Map

Spontaneous adoption (South Africa)

Description

The farmer made a request to the extension office to advise him on how to rehabilitate a barren area on his farm.

Aims / objectives: A farmer contacted the extension office, which investigated and then recommended establishing and planting of Atriplex Nummalaria as a fodder crop and ground cover on the barren area. The farmer was given the necessary information on how to proceed. There is no waiting list. This place was the first one in South Africa where this method was used in the field. The research and adaptations were done at Grootfontein.

Location

Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 20.248, -31.887

Initiation date: n.a.

Year of termination: 1998

Type of Approach
Map

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused on SLM only

To equip the farmer with the necessary information and data to implement the technology. Information: technician drawing the roads, how much plants and how often they must be irrigated.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of expert knowledge by farmer and inexperience labour; cost of establishing crop
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: hinder: low
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Project couldn't be finished in a short period (in 1 year no returns) Treatment through the SLM Approach: Project was stretch over a period of 3 years
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Farmer needed advice Treatment through the SLM Approach: Extension office provided expertise

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Land owner
national government (planners, decision-makers) Extension officer Working land users were mainly men. Men are the landowners hence only them got involved.
international organization
Lead agency
Farmer request advise from extension officer, got all the necessary, decision how to go on was taken together.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
planning
x
implementation
x
monitoring/ evaluation
x
Research
x
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Key elements: give advise, give knowledge; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system 2) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Advisory

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
Monitoring and evaluation
economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Research was done by Grootfontein Agricultural Institute on Atriplex nummelaria as a supplementary feed.

Research was carried out on station

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: other (Land owner): 100.0% The service (extension officer) is free of charge, also the Information from Grootfontein
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

With knowledge he could better manage

x
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future. Easier just to work with one owner

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

80-90% of the farmers usually come to the extension officer, farmer phone for information and invites the extension officer for a visit and share then information about the area.

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Participation in decision making
  • Gain knowledge
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Landowner is part of decision making
  • Land users participation in increasing productivity of unproductive land
  • Make landowner aware of conservation and a good management system because of the costs involve in rehabilitation
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Lack of knowledge
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Expert knowledge is needed
  • The land user must be aware of a problem and then approach the specialist

References

Compiler
  • Philippe Zahner
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Jan. 15, 2009
Last update: Junie 13, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International