Technologies

Rangeland Rehabilitation [South Africa]

Grazing land (vegetative) combined with management education

technologies_1379 - South Africa

Completeness: 65%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Van Rooyen Jaco

Department of Agriculture, North West Province

South Africa

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Dept of Agriculture North West Province (Dept of Agriculture North West Province) - South Africa

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Rangeland rehabilitation where we use perennial grasses to rehabilitate the footslopes in a semi-arid region on a clay loam soil

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Different techniques (mechanical: e.g. ripper, dyker plough) as well as biological (stone dams, loose dams) are used to rehabilitate a totally degraded area. Different combinations are also used: e.g., ripper with seed and ripper without seed, to see if there is a natural seed bank left. The research is being done in a semi-arid area and on a footslope (medium depth and clay loam soil). The purpose is to get palatable vegetation back in the area for animal consumption. In the process, erosion is stopped and water run-off decreased. At the same time, the community is also trained and educated regarding management, grazing capacity, etc.

Researchers and technicians of the Provincial Department of Agriculture planted the experiment. The community is always present when any treatment is applied. The area is fenced off and maintained by the Department. The community will take full responsibility of the trial at a later stage. They are very eager to take over and their participation is very good.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

South Africa

Region/ State/ Province:

RSA32

Further specification of location:

Leharatshe

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)
Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.4 km2.

At Driefontein we do only rangeland rehabilitation. At Middelrand we do a combination of bush control and rangeland rehabilitation. The Driefontein area is representative for more or less the whole province. Small village 1.5 - 2km away from Driefontein. Former homeland (Bophuthatswana)

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • during experiments/ research
Comments (type of project, etc.):

From the researchers of the Department of Agriculture

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
Animal type:
  • goats
  • mules and asses
  • cattle
Products and services:
  • transport/ draught
Comments:

Main animal species and products: Cattle & goats, donkey

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Too many animals for the specific area. No camps - so no form of rotation possible; no management plans - animals can walk and graze where they want to.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Need more land so that the animals have a larger area to move in.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Cattle & goats, donkey (transport)

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Longest growing period in days: 210; Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Apr

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
Comments:

Type of vegetative measures: scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
Comments:

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing, education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of knowledge)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Ripper and dyker ploughing with or without seed

Location: Driefontein. North West Province

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, increase of infiltration

Secondary technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of ground cover

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 6kg seed

Grass species: Panicum maxium, Chloris gayana, Digitaria eriatha, Chenchrus ciliaris

Gradient along the rows / strips: 0.00%

Author:

Franci Jordaan

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Rand

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

6.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

4.00

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Fencing of area 1week (end of growing season)
2. Application of different techniques (treatments) 2 weeks (beginning of growing season)
3. Planting of grass 2 days (beginning of growing season)

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Keep fence in tact /Regularly

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labours didn't want any money - they feel that they will reap the benefit in the end.
The implements must come from Potchefstroom which is 300km from the area.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is lo because organic material is gone due to overgrazing & water erosion

Topsoil organic matter: No organic matter

Soil drainage / infiltration is poor and there is a very high water runoff

Soil water storage capacity is very low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

100% of the land users are poor and own 100% of the land.
Market orientation of production system: Sunflowers and maize for self subsistence

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Comments:

NA

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • communal/ village
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

From no grass to fodder for the animals

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Income and costs

workload

increased
decreased
Other socio-economic impacts

input constraints

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

90

Quantity after SLM:

50

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

4

Quantity after SLM:

1

Climate and disaster risk reduction

wind velocity

increased
decreased
Other ecological impacts

soil fertility

decreased
improved

biodiversity

diminished
enhanced

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

very positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%
Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Quickly done
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Quickest way to get more palatable grass, a more economical way
Very effective
Biological methods
Manpower to do it
Community was not paid, more sustainable

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Expensive
It is difficult to get the seed
Seed itself is expensive
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Community do not have implements Maybe landcare
Lack of knowledge (a lot is needed) Come and see, learnt a lot by implementing
On a bigger scale - fence off more or less impossible - at this stage (can not afford) Maybe branch packing (enough black thorn bush encroachment)
Do not understand the system

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules