aim of which was to 
supplement the most vulnerable agricultural producers of livestock and crops to natural disasters. 
However, the greatest challenge has been the maintenance of the policy, especially when it 
comes to large agricultural enterprises (UNISDR, 2009a:3 J ). 
28 
2.10.2 Lesotho drought policies and legislation 
Poverty Reduction Action Plan 200617-200819 views climate change as a major source of 
poverty in Lesotho with a need of adaptation and mitigation measures (Machepha, 2010:15). 
Climate change is the main cause of drought, in which case drought causes a decline in crop 
yields, increase in food insecurity and depletion of water resources for human use, hence leading 
to poverty (Venton, 2012:1). According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development 
(IF AD) (2008) about 70% of the people live in the rural areas of Lesotho of whom more than one 
quarter is extremely poor due to unemployment and lack of income. Therefore a reduction in 
poverty leads to increased resilience to hazards such as drought. 
National Adaptation Programme Of Action 2007 puts the country's adaptation as a priority 
need in order to provide a mechanism to reduce the adverse impacts of climate change, 
simultaneously enhancing adaptive capacity of the most vulnerable communities to adverse 
effects of disasters (Machepha, 2010:15). Similarly, adaption moderates drought impacts 
(UNISDR, 2009b: 4). 
Environmental Act 2008 this act aims at the promotion of sustainable and health environment 
and reduction of carbon emissions and preservation of biodiversity, wetlands and trees which 
aggregate to mitigation measures (Machepha, 2010:15). Similarly, drought also impacts 
negatively on peoples' health and safety , for example: when people suffer from anxiety or 
depression due to economic losses brought about by drought (National Climate Data Center, 
2014). Therefore promotion of health reduces impacts caused by drought and other climatic 
hazards. 
Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy 2007 and Water resources act 2008 both enable the 
management of water in a sustainable and trans-boundary manner and with a strong focus on 
water harvesting (Machepha, 2010:15). In this policy, it is stated that one of the strategies to 
ensure that water is available, is to develop and implement drought relief strategies as well as 
flood management measures for risk reduction and effective mitigation of impacts (Ministry of 
Natural Resources, 2007:2). 
29 
Disaster Management Act No. 2of1997 
This Act states that the established Disaster Management Authority (DMA) shall act as the 
central planning, coordinating, monitoring institution for the disaster management and post-
disaster recovery. DMA will also warn the public of the coming disasters which will also include 
their effects on the country. The DMA is given a mandate to formulate disaster preparedness, 
mitigation and responses strategies and action plans in consultation with the central, local 
government and NGO's and donor agencies (Disaster Management Act No.2 of 1997). In this 
Act a disaster is defined as a progressive or sudden, widespread or localised, man-made or 
natural event such as drought and others, therefore public warnings, disaster preparedness and 
mitigation include drought in particular. The Lesotho Disaster Management Act requires the 
DMA to plan and respond to drought disasters in cooperation with the lead ministries of 
Agriculture, Forestry and Land Reclamation and Energy, Meteorology and Water Services. 
Vulnerability and adaptation policies in Lesotho 
Lesotho has developed adaptation measures and strategies to address climate change issues 
whose objectives are: to enhance agricultural productivity, planting of trees, improvement of 
nutrition, accessing reliable and user-friendly sources of energy, arresting land degradation 
through appropriate use of water management and conservation measures and reduction of 
insects, pests and diseases (Ministry of Energy, Meteorological and Water Services, 2013:21). 
Climate change is defined as a change in climate as a result of human activities that alter global 
atmosphere composition and it is also brought about by climate variability over a certain period 
of time (UNFCCC, 2014). Climate change causes the progressively increase in frequency and 
severity of drought events (Camicer et al, 2011:1474). Therefore reduction of and adaptation to 
climate change effects minimise frequency and severity of drought events. The following table 
depicts sectors in Lesotho and their adaptation measures to climate change as suggested by the 
above policy. 
30 
Table: 2.3: Sectors in Lesotho and their adaptation measures to climate change 
Sector Adaptation measures 
Agriculture Intercropping (Machobane system) 
Water collection and conservation for 
vegetables 
Allocation ofland and planting of high value 
crops (e.g. mushrooms) .Planting of drought-
resistant cultivars 
Water resources Rehabilitation of degraded wetlands .Clear 
policies to improve pastures and grazing lands 
to avoid persistent degradation of wetlands. 
Enforcement of Local Government Act to 
control water usage in urban areas 
Forestry Drought and pest tolerant trees Education and 
awareness campaigns on fire management 
strategies 
Livestock and rangelands Identification and strengthening of indigenous 
African (Sanga) breeds such as nguni, tuli, 
mashona which are disease and drought 
tolerant 
Soils and land degradation Afforestation, re-grazing, and conservation 
agriculture 
Health Development of surveillance and monitoring 
systems for health-related adverse conditions 
Promote roof water harvesting practices and 
conservation dams. Integration of drought in 
health policies and strategies 
Source: Ministry of Energy, Meteorological and water services, 2013:21 
Lesotho is mostly affected by the following haz.ards that are exacerbated by climate change: 
drought, floods and snow. As climate varies, high temperatures result in leading to increased 
31 
evaporation and finally to meteorological drought as depicted in figure 2.1 above. As these 
temperatures increase, water is lost from soil too, and plants wilt hence agricultural 
drought.From the above policies and legislation, Lesotho has a strong focus on sustainable 
development but drought does not explicitly feature in the development plans and policies 
previously developed and there is no drought policy in Lesotho; however, the only efforts that 
are underway are those for making climate change specific policies and strategies to support 
development partners (Ministry of Energy, Meteorological and Water Services, 2013:21). The 
above discussed policies are not drought-specific but address drought with other hazards under 
climate change. 
2.l lINTERNATIONAL IMPACTS OF DROUGHT 
The following table shows drought impacts across the world and their consequential damages: 
Table: 2.4: drought impacts across the world and their consequential damages 
Mortality and well being In Mozambique, 1 040 deaths were reported by 
the National Disaster Center, and 18 deaths 
were reported in an international report. In the 
rural households, drought consequences 
resulted in increased poverty, reduced human 
development, adverse health impacts and 
increased income inequalities between 1990 
and 2009. 
Rural livelihoods, food security and In the Caribbean, there was a reduction in 
agricultural production 
agricultural yields in tomatoes, onions, and 
bananas in 2009-2010. 
In Australia in 2003-2004, there was a loss of 
2.4 billion in agricultural and economic 
sectors. 
In India in the 2002 drought, 29 million tons of 
grains were lost. 
In Mozambique, in 1990, 11.5 million people 
32 
were affected by drought which damaged 8 
million hectares of crops. 
Urban and economic development In Zimbabwe, in 1992 there were 3 000 
agriculture job losses valued at$ I 00 million. 
In the United States, 24 nuclear power reactors 
were threatened in 2008. There was lack of 
water for cooling systems. 
In France, in 2003, there was a reduction of 
20% in hydroelectric production due to 
droughts 
Losses in production of crops, dairy and 
livestock and fisheries 
Loss of national economic growth and 
development 
Income losses from tourism and recreational 
business 
Loss of hydroelectric power and increased 
energy costs 
Loss of industries related to agricultural 
production 
Decline in food production and increased food 
pnces 
Unemployment from drought-related 
production declines 
Revenue losses to government and increased 
strain on financial institutions 
Migration and social effects In the Syrian Arab Republic, the 2007-2009 
droughts forced I million people to migrate to 
cities. 
In Mexico, in the twentieth century, half the 
rural population migrated to urban areas and 
33 
other consequences were: increased debts, 
reduction in food consumption, 
unemployment, poor health status and increase 
in female-headed households and a change in 
public women responsibilities 
Food shortage effects (malnutrition, famine) 
Loss of human life from food shortage or 
drought-related conditions 
Conflict between water users 
Health problems due to reduced water flow 
Inequity in the distribution of drought impacts 
and relief assistance . Decline in living 
conditions in rural areas 
Increased poverty, reduced quality oflife 
Social unrest, civil strife 
Population migration for employment or 
assistance relief 
Conflict In both India and Bangladesh, during the 
1950s, migration increased conflict due 
successive droughts. 
In Mauritania and Senegal, in the! 980s and 
1990s there existed ethnic conflicts on the 
borders. Migration and displacements caused 
by droughts increased competition over scarce 
resources. 
Environment In Florida, from 1999-2005 100 000 hectares 
of salt marches were lost. 
In Spain, forest fires, draining of wetlands and 
salt water intrusion increased by 63% in 
comparison with (1991-1995), and some of the 
drought consequences were habitat effects, 
34 
water bodies effects, species vulnerabilities and 
migration due to loss of biodiversity and huge 
river ecological negative effects. 
Damage to animal and fish species and habitat 
Wind and water erosion of soils 
Damage to plant species 
Effects on water quality (salination) 
Effects on air quality (dust, pollutants, reduced 
visibility) 
Public spending In Kenya, about 70% of the population 
received food aid during 2007-2009. 
In Southern Africa, 10 countries spent a 
combined total of$950 million on food and 
non-food assistance in 1991-1992. 
Source: Wilhite, 1992; UNISDR, 2011 
UNDP (1997:101) also shows that adverse effects of drought can be categorized as follows: 
economic, environmental and social. The table below shows these effects. 
2.12 DROUGHT MANAGEMENT IN LESOTHO 
In 2012/13, a third of the population of Lesotho was in a serious risk of food insecurity which 
was due to prolonged drought in the country, and this lead the Prime Minister to declare a state 
of emergency, seeking humanitarian assistance from the international community (WFP, 2012). 
In 2007, a report by Irin, showed that about 82% of the population of Lesotho living in the rural 
areas were worst affected by drought, in which case the UN appealed for US$18.9 million to 
feed more than 500 000 rural people struggling to cope with food shortages. This was one of 
Lesotho's worst droughts in 30 years and the staple food (maize) production dropped by over half 
in comparison to 2006 (Irin, 2007). In some parts of Lesotho, initiatives such as manual 
conservation agriculture (Likotl) where a hoe is used to dig a small hole into which seed, 
fertilizer and other materials are put for food production, has been a success where the yield has 
doubled compared to parts where (likotl) were not practised (FAO, 2011:53). In a recent study 
35 
undertaken in Lesotho Mafeteng district, at Kolo and Ts'akholo by African Technology Policy 
Studies Network, (2013), it was revealed that farmers needed support from both government and 
NGO's for improved seeds, training and knowledge sharing. Though this study was conducted in 
Lesotho Mafeteng, it did not cover Koti-Se-Phola Community Council. 
The following table summarizes how drought is managed through adaptation measures m 
Lesotho in various sectors currently. 
Table: 2.5: Adaptation measures to drought in Lesotho in various sectors 
Impacts/sectors Current adaptation measures 
Crop sector 
Delays in ploughing Use oflime and fertilizers 
Crops stagnate in growing Short term reservoirs 
Increase in pests, insects Conservative irrigation 
Food insecurity and famine 
Health sector 
Outbreaks of waterborne Introducing water purification 
diseases programmes 
Poor quality of water Sanitary services promotion 
Malnutrition 
Culture sector 
Medical plants and herbs Policy reform through 
extinction. Rare wild animals Environmental Act of2001 
migration. Increased alien Conservation and protection 
species.Decline in biodiversity of plants 
Rangeland and livestock 
Poor rangelands Conservation dams 
High livestock death construction 
/mortality rates Fodder keeping to feed 
Drying up of water sources animals 
36 
Poor plants and livestock and Promotion of communal 
their products (yields, wool, grazing systems 
mohair and hides) Livestock registration 
Increased soil erosion and 
formation of gullies 
Energy sector 
Water shortages and reduced Formulation of energy policy 
hydroelectric power Development and promotion 
ofrenewable energy 
technologies(wind, solar, 
biogas) 
Source: Ministry ofNatnral Resources, 2011:6 
2.13 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (BBC VULNERABILITY MODEL) 
The following section explains the BBC Vulnerability model through which this study was 
viewed as a conceptual framework. The BBC conceptual framework views vulnerability from 
three main pillars namely: social, economic and environmental spheres. The BBC Model 
accounts also for the environmental factors which are said to be difficult to assess. This does not 
only estimate deficiencies and assessment of disaster impacts but views vulnerability as a 
dynamic process in which vulnerabilities, coping capacities and potential intervention tools are 
simultaneously focused on, in order to reduce vulnerabilities (Feedback loop system) (Birkmann, 
2006:35). Furthermore, unlike other models that separate coping capacity and exposure, the BBC 
framework model views vulnerability as susceptibility and a degree of exposure of elements at 
risk as well as their coping capacities (Birkmann, 2006:35). 
