Communal stakeholders
(South Africa)
Description
Government funded project aimed at rangeland management to enhance natural recourse management. The community being the key stake holders.
Aims / objectives: The community was approached to show where the benchmarks should be erected. The whole community was informed about the project and how they would benefit from it. Benchmarks were erected by the community, thus creating jobs. Initial surveys were conducted so that later comparison in production and species composition could be made after further surveys. The rotational approach was introduced in a communal system.
Location
Location: North West Province, South Africa
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 1998
Year of termination: n.a.
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Map
Organogram
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Cattle improvement. Veld management strategies have been learned. Survey skills learned.)
On-site technology application. Seeing is believing. Community participation. Empowerment of the community to better their own situation. Job creation, community-based natural resource management. Promoting partnerships between public, community and private sectors.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Degraded rangelands, thus insufficient grazing for the cattle.
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 greatly helped the approach implementation: The chiefs favoured the approach.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Availability of government funds.
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
-
Institutional setting: Communication between parties.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: More structured and organised meetings.
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Lack of community participation during surveys.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Make a big issue about environmental awareness.
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 |
Participation |
Specific ethnic groups: Twana people but only men. The community was asked where the benchmarks should be situated. |
| national government (planners, decision-makers) |
|
Funding |
| international organization |
|
Basic framework |
Lead agency
The approach - international specialists. The South African approach and application - national specialists. Specification of sites - land users.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
workshops/seminars, public meetings; Training for surveys was provided.
planning
orkshops/seminars; Training
implementation
responsibility for minor steps; Should apply the rotation.
monitoring/ evaluation
measurements/observations; Help with monitoring.
Research
on-farm; Benchmarks was erected.
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
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
-
land users
-
field staff/ advisers
-
SWC specialists, extensionists/trainers
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
Ecological principles, NRM principals.
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Demonstration; Key elements: Benchmark sites, Learning by doing; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: non-governmental agency. Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users, technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Public demonstrations
Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Monitoring does not persist if some one is not doing it with them.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
-
no
-
yes, a little
-
yes, moderately
-
yes, greatly
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
-
financial
-
capacity building/ training
-
equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements
management of Approach 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
Vegetation, NRM, production monitoring, soil composition, on-site application.
Research was carried out on-farm
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: government (national - Department of Agriculture): 80.0%; national non-government (University): 20.0%
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
Financial/ material support provided to land users
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?
Rotational grazing system was adopted.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
Other regions in North West Province are following the example.
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)?
Extension officers learned from the specialists.
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
-
Better grazing. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Keep to the rules of rotational grazing. Keep cattle out of resting velds.)
-
Specialists help. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The specialists made surveys easy. Assist in erecting.)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
The committed ADC manager. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Keep him motivated through communication.)
-
LandCare. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: he buzz words were introduced and community was made aware of the environment.)
-
Interaction between different cultures. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Specialists and communities were introduced to one another.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
-
Specialists are very remote.
Not always reachable.
-
Reduction of cattle numbers.
Resistant to reducing wealth.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
Linguistic abilities not sufficient.
Learn to speak Tswana.
-
Times delays.
The sites are a bit remote and the people only drive during working hours.
-
NRM application should be sustainable.
Not only based on incentives, but the benefits should be realised.
References
Date of documentation: Jan. 14, 2009
Last update: June 18, 2017
Resource persons
-
Anja Jansen van Vuuren (plbjvv@puknet.puk.ac.za) - SLM specialist
-
Klaus Kellner (klaus.kellner@nwu.ac.za) - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - South Africa
Project