This holistic approach links vulnerability reduction with sustainable development; moreover, 
through this framework problem-solving perspective is enabled by analyzing potential losses and 
deficiencies of different elements at risk, such as social groups as well as their coping capacities 
and possible intervention measures all from the three spheres. In this way the importance of 
being proactive is highlighted by reducing vulnerability before disasters strike. The BBC 
framework suggests that vulnerability indicators development must address susceptibility and 
exposure of various elements at risk within the three spheres namely: social, economic and 
37 
environment and should identi fy and assess coping capacities and their potential intervention 
tools (Birkmann, 2006:36). The foll owing are some adva ntages of the BBC model; it is easy and 
take a step-by-step approach into vulnerability assessment. All three spheres of sustainable 
development are taken into consideration namely: social , economic and environmental spheres. 
Vu lnerabi lity is reduced before and after the di sasters strike which finally suggests an 
intervention system in order to reduce di saster ri sks (S imic, et al. 20 10). The BBC model for 
vulnerabili ty starts off with the hazard in question which in thi s study is drought, and then the 
hazard enters from three spheres namely: environment , soc ial and economic spheres which hit 
exposed elements. Moreover, in the event that the exposed elements have little coping capacities, 
the vu lnerability to the hazard in question increases leading to social, economic and 
environmental ri sks. At thi s point the BBC model considers preparedness measures to be taken 
to reduce adverse effects of risks, but when preparedness measures fa i I to completely reduce 
vulnerability, it progresses to ri sks which finally cause di sasters which will ultimately need 
intervention measures to dea l with such disasters. 
Econoonk 
:;-::.=:.. _S_pMre_ . . ______. ....;~.:::;;;..-- ....._ ___l llfllllllllll. .. 
-~-··- · 
Figure 2.2: BBC Vulnerability Model 
Source: Birkmann, 2006:35 
38 
2.14 APPLICATION OF THE BBC MODEL TO THE STUDY AREA (MAFETENG 
DISTRICT) 
The BBC Model has the following components: hazard, vulnerability - that consists of exposed 
and vulnerable elements and coping capacity, risk management before disasters hit 
(preparedness), risks that emanate from social, economic and environmental spheres should 
prepared measures fail, disaster/emergency management and an intervention system. The 
following is an application of the BBC model in the study area: 
2.14.1 Hazard 
In this study, the BBC Vulnerability Model starts off with drought as the selected hazard from 
which vulnerability is assessed. 
2.14.2 Exposed and vulnerable elements 
In this conceptual framework, vulnerability assessment addresses susceptibility and exposure of 
elements at risk within the environmental, social and economic spheres (Birkmann, 2006). 
Environmental sphere 
In Mafeteng district there is much soil eros10n, which has been exacerbated by drought. 
However, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security is trying to promote Conservation 
Agriculture (CA) in which trees and grass are being planted in dongas in order to increase crop 
yield (African Technology Policy Studies (ATPS), 2013). Though water is found in abundance 
in Lesotho, drought has had adverse effects on the water quality, therefore there is a challenge to 
provide clean water to support livestock and human lives especially in Mafeteng district (IFRC, 
2014). In Mafeteng, the farmlands and rangelands are degraded and more than 800 farmer were 
trained in soil and water conservation where demonstrations were given on how to construct 
small ponds (IF AD, 2014:6). In 2007 to 2011, Mafeteng district received the third lowest rainfall 
on average of about 696 mm to support agriculture, hence farmers are at risks due to lack of rain 
for their crops (BOS, 2012). 
39 
Social sphere 
The majority of household heads involved in farming activities in Lesotho are in the age groups 
of 50-59, 60-69 and 70+ with Mafeteng district having majorities in these three age groups 
(BOS, 2013: 5). Basotho elderly people are predominantly females and constitute 61% of the 
total elderly persons and live in rural areas. Of the 61 % females, 12% live alone which puts them 
at a higher risk of vulnerability to loneliness than their male counterparts (BOS, 2012:12). 
HIV/AIDS, chronic poverty, food insecurity and climate-related hazards such as droughts and 
weak governance systems, are Lesotho's major challenges, The HIV adult prevalence rate that is 
currently estimated at 23.2% places Lesotho among the three worst affected countries in the 
world and poorest of them all. Certain groups such as women, young adults and children are 
affected with sexually transmitted infections which are indirectly caused by droughts where 
women indulge in prostitution in pursuit of a livelihood (UNDP, 2009:5). In the agricultural year 
2012/2013, Mafeteng district was number one of the ten districts with 5,821 hectares that were 
failed due to drought for harvesting hence putting agriculture-dependent farmers at risks of food 
insecurity (BOS, 2013:15). 
Economic sphere 
Table: 2.6: The percentage distribution of the economically active population by District, 
emplovmeut S tatus an dSe x- 2011/2012 CMS. 
Emploved Unemoloved 
District Male Female Total Male Female Total 
Botha buthe 89.5 85.8 88 10.5 14.2 12 
Leribe 82.7 81.6 82.3 17.3 18.4 17.7 
Berea 88.5 85.1 87.4 11.5 14.9 12.6 
Maseru 85.1 81.5 83.5 14.9 18.5 16.5 
MafetenJ?; 81.3 79.3 80.6 18.7 20.7 19.4 
Mohale's Hoek 93.3 95.6 94.1 6.7 4.4 5.9 
Quthing 89.7 90.2 89.9 10.3 9.8 10.1 
Qacha'sNek 92.2 93.9 92.8 7.8 6.1 7.2 
Mokhotlong 95.4 93.7 94.9 4.6 6.3 5.1 
Thaba Tseka 90.4 90.7 90.5 9.6 9.3 9.5 
TOTAL 87.0 84.5 86.1 13 15.5 13.9 
Source: BOS (2012) 
40 
From the table above Mafeteng district has the lowest percentage of employed people and 
highest of unemployed people at 80.6% and 19.4% respectively compared to all other districts. 
Similarly more women in this district are unemployed at 20.7% above all other districts in the 
country, indicating women as most exposed to drought impacts (BOS, 2012). Unemployment 
decreases resilience to drought impacts. Female-dominated communities are generally more 
vulnerable than male-dominated ones, therefore coupled with unemployment the situation 
becomes worse and such communities become severely prone to the damaging effects of 
droughts and other hazards (BOS, 2012). 
2.14.3 Coping capacities against drought in Mafeteng district 
In the year 2007 Lesotho was hit by the worst drought in 30 years which resulted in Jack of soil 
moisture to support plants and animals and more than I 000 residents and furmers had to sell 
their goats, sheep, horses, donkeys and hens as a coping mechanism. Some animals were 
reported to have died (IRIN, 2007). From a total of 5 028 people in 2008, who needed assistance 
of food aid, 964 of them came from Koti-Se-Phola, putting this community council at the first 
position. The second highest community council that needed food aid assistance also comprised 
of 652 people (Department of Planning, Ministry of Local Government and Chieftainship, 
2008:10). 
2.14.4 Drought preparedness measures 
In Lesotho the Disaster Management Authority (DMA) makes forecast for cereal production in 
the country since this country is often impacted by droughts. The Meteorological services 
monitors drought and its intensity and issues warnings with DMA, Rangelands Division and 
Department of Water Affairs (UNDP, 2010:16). A National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) 
was adopted in 1996 in which drought was included but no specific drought policies were 
established because drought is not considered an economic concern in Lesotho (UNDP, 
2010:16). Lesotho lacks preparedness measures against drought and other climate change 
hazards through its Disaster Management Act, which is more response oriented than mitigation-
preparedness oriented (UNDP, 2009:8). 
41 
------------------------------------------
2.14.5 Emergency management 
Lesotho, through World Vision Lesotho in 2007, began a nutrition education programme for 
mothers of children identified as malnourished in Maphutseng, Moha!es' Hoek district (World 
Vision Lesotho, 2007). Lesotho bought 47.2 million tons of maize from smallholder farmers 
from South Africa in response to help the most vulnerable Basotho who were food insecure 
(FAO, 2013). Lesotho declared a state of emergency in 2012 when over 725 000 Basotho faced 
chronic food shortages, and Britain provided help in five districts, in which Mafeteng was one of 
them. This help did not only directly offer food-for-work but also training to lead famers, 
Lesotho Red Cross volunteers, care workers and community members (British Red Cross, 2013). 
The Ministry of Forestry and Land Reclamation, District Management Team and Lesotho Red 
Cross made a decision to assist Mafeteng community members in soil conservation by providing 
a food-for-work scheme to encourage them to do more. Activities carried out included the 
planting of 700 trees, grass planting, stone lines and silt traps built in Thabana Morena Villages 
that include, Linotsing, Maralleng. Lekoatsa Maserung and Thaba-Tsoeu Ha Shale (Maphathe, 
2013). This initiative was able to reach over 800 people. 
2.14.6 Intervention System 
The intervention system encompasses measures to reduce frequency and magnitude of events as 
well as vulnerabilities (Birkmann, 2006:36). The following measures are those found in 
Mafeteng district to reduce drought vulnerability: 
Conservation Agriculture 
Conservation agriculture normally promotes optimization of yields and profits, at the same time 
ensuring provision of local and international benefits and services. Conservation agriculture's 
main pillars are zero tillage and soil conservation practices. Mafeteng district in Lesotho through 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and NGOs have embarked on the promotion of 
conservation agriculture in view of conserving the soil to improve crop production (International 
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Society, 2006: ATPS, 2013). In a report by Lesotho 
Vulnerability Assessment Committee in 2013, 223 055 people were found to be at risk of food 
insecurity due to drought for four (4) months from October/November 2013 to January/February 
42 
2014. From these people Mafeteng district was number three (3) in numbers of people that are 
food-insecure (Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee, 2013). However, one of the key 
recommendations was that the Ministry of Agriculture advocates a shift to drought-tolerant 
crops. 
Crop di versification 
Crop diversification is largely practiced in Mafeteng (UNDP, 2010). Many farmers are extremely 
aware of the crop diversity and mixed farming (livestock and crops) where farming risks that 
include climate change, are considered for protection of farming business (F AO, 2011 ). Large 
farming enterprises that have different cultivars of the same crop with differing drought and pest 
resistances are being implemented in Mafeteng district as a way of coping with drought impacts 
(IFRC, 2006). 
Keyhole and Trench gardens 
Care Lesotho, a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) has introduced two systems to cope with 
drought in Lesotho including Mafeteng, and these are Keyhole and Trench gardens (IFRC, 
2006). Keyhole garden is a round raised garden that is supported by stones underneath; the first 
layer is soil that has been leveled covered with multiple layers of locally-made compost such as 
manure, organic waste, scrap metal, wood ash and others. A trench garden is a garden that is 
made by digging about I metre wide and I metre deep, and then filled with organic matter 
followed by soil till while watering. The organic matter and soil is alternated until the trench is 
filled (F AO, 2008). These two systems have proven effective with the following advantages: Jess 
labour is required, Jess water requirements, high moisture content, nourishment of soil to produce 
food for households (Weimer, 2008). Subsequently even the chronically ill, HIV/A IDS infected 
or, elderly persons are able to benefit from these systems without extensive labour or high costs 
(UNDP, 2010). 
2.15 SUMMARY 
In conclusion, the literature review was guided by themes generated from the research topic and 
other themes that were believed to have a significant contribution in the understanding of 
43 
drought vulnerability. The review started with definitions of relevant terms then drought 
vulnerability and development, which revealed that many countries spent large amounts of 
money in response to drought impacts which could instead be used to advance development. The 
link between vulnerability and disaster risk was reviewed where vulnerability has a positive 
functional relationship with disaster risk. On factors that contribute to vulnerability, poverty, 
health well-being and rain-fed agriculture dependency were the most evident in Lesotho. 
Drought vulnerability assessment that was conducted in different countries and regions focused 
on other types of drought other than the agricultural type; though some used both qualitative and 
quantitative methods they did not use the BBC vulnerability model as conceptual framework 
which approaches vulnerability assessment from a sustainable development perspective. Several 
sectors in Lesotho that range from agriculture, livestock and rangelands to mention a few, are 
more exposed to drought than others. For coping capacity strategies, several strategies such as 
diversification of jobs, sparing food for the young ones and eating less food were prominent in 
some communities; however in Lesotho, some people had no means to cope with drought effects 
especially Mafeteng district farmers and just waited for future developments regarding 
assistance. On preparedness and response, Lesotho was found to be more reactive than proactive 
in addressing drought disasters by providing food parcels for relief other than establishing 
sustainable development strategies. Moreover, the policies in Lesotho just address drought 
within the climate change perspective not specific to drought. 
44 
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
3.1 INTRODUCTION 
This chapter presents a detailed description of sampling methods, data collection, data analysis, 
validity and reliability and ethical considerations. It also includes the selection of drought 
indicators as well as their measurements. 
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGNS 
Research design is defined as a plan or strategy that first starts off with philosophical 
assumptions or conceptual framework then to specifying the selection of respondents, data 
collection techniques and data analysis to be used in the study. However, the type of research 
design used dependents on the researcher's research skills, assumptions and practices which then 
influence how data is normally collected (Cresweell et al. 2011 :70). Research designs are 
categorized into three main types; qualitative, quantitative and mixed research designs. 
Qualitative design is an inquiry process where a researcher conducts a study in a natural setting 
to develop an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question. In contrast to qualitative 
designs, quantitative designs rely on numerical data to test relationships between variables as 
well as describing trends from data sets. When used in combination within a mixed methods 
approach, qualitative and quantitative methods complement each other to allow a complete 
analysis of the research situation (Creswell et al. 201 I :256). The current study used mixed 
methods approach in order to gain a complete analysis of agricultural drought vulnerability 
situation at Koti-Se-Phola community council. 
3.3SELECTION OF INDICATORS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS 
There are several definitions for an indicator, however, a general one defines vulnerability 
indicator as an operational representation of a characteristic that is able to provide information 
about susceptibility, coping capacity and resilience of a system linked to a hazard (Birkmann, 
2006: 57).The selection of vulnerability indicators is dependent on the purpose of the study in 
question and the research discipline under exploration and finally the application (Dwyer et al. 
45 
2004: 14). Birkmann, (2006:57) stresses that indicators should not just be selected because of 
relevance and availability only but choice should systematically be based upon a chosen model 
and such indicators must be linked to the set goals and objectives. The vulnerability indicators 
development has to be based on some quality criteria so as to support a selection of good 
indicators (Birkmann, 2006:64). The following list shows standard criteria for indicator 
development; 
• Measurable 
• Relevant, representing an important issue of the topic 
• Policy-relevant 
• Only measuring key elements instead of all aspects 
• Analytical and statistically sound 
• Understandable 
• Easy to interpret 
• Sensitive and specific to underlying phenomenon 
• Valid and accurate 
• Reproducible 
• Based on available data 
• Data compatibility 
• Appropriate scope 
• Cost effective 
The following drought vulnerability indicators were selected by the above standard criteria 
chosen with the aid of the BBC conceptual framework which considers vulnerability from, 
economic, environmental and social spheres. 
Social drought vulnerability indicators: 
Increased poverty 
Human life loss 
Population migration 
Health problems 
46 
------ ---------- ----------------
Education level 
Household size 
Economic drought vulnerability indicators: 
Crop and livestock production reduction 
Farmers' income loss 
Increased feed prices 
Insurances against drought 
Diversified sources of income 
Environmental drought vulnerability indicators: 
Water quality 
Water and wind erosion of soil 
Plants damage 
3.4 SAMPLING 
Sampling is defined as a process, act or a technique that selects a representative of a population 
for a purpose of characterizing that particular population (Mugo, 2002). Sampling methods are 
categorized into two broad categories as probability and non-probability (Weiers, 2010: 119). The 
current study has followed a mixed-method research design which is predominantly quantitative 
in nature, therefore both non-probability and probability sampling techniques were followed. The 
study started with purposive sampling where the researcher targeted 120 peasant farmers at Koti-
Se-Phola council in Mafeteng district. Five (5) villages were randomly selected out of which 2 I 
households per village from which data was collected. These households were also randomly 
selected. The random sampling was done with the aid of Microsoft Excel that was used to 
generate and assign random numbers to villages for the study. Two (2) officials from Thabana 
Morena Agricultural Project were interviewed for expert opinion and one (I) successful 
commercial farmer in Sehla beng. 
47 
------·--~-· - . 
Sample size determination 
The sample size for this study was determined from the following formula by (Israel, 2013): 
Where: 
n= sample size 
Za12 = Z-Score at a specified confidence level and at a chosen level of 
significance a, chosen to be 0.05 
a= standard deviation and 
E= Margin of error 
Therefore, the chosen confidence level was 90% with a corresponding Z-value of 1.645. The 
standard deviation for unknown population size is normally estimated at 0.3 with a margin of 
error of ±5%. Therefore, the sample size was calculated to be n= (1.645 *0.3/0.05)2 =97.42= 98. 
To cater for non-response rate, 120 respondents were given questionnaires to complete and only 
102 respondents successfully completed the questionnaires. 
3.5 DATA COLLECTION 
WHO, (2014) defines data collection as an ongoing systematic process that involves analysis and 
interpretation of data necessary to design, implement and evaluate a prevention programme. 
3.5.1 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 
Questionnaire was used as one of the data collection tools. A questionnaire is defined as a data 
collection instrument that is either filled in by a respondent personally, or administered and 
completed by a researcher and it may contain closed-ended or open-ended questions (Weiers, 
2010:105). Questionnaires provide the following advantages; they are relatively quick in data 
collection, they offer more objective answers than interviews and large information can be 
collected through using this instrument (Milne, 1999). In this study, data was collected by 
48 
-------------------- ---- --- -
questionnaires that included both closed-ended and open-ended questions to capture quantitative 
and qualitative data respectively. These questionnaires were administered by the researcher and 
responses were recorded by the researcher himself. Other information was collected by means of 
observations on how people coped with drought in feeding their animals and, observations on 
how affected crops were in the fields. These observations were captured through notes and 
photographs in order to support the given responses in the questionnaires. The last two questions 
from the questionnaire were used as interview questions in this study to provide qualitative data 
to supplement the quantitative data. 
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS 
Responses from questionnaires were recorded in Microsoft Excel and SPSS was used for 
analysis. Descriptive statistics were used in analysing quantitative data, and results were 
presented by frequency distributions, pie charts and bar graphs. The qualitative data were coded 
and themes were generated to enable analysis. The results were represented in tables. 
3.7 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY 
Validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures that which it is supposed to 
measure. Face validity refers to the extent to which an instrument looks valid and normally this 
is done by experts (Creswell et al, 2011:216). For this study, Dr Chikobvu (a senior statistician) 
was consulted to check and commend on both fuce and content validity of the questionnaire. 
Reliability refers to consistency of a measure to measure the same results repeatedly (Cherry, 
2014). Internal reliability which measures the degree of similarity among items that measure one 
common construct was employed through calculation of Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Creswell 
et al, 2011 ). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient measures inter-item correlation between items and 
ranges between zero and one (0 to I) and if items are poorly formulated, this value is close to 
zero; on the other hand, if it is close to one, then there is a high degree of internal consistency of 
the instrument (Creswell et al, 2011 ). The calculated Cronbach's alpha was found to be 0. 764, 
which is slightly above the minimum acceptable value of0.7(Reynaldo and Santos, 1999). 
49 
3.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
A written permission was sought from the regional chief (CµiefMakotoko Bofihla) to whom the 
intention of the study was verbally explained. From there, local chiefs from the selected villages 
were also consulted and asked for further permission into their villages to conduct the study. The 
purpose of study was also explained to respondents (household heads) from whom data was 
collected, and the researcher emphasized that their participation was voluntary and that they had 
a right to withdraw at any stage in the participation. Respondents were assured that they 
responses would be confidential and anonymous. Names of the respondents were not reflected in 
the data collection tool to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Plagiarism was on the other 
hand avoided through complete reference of all sources used in the study. 
50 
CHAPTER 4: DATA  ANALYSIS 
4. 1 I TRODUCTIO 
The chapter presents data analysis, and detail s of the fi ndings of the research. The fi ndings are 
interpreted and data explai ned wi th the help of tables, frequencies and charts. Microsoft Excel 
was used to record and ana lyse data then these data was imported to SPSS Vl 6 calculation of 
Cronbach 's Alpha coefficient for reliabil ity testing. 
4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE RES PONDENTS 
This section presents the analysis of demographics of the respondents. 
Table 4.1: Distribution of gender by age 
Age Female Male Gra nd Total 
Below 18 17 10 27 
18-24 0 0 0 
25-39 11 4 15 
40-49 0 0 0 
50-59 3 I 4 
60+ 32 24 56 
Grand Total 63 39 102 
The table above shows a di stribution of gender and age in which the maj ori ty of the respondents 
were fema les aged from 60 years and above. From thi s distribution, it can be deduced that th is 
community is vulnerab le mainly because of the majority being females. Literature shows that 
vulnerabili ty increases in ages below I 8 and above 65 and high among women than men. 
Children and older women are not able survive during dry spell s (Pine, 2008: 145). 
The table below depicts marita l status of the respondents. Married individuals are more resit ient 
than single, widows, divorced and separated people during dry periods. Husbands are able to 
look for water for their households over long di stances and as such vulnerabili ty is reduced. 
Therefore from the table below it can be seen that only 30% of the respondents are married and 
70% are without partners, hence an increase in vu lnerabil ity. 
51 
Table 4.2: Marital status 
Row Labels Count 
Divorced 6% 
Married 30% 
Separated 5% 
Sin le 25% 
Widowed 34% 
Grand Total 100% 
The questionnaire wanted respondents to indicate their home language and from the fi gure 
below, 92 of I 02 respondents indicated their home language as Sesotho, 9 Xhosa and 1E nglish. 
From in formation depicted by figure 4.5 where the majority has a primary education, it is 
concluded that a greater portion of these community members do not know English , which 
increases their vu lnerability to droughts in terms of communication where most materia ls and 
forecasts are communicated in Engli sh. 
Home language 
1 
• English 
• Sesotho 
• Xhoza 
Figure 4.1: Home language 
According to the Department of Pla1ming (2008:90) the average household size for Koti-Se-
Phola community council is 7 members. Similarly from the figure below, about 58 households 
have members equal or greater than 7 and 34 of these households have members ranging 
between 4 and 6. Only very few households have members in the range 1 to 3 members. The 
larger the household size the less capable that household is, to cope with drought impacts 
52 
especially when the source of livelihood is rain-fed agriculture and they have no other livelihood 
means. Literature has shown that large household sizes encounter difficulties in feeding. Given 
large household sizes and unemployment as shown by this current study, poverty levels increase 
hence put communities in vulnerab le s ituation. 
60 ~ 
so 1--
40 i-
30 
20 
10 
0 
1- 3 4- 6 7 and Above 
Figure 4.2 : Household size distribution by freq ue ncy 
4.3 EX POSED ELEME TS 
In this secti on, elements that are exposed to droug ht impacts a re presented and discussed. Table 
4.3 below shows a di str ibution of main type of animals possessed by respondents and quantity 
ranges. It a lso indicates that about 4 7% of these respondents do not ha ve any type of animal s. 
The majority of those who had animal s had cows, sheep and goats th ough in smal ler numbers. 
These results are consistent with those found by BOS, (2009) in which cows, sheep and donkeys 
were the main livestock herded in thi s community. In thi s study donkeys did not come up clearly. 
G iven that the livelihood in thi s study area is mainly dependent on rain-fed agriculture and 
majoriti es a re not employed, small number of animals especially cows leads to increased poverty 
because cows a re used for draug ht power for food production. Sheep and goats are so ld in order 
to purchase food and other household necessities. When the number of animals is sma ll , poverty 
increases, which then transla tes into vulnerability. 
53 
Table 4 .3: Distribution of population of main animals 
Estimated number of main animals 
Total number of 
respondents not 
having and 
Main animal having animals 
type 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 >13 (% ) 
No animals 0 0 0 0 0 47% 
Cows 12 6 1 0 0 19% 
Donkeys I I 0 0 0 2% 
Goats 2 2 0 2 0 6% 
Horses 2 I 0 0 0 3% 
Sheep 8 6 10 0 0 24% 
Total 100% 
The pie chart below shows agricutu re field/plot ownership of households, and from it 62 of the 
respondents either owned a fi eld or a plot fo r agri cultural purposes. This is slightly lower than 
results found by the (Department of Planning, 2008 :92) where 78% of the total residents owned 
fi elds for agricultural acti vities. Only 40 out of I 02 had no fields to farm. Having a fie ld reduces 
vulnerabili ty for people are able to plough and produce food for their fa mi lies. However, thi s 
becomes a problem during droughts when crops are exposed to negative dro ught impacts. 
• Yes 
• No 
Figure 4.3: Households with agriculture fie ld 
Figure 4.4 shows the source of water !Tom which community members draw water for both 
household and agri cultural purposes. About all members have got taps !Tom which they draw 
54 
water. Only a few indi viduals have boreholes whi ch are used as supp lement for water in order to 
save water from taps and they are used as alternati ve sources during dry periods. 
100 
90 +-------
80 +-----------------
70 +---- ----------- --
60 +------
so +------- ~--------~ 
40 +--------------- --
30 +-----------------
20 -+-------
8 
10 +-----------------
0 -+-----
Borehole Tap 
Figure 4.4: Main source of water 
Another socia l vulnerabi lity ind icator that was used was the level of educati on. Frankenberg et 
al, (201 3) in the ir study found that better educated indi vidua ls a re more like ly to survive 
di sasters than those with little educat ion. Figu re 4.5 shows a di stri bution of education levels o f 
Koti-Se-Pho la community council members and it is ev ident that "No schooling" and " Primary 
school" levels account fo r 60 out of I 02 respondents. The remaining 40 respondents fa ll within a 
category o f secondary and tertiary edu cation. Most people seem to have pri mary edu cation, 
whi ch could be a result o f tree primary education introdu ced in Lesotho . Ho wever, education 
reduces vulnera bili ty indirectly through a number of means, such as im provement of socio -
econo mi c status that a lso increase earnings, abili ty to afford insurances, access to weather 
forecasts and fina lly high educated indi v idua ls have di vers ifi ed commun ication links and ac cess 
to very use ful in formation (M uttarack and Lutz, 20 14) . 
55 
60 I 
52 
50 ~~~~~~~~~ 
20 
10 
0 
No Schooling Primary school Secodary school Tertiary education 
Figure 4.5: Education levels 
Figure 4.6 shows a distribution of waterborne di seases that are likely to preva il in thi s study area 
as shown in the literature review. A large number o f community mem bers have never suffered 
from any waterborn e di seases related to drought in the past 2 years and about 28% suffered from 
dia rrhoea. There were o nl y 4 households that recorded cases o r cholera. This is probably because 
many househo lds have taps as shown in fi gure 4.4 above. 
80 
70 
70 
60 
so 
40 
28 
30 
20 
10 4 
0 
None Diarrhoea Cholera 
Figure 4.6: Waterborne diseases 
Table 4.4 indicates 83% of the respondents agreeing that there has been a t least one member who 
left the household for another town in pursuit of a li ve lihood, due to drought impacts. Only 17% 
56 
di sagreed tha t their household members left . This is in agreement with tab le 4. 1 which showed 
the maj ority of the respo ndents being those in the ages 60+ and below 18, showing that young 
adu lts are the ones leaving for other places for probably a better livi ng. In thi s situati on, 
vulnerabili ty increases as coping capacity decreases , hence lead ing to risks of disasters. 
Table 4.4: Migrated ho useho ld members to other places 
Did any member 
mig rate? Frequency Percentage 
No 17 17% 
Yes 85 83% 
Gra nd Total 102 100% 
Water conflicts a re not a problem in thi s counci I where 9 1o ut of I 02 respondents indi cated that 
they have never had any conflicts over water issues in dry periods. In genera l, thi s shows that 
there has never been a ny conflict over water, though 11 of the respondents showed that they had 
some confli cts over ·water issues. However, the questi on j ust wa nted a Yes or No answer not the 
extent and nature o f con fl icts people had. This must be as a result of the availability oft he taps in 
thi s community council. 
T a bl e 4 5 : W ater con tr1 cts d un ng d ry pen.o d s 
Water conflicts Frequency 
No 9 1 
Yes 11 
Grand Total 102 
Figure 4.7 below reveals that in over 87 househo lds, there has not been any loss o f life due to 
adverse effects of droug ht. T he results are in line with fi gu re 4.6 where the majority of these 
respondents never su ffered from any water-related d iseases. However, between 1975 and 2000 
98% of deaths were linked with droug ht in Ethopia, Sudan and Moza m bique (Elmi , 2006). 
Fortunate ly in the current study area there has not been any deaths caused by droughts. 
57 
100 ~--~~---------------~ 
90 ......-----------------~----~ ~---
80 +-------1 
70 +----
60 +----
50 
40 +----
30 
20 
10 
0 
No Yes 
Figure 4. 7: Loss of Hurn an life in dry periods 
Table 4.6 below shows 68 respondents agree ing that animals feed prices increased in th e past 
two years. This puts more financial pressures o n the majority of residents s ince they do no t work 
and those who do, do part-time j obs and agriculture-re lated jobs wh ich, during dry periods, 
suffer the mo t. 
Table 4.6: Animal feed price increase over last two years 
Animal feed price increase Frequency 
Strongly Disagree 0 
Disagree 17 
Neutral 0 
Agree 68 
Strongly agree 17 
Grand Total 102 
Figure 4 .8 indicates that there a re about 70 people that a re unemployed , fo llowed by those that 
are in forma lly em ployed. The researcher could reali se that those who were fu ll-time employed 
were miners in South Africa . On the other hand table 4. 1 showed the majority o f respondents 
being elders aged above 60 years, in which case thi s fi gure confim1s exactly that they are 
unem ployed. 
58 
60 
40 
20 
10 r-
0 + --,-II___, 
Contract Full time Informal Partime Unemployed 
employment employment employment employment 
Figure 4.8: Employment status 
In the tab le 4 .7 below very few people are earning over MI 000 per month and 79 of these 
respondent s are earning in the range of 0-500 a mo nth. Since the majority of the respondents are 
found to be over 60 years of age, thi s implies that their earnings a re from Government o ld-age 
pension, wh ich sta rted in Lesotho in 2005 as M 150 per month and to date, that is ea rned by only 
people aged over 70 (Pelham, 2007). With a lower income, vulnerability increases since people 
a re not able to financia lly cope with drought impacts. 
Table 4.7: Household income level per month 
Income level er month Fre uenc 
0-500 79 
50 1- 1000 5 
100 1-3000 9 
300 1-5000 6 
5000+ 3 
Grand Total 102 
Around 60% o f the respondents agreed that they lost some income over the pas t two years due to 
droughts impacts. In this community, animal s and cro ps a re sold as li vel ihood means as the 
maj ority of the residents a re not working. Thi s is shown in fi gure 4.9 below. 
59 
Income loss due to drought 
70 
60 
so 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 +-~~~~~~-r-~~~~~~.--~~~~~__,-
agree Disagree Strongly agree 
Figure 4.9: Loss of income d ue to droughts impacts 
Table 4.8 indicates households agree ing that there has been food production decline over the past 
two years. Thi s could be a result of increased elderly po pulati on and children below 18 years 
who may not be economically very active and that is exacerbated by droug ht impacts. Ho wever 
there were s ti ll a few whose food production seemed not to have been affected by drou ghts in the 
past two years and thi s could be because of the minority that are working in decent jo bs. 
Table 4.8: Food prod uction decline over 2 years 
Food production decline over past 2 years Frequency 
Agree 64 
Disagree 19 
Strongly agree 19 
Grand Total 102 
From the tab le be low so il erosion seems to be a seri ous issue in thi s commu nity whereby the 
fa rm and range lands are ex tremely eroded. This is con firm ed by the pictures taken by the 
researcher during the fi eldwork as sho wn in figure 4.20 . o respondent di sagreed or stayed 
neutral with th e statement tha t th ere is seri ous soil erosion in the farmlands and rangelands. 
60 
Table 4.9: Serious soil erosion in the communities' fields 
Soil serious erosion Frequency 
Strongly di sagree 0 
Disagree 0 
Neutra l 0 
Agree 92 
Strongly agree 10 
Grand Total 102 
Certain plants are used for medica l purposes and from table 4 .10 it is clear that respondents are 
of the opinion that plants they use for medical purpose have been im pacted upon by droughts 
hence a reductio n of health a nd livelihood status. 
Table 4.10: Loss of traditional medical plants 
Traditional medicine plants loss Frequency Percentae.e % 
Strongly di sagree 12 12% 
Disagree 0 0% 
Neutra l 0 0% 
Agree 90 88% 
Strongly agree 0 0% 
Grand Total 102 100% 
There are no signs of contaminated water drawn from taps as fi gure 4. 10 below shows that many 
respondents di sagreed and strongly di sagreed with the statement that dark water fl ows rrom taps 
indicating no possibili ties of contamina ted water from sources. This is consistent with the fi nding 
from fi gures 4.4 and 4.6 respecti ve ly, where the source of water was taps and the majority of the 
respondents di d not suffer from any waterborne di seases. 
61 
Contaminated water from sources 
• Total 
agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 
Figure 4.10: Water quality 
4.4 COPING CAP A CITY 
The following section di scusses fi ndings with regard to coping capacity against drought impacts. 
The Government does not make the publ ic aware of drought issues. However, some respondents 
agreed that there is some awareness from Government in relation to drought. Thi s information is 
depicted in table 4.11 be low where a tota l of 75 respondents are those who di sagreed or strongly 
disagreed with the statement that there was publi c awareness by govern ment pertaining to 
drought issues, whil e only 27 are of the opinion that the government makes them aware. 
However the overa ll conclusion based on the respondents' answers is that there is generally littl e 
or no publi c awareness given to community members, hence a decreasing coping capacity to deal 
with adverse drought impacts. 
Table 4. 11 : Public awareness by government 
Public awareness Frequency 
Strongly D isagree 27 
D isagree 48 
Neutral 0 
Agree 27 
Strongly agree 0 
Grand Total 102 
62 
From the information presented in figure 4.11 below, 78 out of I 02 respondents con finned that 
there were no drought warnings regarding what to expect so that community members cou ld 
engage in preparedness measures. Some of the preparedness measures may include the selection 
of drought-tolerant crop cul ti vars and stock pi ling of fodder for use in dry periods. 
Drought warning to the public 
• No 
• Yes 
Figure 4.1 t : Drought warnings to the public 
In some villages conservation agricultura l methods were implemented at a stipend ; however, 81 
out of I 02 households showed that there have never been such measures taken a t their v illages. 
This is confirmed by figure 4.20 below where the researcher went out into the fi elds to observe 
and take pictures of the conditions of the fields. In 4 out o f 5 sampled villages, there was no 
evidence of agriculture conservation acti viti es. Conservation agricu lture improves soi l structure 
and protects the so il !Tom being eroded, and likewise less water is used in crop production due to 
increased infil tration and high water-holding capacity from crop residues and materia ls used. 
Material s and mulches used, to protect the soil from extreme temperatures greatly redu ce surface 
evaporation (Department of Agriculture a nd Life Sciences, 20 14). Demographics section showed 
a large proportion of this study area consisted of community members being elders with low 
education levels. T his has effects on conservation agricultural strategies implemented, where 
some members would not take any initiatives to practi se conservation agriculture due to lower 
knowledge levels. Others are likely to expect the government to initiate conservation agriculture 
63 
on a payment basis. Figure 4.1 2 below shows responses on whether there were conservation 
agriculture methods implemented. 
Conservation agriculture methods 
implemented 
• No 
• Yes 
Figure 4.12: Conservation agricultu re methods implemented 
From table 4. 12, respondents acknowledged that Government does respond during dry periods 
though the response is not sati sfactory. All respondents agreed that there is a government 
response but many (6 1) sa id it was poor. Only 20 out of I 02 respondents showed government 
responding in a sati sfactory manner during droughts. However, the overa ll implication was that 
the government does not respond sati sfactoril y during dry periods. 
Table 4.12: Government response to droughts and the extent of response 
How Government responds during droughts 
Good 20 
Moderate 2 1 
Poorl y 61 
Grand Total 102 
Based on the in formation shown in table 4.1 and fi gure 4.8, the major ity of the respondents are 
females aged from 60 and above and are unemployed. Figure 4.13 shows these respondents 
having other sources of li velihood other than rain-fed agriculture, which leads us to conclude that 
these are actuall y aged above 70 year and are old-age pensioners earning in the range of 0-500 
64 
as the current old-age pension in Lesotho is M450 per month. This situation has an increasing 
effect on vulnerabi li ty with less or little fi nancial coping capacity. 
Other sources of livelihood other 
than rain-fed agriculture 
100 
80 
60 • Total 
40 
20 
0 +-~~~~~~~-r-~~~~~~~-.-
No Yes 
Figure 4.13: Other sources of livelihood other than rain-fed agricu lture 
Table 4.13 shows clearly that farmers have not insured their livestock against droughts impacts. 
This is also complemented by the fact that many have very few animals in the range of 1-3 cows 
and 4-6 sheep and that they are unemployed, so thi s makes it difficult for them to pay insurance 
premiums. However, insurances play a number of ro les ranging from eliminating dependencies 
on one livelihood source and therefore having an insurance serves as a way of sharing and 
mitigating risks (Anonymous, 2012). If droughts strike communities are able to claim for 
damages from their insurance brokers. 
Table 4.13: Livestock insured against droughts impacts 
Livestock insured a 
Yes 0 
No 102 
Grand Total 102 
Figure 4. 14 below depicts no planting of drought-tolerant crop culti vars where 77 respondents 
answered " o" while 25 answered "Yes" to the question of whether they plant drought-resistant 
65 
crops. Drought-tolerant cultivars requ ire little water for surviva l thereby res isti ng drought. In the 
event when non-drought-tolerant eu ltivars are planted, production is totally lost when drought 
strikes, therefore, planting drought -tolerant crop culti vars ensures food availability in the 
households and saves money to be used probab ly during drought di sasters. This area being a 
rura l area, with low levels of education and income, the community members do not know and 
cannot afford if they knew, to buy drought-resistant crop cultivars. 
Planting of drought-resistant crop c ultivars 
90 
77 
80 
70 
60 
so 
40 
30 l 
20 
10 
0 
Yes No 
f igure 4.J4 : Planting of droug ht-tolerant crop c ultivars 
As shown in figure 4.15 below, there is a greater proportion of people that disagree that there is 
good rangelands management in thi s study area. Good rangelands management includes 
rotational grazing to avoid overgrazing that leads to soi l erosion, and implementation of stringent 
land control measures such as fines, should animals be grazed where they are not allowed. 
However, there is very few who agree that rangelands are well managed. Poorly managed 
rangelands lead to soil erosion through exposure of soi ls, which in turn impacts negatively on 
crop growth and animals. 
66 
Good rangelands management 
systems 
• agree 
• Disagree 
• Neutral 
• Strongly agree 
• Strongly Disagree 
Figure 4.15: Good rangelands management system 
Figure 4.16 below shows an e lderly community member and a young man from another 
household queu ing for water from a community tap for hours at Ha Konote. T hi s comes as a 
drought effect in this community counci l. This picture was taken during the research er' s field 
work observation. This is an indication that community members struggle for water in thi s 
counci l. 
Figure 4.16: Community members struggling for water from taps at Ha Konote, 
T ha bana Morena 
67 
4.5 ADAPTIVE CO PI NG MEC HANISMS 
Some of the coping mechani sms were that animals were fed with (Lekha/e and torofeiye) aloe 
and prickly pear trees. C hicken droppings are a lso used as feed whereby onl y feathers are 
removed for the animals to ea t. Most of the farm ers have stockpiled maize sta lks as fodder to use 
during dry periods as illustrated in fi gure 4.1 7. Very few farm ers that are economica lly capable 
stockpile lucerne for feeding. Other farmers have installed their own irrigation systems to 
promote vegeta ble production. Boys aged a round 14-30 are used as shepherds to reduce food 
consumption in the household and adults go out for j ob seeking in towns. Keyhole gardens are 
other measures used to cope with drought in thi s community council to grow vegetables for 
household consumptio n. This in formati on was co ll ected by the researcher during the fie ld work 
and is consistent with the findings from literature review made in chapter 2 where animals were 
fed with ground "motopi" trees in the North West Province of South Atri ca. 
Figure 4.17: Fodder stockpiling from different villages at Koti-Se-Phola Community 
Council (CC) 
Farmers such as Mr Matea at Ha Bofi hla have set up an irri gation system that waters cabbage 
fi eld during dry winter seasons. Cabbage from thi s fi eld is sold out to communities as another 
means of li velihood, fi gure 4.1 8 shows Mr Matea 's field at Ha Bofih la Thabana Morena. 
68 
Figure 4 .18: M r Matea's cabbage fie ld at Ha Bofihla Thabana Morena 
In other villages such as Ha goae, members of the community have abandoned the community 
vegetables project as depicted in figure 4.19 below. This project was set up by the government to 
alleviate poverty but drought has left members with no option but abandon it. 
4.6 DROUGHT lNTERV E TIO SUGGESTlO S 
Strategies sugge ted by respondent and experts were that, there should be an irrigation system 
that draws water from Makhaleng River. This wil l not only help crop and vegetable production 
but counteract the present unemployment rate at thi s community council. Dongas in the fields 
69 
created by soil erosion that were exacerbated by drought should be harnessed through tree 
plan ting and construction of silt traps whereby members wi ll be earn ing some wages during the 
period they are working. This wil l not only present soil s from being eroded but improve 
livelihoods as well and ultimately reduce vulnerability to droughts impacts. 
Figure 4.20: Eroded fields between Ha Ngoae and Khubetsana, Thabana Morena and 
Maralleng respectively. 
Farmers also indicated the need for a local market to be created by Government at which their 
products should be sold. Though there is sometimes a government subsidy for ploughing and 
seeds, the effort is not enough and therefore there is a need to strengthen thi s subsidy to cover all 
villages. Rangelands management system is to be strengthened through high fines in cases when 
people graze their animals in the demarcated areas for use in dry periods. Finally boreholes must 
be drill ed and installed in vi llages for usc in dry periods. 
Table 4.14: S ummary of both coping and intervention strategies at Koti -Se-Phola (CC) 
Coping Strategies Intervention Strategies 
Feeding with Lekha/a (aloe) Irrigat ion systems (Makhaleng Ri ver) 
Litlhaka (Maize Stalks) Increased Conservation Agri culture 
Individual Irrigation Systems Creation of Local market 
Keyhole gardens Intensifi ed Rangelands Management 
Household size reducti on (Shepherds) Borehole drill s insta ll ation 
Migration to towns Government subsidies 
70 
j Creation of employment 
4.7 AGRICULTURAL DROUGHT VULNERABILITY INDEX 
To calculate the vulnerability index, only the most important indicators were selected. From each 
indicator the dominating response was considered to represent the indicators or other responses if 
such an indicator was selected but dominating response was insignificant, for example, if in 
gender most respondents were females, then females' % was selected to represent gender which 
has a decreasing functional relationship with drought vulnerability. Then the scores were 
normalised using the following formulae; 
Table 4.15: Normalisation vulnerability equations 
Formular for increasing Formular for decreasing Formular for Vulnerability 
functional relationship with functional relationship with index 
vulnerabilitv vulnerabilitv 
xlf -M!n{YIJ J Max{YIJ }-xlf 
I 
xlf = ~ox{\'9 }~in{ilf} YI) = _M,_!'X_,,_{\'_IJ_.,.}"_lot_i_n{ \'<-,-...}~ 
• 
Source: (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 2009) 
Where; 
xu and Yii represent normalised indicators scores 
Xu denotes the value of indicator "j" corresponding to Village "i". 
Min { X;j} is the minimum value of indicator"/' 
Max {Xu} is the maximum value of indicator"/' 
Example; in table 4.17, indicator "age" has the value I 7 in "VI" where Maximum and mimmum 
values are 61and17 respectively, therefore the normalised score would be 17-17/61-17 = 0.0000 
using Formula for increasing functional relationship with vulnerability in table 4.15 above. 
71 
Microsoft excel was used in the computation of the normalised scores. After normalisation of the 
scores a simple average was applied to calculate the final composite vulnerability Index (VI) as 
follows; where K denotes the number of sampled village 
72 
Table 4.16: Selected drought indicators and their descriptions 
Selected Indicators Description 
Demographic 
Gender Females are more vulnerable than men, majority of the respondents were females 
Children, elderly people between ages; below 18 and greater than 65 
Age respectively are more prone to damaging effects of drought than middle aged 
groups 
Social 
High mortality rates leave the remaining communities psychologically affected, 
human loss oflife and more prone to further dama<ring effects of drought 
population migration Increased movement of people indicates how vulnerable such a community is. 
High levels of disease prevalence results in reduced coping capacity against 
health problems 
adverse effects of hazards 
education level A well-educated society is resilient to disasters, greater than matric level. 
The bigger the family size, the more unable that family is, to feed its members in 
household size times of dry periods 
Economic 
Presence of insurances against property, crops and livestock ensures 
Insurances against drought 
replacement in case of drought disasters. 
Communities with various sources of income are able to survive easily during 
Income sources and post disasters 
Environmental 
Poor quality, dirty, contaminated water harbour disease causing 
water quality microorganisms, therefore weakening such societies. 
73 
water and wind erosion of soils 
Erosions reduce means on livelihood for rain-fed aEITiculture communities. 
Coping capacity 
Rangeland management Well-managed rangelands decrease vulnerabilities against drou!ilit 
Presence of agricultural conservation methods Decrease soil erosion, hence drought vulnerability 
If the public is aware of oncoming disasters, coping strategies are devised ahead 
Good public awareness 
of time and these decrease vulnerability to drought 
74 
Table 4.17: Raw selected indicators data per village and their functional relationships with vulnerability 
Functional relationship with 
Selected Indicators Selected Village (V) Vulnerability 
VI V2 V3 V4 VS 
Demo2raphics 
Gender (female%) 19 38 11 16 16 
Age (estimated average age) 17 61 58 60 55 
Social 
population migration (Estimated 
number of people who mi1rrated) 25 14 18 8 20 t 
health problems (No. of cases) 0 4 12 8 8 I 
Education level (<  primary and no 
schooling) 20 8 10 12 10 
household size (>7 members) 8 9 12 15 13 
Economic .. 
Income level (Estimated average 
household income level) 460 658 401 586 640 t 
Environmental 
water quality(% of people who 
DisaOTeed and strongly disaPTeed) 16 14 10 8 28 i 
water and wind erosion of soils 
(number of households with eroded 
fields) 21 21 20 20 20 i 
Cooing capacity 
Good rangeland management (number 
disaOTeed and strongly disagreed) 18 20 8 30 15 t 
Absence of agricultural conservation 
methods <Number ofresoondents) 16 19 18 17 11 i 
Good public awareness(% disagreed j 
and strongly disagreed) 20 7 27 21 25 
75 
Table 4.18: Normalised indicators scores 
..... 
e"  'O ..... 0 i:: " Oj 'O (" i:: 0 . ~ 'O ·r0n ... "' il .-.. 0 0 ..... ~  .. .a 'O " 0.. 
";t_ ~ ·-- .§ 'O 0 ..... - 0 "...  c7  ::!._, t - - 0 5'o ... 0 ::s ..c:: ·- " ... u - ~
  :< 
"...'  .80  ~ "' ll".l'  ..c0: : ,o "' 'O" -0 -~ s 8 -~ 0 - <> .o._'.. "' ~ r  .. 
"'O 0 .; "i:":  ,oo'  ·i:: " "' 
"' .0 ·: 00 8 :.0 ~ " i:: 
8"'  ~ 8 i:: 00 ·-i:: ~ -~ aa' ·"' 8 ' "'~ 
i:: -0 .0 -" -0 ~ i:: r -"' >" 
"
 ;0:s
'  - :'  ·- ..0c: : :i: ;:s : - - "' = <+ ·0- ~ .'.'.:a -~ -0 .-.. ... ~ ...c:= J Oj " i:: ..... 0 ' ~ ~ 0 " 0 i:: "' 'O 00 "' ' 0 ·.a ·>- ·;:::-:::: ·- ..r..o...  1o-1. . .g  t': 0 "..'.  ;:s -:i: i::  i:: '- ~ i:: 8 . -~ "' ~ ~ "' .0 ... ~ ~ " ;:; .§  il -;;;- ..c:: " " " "' :"='  ~'  E! " 8 ~ "' "' O"' "' 1-1 0.. = 0~0  "~'  10t i .-.. o.. t; ~~ .g .fl . 8 ~ "" ' .80  0 ... ..s..  'O ~ 0.. ~ 0 ( = <ro 0 i:: ' <> ">'  -o e u ..5 _g ~ ~00  "~  o µ::i v ro ; v.i : "' i:: 0 "' ., 0.. .._.. ..c: 0 ll.l 0.. .8:s  " .us " 8  ~ :"i:'  0<! ) ' I ,,..  ..0.. . ,.<'  0 "' ' 0.. ' 0 8;; ~ 8 '- 0 ~ ' > >;:s  ."s"  0"'' ~ 
VI I 0.2963 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.2296 I 0.6000 I 1.0000 I 0.4545 I 0.3750 I 0.6500 I 0.3838 
V2 I 1.0000 I 1.0000 I 0.3529 I 0.3333 I 0.0000 I 0.1429 I 1.0000 I 0. 7000 I 1.0000 I 0.5455 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.5062 
V3 I 0.0000 I 0.9318 I 0.5882 I 1.0000 I 0.1667 I 0.5714 I 0.0000 I 0.9000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.1250 I 1.0000 I 0.4403 
V4 I 0.1852 I 0.9773 I 0.0000 I 0.6667 I 0.3333 I 1.0000 I 0. 7198 I 1.0000 I 0.0000 I 1.0000 I 0.2500 I 0. 7000 I 0.5694 
vs I 0.1852 I 0.8636 I 0.7059 I 0.6667 I 0.1667 I 0.7143 I 0.9300 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.3182 I 1.0000 I 0.9000 I 0.53765 
2.4372 
Total 
The composite Agriculture Drought Vulnerability Index (ADVI) = 2.4372/5=0.4874 
76 
From the table 4.18, the Agri culture Drought Vulnerability Index (ADVI), was calcu lated to be 
0.4874. Since vulnerability index can take any va lue rrom 0 to I, a sui table continuous 
probability distribution was assumed (Beta di stributi on) which is generally skewed and takes 
values in the interval [O, I] . Five (5) equal linear interva ls were chosen so that each interval has 
the same probability weight of 20% as proposed in Iyengar and Sudarshan's method of 
vu lnerability index calculation ( International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 
2009). The ca lculated Vul nerability index fell in a vulnerable category as shown below. This 
ca lculated value complement the find ings that the study area is vulnerable to drought impacts, 
however the choice of participating indicators to the index were subjec tively selected by the 
researcher in which case if all indicators were selected to contribute to the calculated index, the 
results could have been quite di fferent and better. Another aspect was that a simple average of 
the normalised scores with all indicators having equal we ights was applied, in order to come up 
wi th a fi nal composite vulnerabil ity index. 
Table 4.19: Vario us stages of vulnerability 
Less Vulnerable O<VI<0.2 
Moderately Vulnerable 0.2<V1 <0.4 
Vulnerable 0.4<VI<0.6 
Highly Vulnerable 0.6<Vl<0.8 
Very highly Vulnerable 0.8<Vl< I 
4.8 SUM MARY 
In this chapter, data was co ll ected by means of questionnaires, interviews and observations on 
vulnerabili ty and how communities coped with drought. The collected data was fi rst recorded in 
Microso ft Excel and later transferred to SPSS V 16 for reliabi lity test which was found to be 
0.764. Descripti ve stati stics was used to represent data in bar and pie graphs as well as frequency 
tables for easier interpretation. The researcher made observa tions in the fi elds and in the villages 
to see how people coped with drought where photogra phs were taken in order to support data 
co ll ected by questionna ires. From the se lected drought ind icators, the researcher fu rther selected 
tho e which were believed to be more important to contribute to Agricultura l Drought 
77 
Vulnerability Index (ADVI). This index was meant to give an overview of the vulnerability 
condition in this community council. The next and final chapter deals with the conclusion and 
recommendations. 
78 
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 
5.IINTRODUCTION 
This chapter gives the summary of the findings, conclusion and recommendations. The 
conclusion is made based on the empirical studies and literature review conducted. Findings are 
summarized according to the sub-objectives of the study. 
5.2 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS 
5.2.1 Exposure to drought 
Findings revealed that Koti-Se-Phola community council is composed in majority of older 
females over 60 years of age. The livestock is also exposed to drought dangers as quite a good 
number ofrespondents have cows, sheep and goats. The modal livestock population groups were 
1-3 and 4-6. Agricultural sector is exposed as well, because 62 of 102 respondents answered 
"Yes" to the question that asked whether they had agricultural field/plot to farm on as shown in 
figure 4.2 above. The rangelands is another sector severely exposed to drought impacts as 
depicted in figure 4.20 above where there is a severe soil erosion in fields thereby reducing the 
crops and animal products quality. These finding are consistent with finding in Lesotho in 2009 
as shown in table 2.2 as well as in table 2.1 from other countries. 
5.2.2 Coping capacities 
There is generally little or no copmg capacities in this community as greater number of 
respondents showed that there are no public awareness, no early warning systems in place to 
alert the public of oncoming droughts so as to prepare accordingly in advance, poor government 
response during drought and little and short term conservation projects. No insurances to guard 
against livestock and crops failure, due to poor socio economic status and low education levels as 
revealed in the data. Many farmers just use any seed for planting without necessarily that seed 
being drought resistant, this maybe brought about by the fact that majority of the respondents are 
poor. 
79 
Stockpiling of maize stalks, feeding of cows with torofeiye and lekhale, lucerne buying, chicken 
droppings feeding are some of the coping strategies used in this community council during dry 
periods. Some construct keyhole gardens for vegetable growing for their households. Lucerne is 
purchased by those few who are fmancially viable to feed their animals. Families have sent away 
young members to towns for job seeking in order to reduce food consumption. Young boys sent 
away to work as shepherds, and this on the other hand earns their families a certain income. 
5.2.3 Vulnerability conditions to drought 
Unemployment is one of the major problems faced by this community council with bigger 
proportion being females of 60 years and above. The modal income level per household in a 
month in Maloti is M0-500. Similarly, the modal household size is 7 and above members in a 
family. The literature conducted showed that low income levels, large household sizes, 
unemployment all have exacerbating effects on drought impacts on community hence results in 
increased vulnerability conditions which finally lead to drought disasters. The selected drought 
indicators were quantified in order to compute a composite vulnerability index to measure the 
extent of vulnerability in Koti-Se-Phola community council area. From the normalised scores a 
simple average of the scores was computed to come up with a single index that was found to be 
0.4874 that fell within a vulnerable category as shown in table 4.18. 
5.3 CONCLUSION 
This study aimed to determine what and who is exposed/susceptible to drought in Koti-Se-Phola 
community council in Thabana Morena, determine coping strategies to drought used in this study 
area and conditions of vulnerability to drought in order to alert policy makers and those in 
authority for possible interventions. This study area has been found to be vulnerable to drought 
impacts, though the index calculation might have been biased because a simple average method 
that assumed equal weights to indicators was used and the index value could have been better 
than the found value if the selected indicators were weighted. There is indeed a need for 
authorities to intervene in order to improve the livelihood of these community members through 
a variety of options as mentioned under recommendations below. 
80 
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 
From the findings above, it is recommended that Lesotho government decreases the old age 
pension qualification requirements to 60 years rather than the current 70 years in order to help 
many residents since majorities are elders aged above 60 years. The majority of residents in this 
community are dependent on rain-fed agriculture for livelihood, with low income levels from 
their other livelihood sources. It is therefore recommended that irrigations systems that will draw 
water from rivers such as Makhaleng and other dams be installed to improve livelihood status 
and provide employment. Since there is serious soil erosion in the fields, agriculture 
conservation could be of great help in not only making savings in labour supply (in a dominantly 
low labour force community) but in also creating employment opportunities as well as reducing 
migration rate into towns and other places for livelihood. Stringent policies and laws to be put in 
place to restrict families in making young boys shepherds and make education free up to high 
school. The government must also invest in the early warning systems for drought management 
as majority of its people are dependent on rain-fed agriculture for livelihood. 
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT 
Based on the empirical results of this study, young people from this community council have left 
probably for better greener pastures, which could be as a result of indirect drought impacts. From 
this statement, it is recommended that the Government and all other relevant stakeholders hold 
educational campaigns for the youth to encourage them to be involved in agricultural activities in 
this area. This could materialise when Government sponsors every child beyond primary 
schooling, creation of employment and through financial support for their animals and crops 
during dry periods. The government should help these community members through extension 
officers with training on food preservation and storage. Moreover, those living in severely 
eroded areas could be relocated to better areas where they access arable land. 
5.6 DIRECTION FOR FURTHER STUDIES 
From the findings of this study, one of the key aspects revealed were that, this community 
council is female dominated, majority of who are old. It is therefore recommended that further 
81 
research be conducted on the vulnerability of older females to agricultural drought. This will 
further propose strategies and policies to authorities, specifically suitable for elders to be resilient 
to drought impacts. In addition to the above, future research could also focus on psychological 
effects induced by drought. Further research with a larger sample size, more and weighted 
drought vulnerability indicators is proposed. 
5.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS 
Droughts have become a global challenge and threat to sustainable development and have had 
ripple effects ranging from; poverty, food insecurity, health, environment and socio-economic 
problems. The above mentioned problems have damaging effects on societies when such 
societies lack coping capacity leading to disasters. From this study it was clear that Koti-Se-
Phola community council vulnerability situation is bad, posing a challenge to authorities to 
device strategies in pursuit ofreducing drought disaster impacts. One of the key lessons learned 
in this study was that residents are low income earners, which in tum reduces their resilience 
against drought impacts. The government on the other hand offers little or no assistance to these 
80% rain-fed agriculture dependent community. Drought is a slow onset hazard in nature that is 
able to affect thousands of people and which many countries do not treat as priority. This is 
evident in several counties that include Lesotho which do not have drought specific policies that 
maybe a reason for poor response to drought issues. Finally, this study therefore appeals to 
Government, NGO's and other relevant stakeholders to join hands to combating vulnerability to 
drought disaster impacts, particularly in Mafeteng district with the view of increasing resilience. 
82 
REFERENCES 
Acaps. 2014. Disaster needs analysis: Lesotho Food insecurity crisis. 
http://geo.acaps.org/docs/449 Date of access: 12 June. 2014. 
ActionAid. 2011. East Africa drought.http://www.actionaid.org/what-we-do/emergencies-
conflict/current-emergencies/east-africa-drought Date of access 14 Feb. 2014. 
African Development Bank Group. 2013. Country Stategy Paper-2013-2017. 
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/upl oads/afdb/Documents/Proj ect -and-Operations/2013-20 17%20-
%20Lesotho%20-%20Country%20Strategy%20Paper. pdf Date of access. 09 Feb. 2014. 
African Economic Outlook. 2012. Lesotho 2012. http//www.africaneconomicoutlook.org Date of 
access: 12 June. 2014. 
African Technology Policy Studies (ATPS). 2013: Farmers' Response and their Adaptation 
Strategies to Climate Change in Mafeteng District, Lesotho. 
AIACC. 2004. Deifinition of hazard vulnerability, risk and 
ctisasters.www.aiaccproject.org/. .. 02/. . ./Vulnerability/Downin_v ulnmodule.doc Date of access 11 
Feb. 2014. 
Alcamo, Joseph, Acosta-Michlik, Lilibeth, Carius, Alexander, Eierdam:, Frank, Klein, Richard, 
Kromker, Dorthe, Tiinzler & Dennis. 2008. A new approach to quantifying and comparing 
vulnerability to drought. Regional Environmental Change. 8(4):137-149. 
Anjum, S., Saleem, M.F., Cheema, M.A., Bilal, M.F.,Khaliq, T. 2012. An assessment to 
vulnerability, ectent characteristics and severity of drought hazard in Pakistan. Pakistan journal 
ofs cience, 64(2): 85-96 
Anon. 2012. What is the Role and Importance oflnsurance? 
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012040629929/what-is-the-role-and-importance-of 
insurance.htmDate of access: 17 May. 2015. 
Anon. 2013. Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative 
Research.http://www. southalabama. edu/c oe/bset/j ohnson/ oh_ master/Ch 14/Ta b 14-0 I .p dfhtml 
Date of access 18 Nov. 2013. 
Birkmann. 2006. Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: Theoretical bases and 
requirements. www.file:///C:/Users/uvp/Downloads/lndicators_ and_c riteria_ for_ measuring_ vuln 
erability%20(11 ).pdfDate of access 08 April. 20 I 4. 
Birkmann. 2006. Measuring Vulnerability to natural hazards. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations 
University Press. 
BOS. Bureau of statistics. Statistical Report No JO: 2014. 2013. Biodiversity, Land Use and 
Cover. Maseru: BOS. 
83 
BOS. Bureau of statistics. Statistical Report No 12: 2009. 2010. National Statistical system of 
Lesotho. Statistical Yearbook 2010. Maseru: BOS. 
BOS. Bureau of statistics. Statistical Report No 17: 2013. 2012a. Energy, Air and Climate 
Change. Maseru: BOS. 
BOS. Bureau of statistics. Statistical ReportNo 34: 2012. 2012b. Population Aging in Lesotho. 
Maseru: BOS. 
BOS. Bureau of statistics. Statistical Report No 9: 2013. 2013. Continuous multi-purporse 
survey: 3rd quarter 2011/2012 statistics report Maseru: BOS. 
British Red Cross. 2013. Helping hungry families in Lesotho. 
http ://www.redcross.org.u k/A bout -us/N ews/2013/December/Helping-hungry-househo lds-in-
Lesotho. Date of access: 14 June. 2014. 
Businessdictionary. 2013. Vulnerability. 
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/vulnerability.html Date of access 11 Feb. 2014. 
Care. 2001. Toolkit for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Projects. 
http://careclimatechange.org/tk/integration/en/key_ concepts/adaptive_c apacity .html Date of 
access: 10 March. 2014. 
Camicer, J., Calla, M., Ninyerolac, M., Ponsd, X., Sancheze, G. & Penuelasa, J. 2011. 
Widespread crown condition decline, foodweb disruption and amplified tree mortalitywith 
increased climate change-type drought. National Academy ofS ciences, 108:1474-1478. 
Charusombat, Umarpom, & Niyogi. 2011. A Hydroclimatological Assessment of Regional 
Drought Vulnerability: A Case Study of Indiana Droughts. Dev. Earth Interactions journal, 
15(26):1-65. 
Cherry, K. 2014. Wbat is reliability. 
http:/! psychology .about.com/od/researchmethods/f/reliabilitydef.htm Date of access: 14 
Aug.2014. 
Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP). 2007). Lesotho drought flash appeals 2007. 
http:!/ rel i efweb .int/report/I esotho/conso lidated-appeals-process-cap-1 esotho-drought-flash-
appeal-2007 Date of access: 10 Aug. 2014. 
Cornell University.Department of Agriculture and Life sciences. 2014. Conservation 
Agriculture:Global Research and Resources. 
http://conservationagriculture.mannlib.comell.edu/pages/aboutca/advantages.html Date of 
access: 21 Nov. 2014. 
84 
Creswell, J.W., Ebersohn, L., Eloff, I., Ferreira, R., Ivankova,N.V., Jansen, J.D.,Neiuwenhuis, 
J., Pietersen, J., PlanoClark, V.L., & Van der Westhuizen, C. 2011. Fisrt steps in research.3rd ed. 
Pretoria; Van schalk. 
Dapzury V., Shrivastava, P. 2014. Interview as a tool for qualitative research. 
http://www.public.asu.edu/-kroel/www500/Interview"/o20Fri.pdf Date of access: 14 May. 2014. 
Deutsche Gesellschaft filr Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). 2011. Land Use Planning: 
Concept, Tools and Applications. www.giz.de Date of access: 12 July. 2014. 
Dorcas Aid International. 2013. Call for proposals: Drought risk reduction and preparedness. 
http://www.ngopulse.org/category/countries/lesotho Date of access: 09 Aug.2014. 
Dow, K. 2010. New coverage of drought impacts and vulnerability in the US Carolinas:Natural 
Hazards. Springer. 54(2):497-518. 
Dwyer, A., Zoppou, C., Nielsen, 0., Day, S., Roberts, S. 2004. Quantifying Social Vulnerability: 
A methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. Geoscience Australia Record 
2004/14. 
Elmi. 2006. Killed by drought. 
http://www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_  map249_  ver5 .pdfDate of access: 27 Feb. 
2015. 
Erasmus, W., Mpoke, L., & Yishak, Y. 2012. Mitigating the impact of drought in Moyale 
District in Northern Kenya. http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-
53/mitigating-the-impact-of-drought-in-moyale-district-northern-kenya. Date of access 1 April. 
2014. 
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2004. Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the 
Limpopo River Basin. http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5744e/y5744e0b.htm Date of access 10 
April. 2014. 
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2008a.The near East drought planning manual: 
Guidelines for drought mitigation and preparedness planning.Nebraska, USA: National Drought 
Mitigation Centre. 
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2008b. Nutrition and HIV/AIDS: Keyhole gardens in 
Lesotho .http//www .fao.org/agn/nutriti on/docs/FSNL% 20Fact %20Sheet_K eyhol e%2 Ogardens. pd 
Date of access: 26 Aug. 2014. 
F AO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2011. Drought realted food insecurity : a focus on 
Horn of Africa. Http://www.fao.org/crisis/28402-0f9dad42f33c6ad6ebdal 08ddcl 009adf.pdf 
Date of access: 8 Aug. 2014. 
85 
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2013. South African farmers help hungry people in 
Lesotho-and in so doing, help themselves. http://www.wfp.org!node/3504/3795/622680 Date of 
access: 19 July. 2014. 
F AO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2014. Drought management policies. 
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/grazing/pdrmagmt.htm Date of 
access: 18 Oct. 2014. 
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2007.Special report FAO/WFP Crop and food supply 
assessment mission to Lesotho. http://www.fao.org!docrep/OJO/ah865e/ah865e00.HTM Date of 
access: 09 Aug. 2014. 
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2011. Strengthening Capacity for Climate Change 
Adaptation in Agriculture: Experience and Lessons from Lesotho. Sales and Marketing Group -
Communication Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Viale delle 
Terme di Caracalla - 00153 Rome. 
Frankenberg, E., B. Sikoki, C. Sumantri, W. Suriastini, and Thomas, D. 2013. Education, 
vulnerability, and resilience after a natural disaster. Ecology and Society, 18(2):16-28. 
Fratkin, 2007. Drought and Development in Marsabit District, Kenya. 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/J 0.111J/j.!467-7717.l 992.tb00385.x/abstract Date of access: 
14 June.2014. 
IFRC. 2008. What is vulnerability?. http://www.ifrc.org!en/what-we-do/disaster-
management/about-disasters/what-is-a-disaster/what-is-vulnerability/ Date of access 09 March. 
2014. 
IFRC. 2009. Lesotho: sustainable food security practices. 
http://www.ifrc.org!G lobal/Case%20studi es/Disasters/cs-Lesotho-fa-cs-en. pdf Date of access: 18 
May. 2014. 
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 2009. Quantitative assessment 
of vulnerability to climate change: computation ofvulnerability Index. Date ofacess: 18 Oct. 
2014. 
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2006. Vulnerability Capacity 
Assessment Communities: Matefeng and Quthing, IFRC, Geneva, Switzerland. 
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IF AD). 2008. Enabling poor rural people to 
overcome poverty in Lesotho. 
http://www.ifad.org/operations/proj ects/regions/Pt7factsheets/lesotho.pdf Date of access: 17 Aug. 
2014. 
IRIN. 2007. Lesotho: One of the worst droughts in 30 years prompts US$!8.9 million appeal 
http://www.irinnews.orgireport/73492/lesotho-one-of-the-worst-droughts-in-30-years-prompts-
us-18-9-million-appeal Date of access 13 Feb. 2014. 
86 
Israel, G.D. 2013. Sample size. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pd006Date of access: 12 Jan. 2015. 
Jordaan, A.J., Sakulski, D. & Jordaan, A.D. 2011. Drought risk assessment for extensive farming 
in the Northern Cape Province. 
http://www.disaster.co.za/pics/PrAJJordaan_DSakulski_ADJordaanDMISA201 IDroughtRiskAs 
smntNorthernCape.pdf Date of access 11Feb.2014. 
K.iumars Z,. Lida, S,. Hossein, A., Gholamhossein, A., Phillipe, D.M., Frank, W. 2012. Drought 
vulnerability assessment: The case of wheat farmers in Western Iran. 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001762 Date of access 11 Feb. 
2014. 
Kriimker, Diirthe; Eierdanz & Frank. 2008. Who is susceptible and why? An agent-based 
approach to assessing vulnerability to drought. Reginal environmental change, 8( 4): 173-185. 
Lesotho Meteorological Services. 2010. Seasonal Forecast (October 2010-March 2011). 
http://www.wamis.org/countries/lesotho/leso0ctm20 I O.pdf Date of access: 09 Aug. 2014. 
Lesotho Meteorological Services. 2013). Seasonal outlook for october 2013 to march 2014. 
http://www.wamis.org/countries/lesotho/lesoDecl2013.pdfDate of access: 09 Aug. 2014. 
Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment Committee. 2013. Lesotho Vulnerability Assessment 
Committee results 2013 (L VAC). http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/RVAC-
LESOTH0-2013.pdf Date of access: 18 July. 2014. 
Lesotho. 1997. Disaster Management Act No.2 of 1997. 
Lesotho. Department of Planning. 2008. Compilation of crucial information for the 
district.Maseru: Department of Planning. 
Lesotho. Ministry of Energy, Meteorological and water services. 2013. Lesotho's Second 
National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 
Lesotho Meteorological Services, Maseru. 
Lesotho. Ministry of Natural Resources. 2007. Lesotho Water and Sanitation Policy. Maseru. 
Lesotho. Ministry of Natural Resources. 2011.Lesotho' s National Adaptation Programme of 
Action(NAP A). Maseru. 
Lesotho.Ministry ofEnergy, Meteorology and Water Affairs. 2013. Ministry of Agriculture and 
Food security: Sectoral issues and interventions 2013. Maseru. 
Machepha, M.M. 20 I 0. Parliamentary role and its relationship with its relevant Institutions in 
effectively addressing climate change Issues-lesotho. lnternationa/ Institute for Environment and 
Development: 15-23. 
87 
Maphathe, M. 2013. Mafeteng villagers benefit from soil conservation project.Public Eye, 12 
July. http://publiceye.co.ls/?p=301 l Date of access 15 Feb. 2014. 
Mekbib,S.B., Olaleye, A.O., Mokhothu,M.N., Masia, J.,Tlali, S.B. & Godeto, T.W. 2011. 
Assessment on the Adaptive Capacity of the Machobane Farming System to Climate Change in 
Lesotho. African Technology policy studies network, 1(60): 30-31. 
Milne, J. 1999. Questionnaires: advantages and disadvantages. 
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_questionnaires/ Date of access: 16 Aug. 2014. 
Moneo Lain, M. 2005. A Methodological Approach to Evaluate Agricultural Vulnerability to 
Drought. A Comparative Study in Morocco and Spain. Centre International de Hautes Etudes 
Agronomiques Me;diterrane;ennes, Zaragoza:20-56. 
Mugo, F. W. 2002. Sampling in Research. 
https://profiles.uonbi.ac.ke/fridah_  mugo/files/mugo02sampling.pdf. Date of access: 30 June. 
2014. 
Muttarak, R. and W. Lutz. 2014. Is education a key to reducing vulnerability to natural disasters 
and hence unavoidable climate change? Ecology and Society 19(1): 42. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06476-190142 
National Climate Data Center (NCDC). 2014. Drought: Monotoring economic,environment and 
social impacts. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/drought-monitoring-economic-environmental-
and-social-impacts Date of access: 17 Aug.2014. 
Ndlovu, B. 2011. Drought coping strategies at Mutasa District in Zimbabwe. Bloemfontein: UFS. 
(Mini-dissertation-MDisaterM). 
Ngaka, M.J. 2012.Drought preparedness, impact and response: A case of the Eastern Cape and 
Free State provinces of South Africa', Jamba: Journal ofD isaster Risk Studies 4(1), Art. #47, 10 
pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v4il.47 Date of access 12 Feb. 2014. 
Pedizzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C., & Mouton, F. 2009. Assessing global exposure and vulnerability 
towards natural: the disaster risk index. Natural hazards and earth system sciences: 1149-1159. 
Pelham, L. 2007. The politics behind the non-contributory old age social pensions in Lesotho, 
Namibia and South Africa. 
http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_  files/WP83 _Pelham. pdf Date of access 25 
Sep. 2014. 
Pereira, L.S.,Cordery, I. & Lacovides, I. 2009. Coping with water scarcity: Addressing the 
challenges. 1" .Paris: Springer. 
Phillip, D. & Rayhan, I. 2004. Vulnerability and Poverty: what are the causes and how are they 
related? Germany: University of Bonn.( Thesis-PhD). 
88 
Pine, J.C. 2008. Natural hazards analysis: Reducing the impacts of disasters. United States: 
Taylor Francis Group. 
Reed, S.B .1997. Introduction to hazards. 3rd ed. New York: Interworks. 
Reynaldo, J. & Santos, A. 1999. Cronbach's Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of 
Scales. http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.php Date of access: 27 Jan. 2015. 
Ronald, M.W. 2010. Introductory business statistics. 7th Ed. Pennsylvania State, USA: Cengage 
learning. 
Rossi, L., Mangasaryan, N., Branca, F. & Sozial. 2005. Nutritional status and poverty assessment 
of vulnerable population groups in Armenia. Vogt-Schild Verlag. 50 (3):166-76. 
Simic', J.,Petrovic', M. & Bajkin, J. 2010. Vulnerability Assessment to Drought for the Province 
ofVojvodina. United Nation University. Serbia:UNU, Vojvodina (Study Guide PhD block 
course). 
Sivakumar, M.V.K,. & Wilhite, D.A. 2002. Drought preparedness and drought management. 
http://irandanesh.febpco.com/FileEssay/2DOC.pdfDate of access: 9 July. 2014. 
Spasov,P.R.,Sinha, K.C., Mersha, E.,Gringof,L.G.,Gathara, S.T. 2006. Impacts of desertification 
and drought and other extreme metereological events. 
http://www.wamis.org/agrn/pubs/CAGMRep/CAGMl 0 l .pdfDate of access: 09 Aug. 2014. 
Swain, M. & Swain, S. 2011. Vulnerability to Agricultural Drought in Western Orissa: A Case 
Study ofRepresentative Blocks. Agricultural Economics Research Review: 47-56. 
Uganda. Department of disaster management. 2011. The 2010-2011 Integrated Rainfall 
Variability Impacts, Needs Assessment and Drought Risk Management Strategy. Kampala. 
UN. 2012. Lesotho Food Insecurity Situation Report# 1 - 20 July 2012. 
http://reliefweb.int/s ites/rel i efweb.int/fil es/resources/Lesotho-F ood%20Insecurity 
SitRep%281%29-final-20120720.pdfDate of access: 12 June. 2014. 
UN/ISDR. 2007. Drought risk reduction framework and practices: contributing to the 
implementation ofHyogo Framework for action.Swizerland,Geneva: United nation Secretariat of 
International Strategy for Disaster reduction (UN/ISDR). 
UNDP. 2010. Report on the Status of Drought Preparedness & Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. 
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnacn845.pdfDate of access: 19 July. 2014. 
UNDP. 2014. Social Protection in Africa: A Review of Potential Contribution and Impact on 
Poverty Reduction. http://www.za.undp.org/content/dam/south_  africa/docs/mdgs Date of access: 
14 June. 2014. 
89 
UNDP. 2010. Report: MDG 7-Caring for the Earth. UNDP, Lesotho. 
UNDPCC. 2009. Dsaster risk management in Namibia 
www.undpcc.org/. .. /Namibia/Drought%20and%20Flood%20managemen ... Date of access: 12 
July. 2014. 
UNECA. 2008. Africa Review Report on Drought and Desertification. 
http://www. uneca. org/s ites/d efuult/fil es/pu bli cations/d roughtanddesertification2008. pdf Date of 
access 11 Feb. 2014. 
UNFCCC. 2007. Lesotho National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAP A) on Climate 
Change. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/8527_ lsoOl.pdfDate of access: 13 July. 2014. 
UNICEF. 2013. Lesotho situation report. 
http://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/UNICEF_ Lesotho_M idY ear_S itRep_ JanJul2013 .pdf Date 
of access: 17 May. 2014. 
UNISDR. 2002. Living with risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Kobe,Japan: 
Inter Agency Secretariat. 
UNISDR. 2004. What does vulnerability mean? http://www.unisdr.org/2004/campaign/booklet-
eng/Pagina8ing.pdfDate of access 10 Feb. 2014. 
UNISDR. 2009a. Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices: Contributing to the 
Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. United Nations secretariat of the 
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, 213 pp. 
UNISDR. 2009b. Terminology. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology Date of access 09 
March. 2014. 
University of Strachclyde. 2014. Advantages and disadvantages of observation. 
http://www.strath.ac.uk/aer/materials/3datacollection/unit5/advantagesanddisadvantagesofobserv 
ation/ Date of access 14 Feb. 2014. 
Van Riet. 2012. Recurrent drought in the Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality of 
the North West Province in South Africa: An Environmental justice perspective.Jamba Journal 
of Disaster Risk Studies, 4(5):5-9. 
Vatsa, Krishna, S. 2006. Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra: Its Impact on Drought, 
Poverty and Vulnerability. Indian Journal ofL abour Economics. 49(3): 429-453. 
Venton P. 2012.Drought risk management: Practitioner's perspective from Africa and Asia. New 
York, USA: Nairobi Publishing Services. 
90 
Wang, ZhiQiang, He Fei, Fang W., & Liao Y. 2013. Assessment of physical vulnerability to 
agricultural drought in China. Amsterdam:Springer.67(2):645-657. 
Weiers, R.M. 2010. Introduction to business statistics. 7th Ed. Canada, USA: Cengage learning. 
Weimer, A. 2008. Homestead Gardening: A manual Program For Managers, Implementers and 
Practitioners. Catholic Relief Services. USA. 
WFP. 2012. Drought But Not Out In Lesotho. http://www.wfp.org/stories/drought-not-out-
lesotho Date ofacess 12 Feb. 2014. 
WFP. 2013. Fighting Hunger Worldwide. http://www.wfp.org/countries/lesotho/overview. Date 
of access. 09 Feb. 2013. 
WFP, DMA & L VAC. 2008. Vulnerability and Food Insecurity in Urban Areas ofLesotho: An 
assessment of the impact of high prices on vulnerable households in ten major cities. Maseru: 
Lesotho. 
WHO. 2014. DOUGHT-technical hazard sheet-natural disaster profiles. 
http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/ems/drought/en/ Date of access 01April.2014. 
Work Bank. 2014. Lesotho Overview. http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/lesotho/overview 
Date of access: 14 June. 2014. 
World Vision Lesotho. 2007. Nutrition education in response to drought. 
https://wvioaptus. wvi.org/africa/africaweb.nsf/052253 7193 3be85642256f87004ae404/6 l afee300 
fca083342257353006b5b79?0penDocument Date of access: 19 July. 2014. 
Ye, T., Shi, P., Wang, J., Liu, L., Fan, Y. & Hu, J. 2012. China Drought Disaster Risk 
Mangement : Perspectives of severe droughts 2009-2010. International Journal ofd isaster risk 
science. 3(2): 83-97. 
Young, V.P. 2014. Research methodology: An introduction. Scientific social surveys and 
research: 23-30. 
Zarafshani, Kiumars, Sharafi, Lida Azadi, Hossein, Hosseininia, Gholamhossein, De Maeyer, 
Philippe; Witlox & Frank. 2012. Drought Vunerability Asssessment: The case ofwheat farmer in 
Western Iran. Global & Planetary Change. 98:122-130. 
Zarafshani, K. & Sharafi, L. 2011. Economic and social vulnerability assessment among farmers 
towards drought (case of study: wheat farmers Kermanshah, Sahne, and Ravansar townships) in 
Kermanshah province. Rural Research. 1(4): 129-154 
91 
APPENDIX A: A permission letter to conduct the study 
4217 Station View 
Thaba Nchu, 9780 
Free State 
South Africa 
10/09/2014 
Regional chiefMakotoko Bofihla 
Ha Bofihla Thabana Morena 
Re: Permission to conduct a research study in your commnnity council. 
My name is Bernard Moeketsi Hlalele. I am a Masters student in disaster management at 
Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of 
Free State and am conducting a research on DROUGHT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 
AT KOTI-SE-PHOLA COMMUNITY COUNCIL, THABANA-MORENA LESOTHO in order 
to propose nlitigation strategies and how coping capacities of the community to drought can be 
improved. This research is for academic purposes only however, the findings could be used to 
improve the current coping capacities of the community. 
I therefore would like to be permitted to conduct this study in your area. 
Kindly 
BM Hlalele (+27736 985 797) 
BM Hlalele 
92 
APPENDIX B: Ethical clearance letter 
93 
APPENDIX C: A Letter from the editor 
Marie Engelbrecht 
BANKING DETAILS: 
Tel: 27 51 - 4463133 (H) M J ENGELBRECHT 
Freefax: 0866373773 (H) 
Mobile: 0832981685 Bank: ABSA BANK, 
E-pos/Email: 
babengel@telkomsa.net LANGENHOVENPARK, BFN. 
Type of Ace: Current/Cheque 
Ace Nr: 1011451779 
P 0 Box/Posbus 38327 Branch Code: 632005 
LANGENHOVENPARK SWIFT CODE: ZAJJ 
9330 
May 18, 2015 
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 
I, Marie Engelbrecht of Bloemfontein, hereby confirm that I have done the editing on the 
dissertation VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL DROUGHT 
HAZARD: A CASE OF KOTl-SE-PHOLA COMMUNITY COUNCIL, THABANA 
MORENA, MAFETENG DISTRICT IN LESOTHO by Bernard Moeketsi Hlalele (student 
nr: 2010094395) ssu bmitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Masters degree in 
Disaster Management at the UFS recently and that he has paid me in full for the work. 
I trust you will find this in order. 
Signed: M J ENGELBRECHT 
94 
APPENDIX D: Questionnaire 
UNIVERSFITIEYE O SFT ATHTEE  @J U FS 
llNIVERSITEIT VAN DIE 
YIYSTAAT UV cf~iMTEC 
YUNIYESITHI YA 
FIEISTATA 
Questionnaire 
My name is Bernard Moeketsi Hlalele. I am a Masters student in disaster management at Disaster 
Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of Free State 
and am conducting a research on DROUGHT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AT KOTl-SE-
PHOLA COMMUNITY COUNCIL, THABANA-MORENA LESOTHO in order to propose 
mitigation strategies and how coping capacities of the community to drought can be improved. 
This research is for academic purposes only however, the findings could be used to improve the 
current coping capacities of the community. Information supplied here will be treated confidential 
and this questionnaire may take around 15 minutes. 
INSTRUCTIONS 
Please answer all questions and where indicated mark with an "X" or and write your answer in 
the spaces provided. 
Respondent number 
Date 
95 
SECTION A 
DEMOGRAPHICS 
I.Gender 
I I 
2. Age of the household head 
l)Below18 
2) 18 - 24 
3) 25 - 39 
4) 40-49 
5)50-59 
6) 60+ 
3 . Marital status 
Single 
Married 
Widowed 
Divorced 
Separated 
4.I ,H_ome, l anguage 
I 
English 
I I 
96 
-- - ----------
I Other (specify) 
SECTIONS 
EXPOSURE/EXPOSED ELEMENTS 
5. Livestock: Do you own any type oflivestock? 
Yes 
No 
6. If your answer is Yes from (6) above, what is the main type oflivestock do you own? 
Cows 
Sheep 
Goats 
Donkeys 
Horses 
OTHER-( Specify) 
Of the livestock you have, how many do you have for each type? 
7.a. Cows 
1) 0 
2) 1-3 
3) 4-6 
4) 7-9 
5) 10-12 
6) 2:13 
97 
b. Sheep 
1) 0 
2) 1-3 
3) 4-6 
4) 7-9 
5) 10-12 
6) 2:13 
c. Goats 
1) 0 
2) 1-3 
3) 4-6 
4) 7-9 
5)10-12 
6) 2:13 
d.Donkeys 
1) 0 
2) 1-3 
3) 4-6 
4) 7-9 
5) 10-12 
6) 2:13 
e. Horses 
98 
1) 0 
2) 1-3 
3) 4-6 
4) 7-9 
5) 10-12 
6) 2'.13 
f. Other-Specify ............................. 
1) 0 
2) 1-3 
3) 4-6 
4) 7-9 
5) 10-12 
6) 2'.13 
8. Agriculture 
Does your household own any field for agricultural purposes? 
1:~ 
9. Water supplies: What is your main source of water? 
Borehole 
Tap 
Other-(Specify) 
99 
SUSCEPTIBILITY 
Social factors 
I 0. What is the size of your household? 
1-3 
4-6 
7 and above 
11. Highest level of education 
No schooling 
Creche/Preschool 
Primary school 
Secondary school 
Tertiary education 
Other-specify( ........................ ) 
12. Have you or anyone in this household suffered from any of these diseases? 
Cholera 
Diarrhoea 
Other (specify) 
None 
13. Is there any member of this family who has left in search of employment to lesson fami ly 
pressure? 
Yes 
100 
No 
14. Have you ever experienced any conflicts over water in this community? 
15. Has there been any loss of human life from food shortage or drought related conditions in 
this family? 
I Yes 
Economic factors 
16. Kindly state your employment status. 
Informal employment 
Full time formal employment 
Part time formal employment 
Contract employment 
Unemployed 
Other (specify) 
17. Total income level for household (combined income from all members) per month. 
None 
RIOO-RSOO 
R501-Rl000 
RJ001-R3000 
101 
I R300!-R5000 
I OverR5000 
18. What is your opinion on the statement that "There has been an increase in animal feed 
Prices in the past 2 years". 
Strongly disagree 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
Strongly agree 
19. Income has been lost due drought in the past 2 years. 
Strongly disagree 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
Strongly agree 
20. There has been a decline in food production and increase in food prices in the past 2 years. 
Strongly disagree 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
Strongly agree 
102 
--------------------------- ------ -
Environmental factors 
21. Animals have died due to effects of drought on rangelands. 
Strongly disagree 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
Strongly agree 
22. There is a serious erosion of soils in our community 
Strongly disagree 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
Strongly agree 
23. Plants used for traditional medicine have died due to drought. 
Strongly disagree 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
Strongly agree 
24. We often draw contaminated (dark-coloured) water from our sources. 
I Strongly disagree 
103 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
Strongly agree 
COPING CAPACITY 
Social coping factors 
25. What is the overall public awareness by government of drought to this commu nity? 
Good 
Moderate 
Poor 
26. Is there any warning or prediction by the government or NGOs that drought will occur? 
1:~ I 
27. Are there any conservation methods provided by the government to manage drought in this 
community? 
1:: 
i 
28. Does government respond in any way during droughts? 
I::· I 
I 
104 
29. lfYes, How well do they respond during droughts 
Good 
Moderately 
poorly 
Economic coping/actors 
30. My household has other sources of livelihood other than depending on rain-fed agricul ture. 
I::· 
I 
31. Is your livestock insured against negative impacts of drought? 
Yes 
No 
Environmental capacity factors 
32. Do you plant drought resistant crops in times of dry seasons? 
Yes 
No 
33. There is good rangeland management for animal grazing 
Strongly disagree 
Disagree 
Neutral 
Agree 
105 
I Strongly agree 
34. What are your coping mechanisms during dry periods? 
35. What interventions/projects should the government engage in, to reduce the adverse effects 
of drought? 
106