Participatory rural approach
(South Africa)
Description
Participatory Rural Approach including a partly holistic approach; between social and environmental sciences.
Aims / objectives: Developing sustainable management of land and other natural resources in rural communities. Assess the historical process, causes, nature and extent of desertification and its human impact. An empirical study of the attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of the local population with regard to land use. Develop policy guidelines for integrated rural development focussing on spatial planning, settlement models, land use control measures, ecological restoration and sustainable farming practices. Pilot interviews with the extension officers were followed by interviews with members of the communities themselves. Plant surveys were conducted at the study areas.
Stages of implementation: There were 5 stages of implementation included in the pilot interviews, the main interviews and the plant surveys. Task 1: Preliminary negotiations with officials, authorities and local communities, including a literature and methodological review. Task 2: Data collection includes satellite data and aerial photographs, ground truth (site visits, meetings, surveys, interviews and questionnaires - a PRA approach. Task 3: Analysis and interpretation include archival research, image processing ad interpretation and analysis of surveys and questionnaires. Task 4: Validation and cross referencing by accuracy testing of remotely sensed results, historical cross referencing, comparison to Botswana results, comparison of results (communal land vs. commercial land). Task 5: Reporting.
Location
Location: North West Province, South Africa
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2000
Year of termination: 2003
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Map
SWC area
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Suitable management, integrated community-base, rural development, land resources, natural resources.)
Developing sustainable management of land and other natural resources in rural communities. Specific objectives: Assess the historical process, courses, nature and extent of desertification and its human impact. Did an empirical study of the attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of the local population with regard to land use. Finally, we want to develop policy guidelines for integrated rural development focussing on spatial planning, settlement models, land use control measures, ecological restoration and sustainable farming practices.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Desertification and its human impact, with the specific incorporation of indigenous or traditional knowledge. Inadequate policy towards integrated rural development.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Funding not sufficient
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Involved with greater Department of Agriculture and subsequent funding
-
Institutional setting: Part of previous disadvantaged homeland
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Policy recommendations
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly hindered the approach implementation No one takes responsibility for maintaining the applied technology.
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: No contracts with large equipment companies
Treatment through the SLM Approach: With the Department of Agriculture, theses contract have been established
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 |
Supingstad members. Specific ethnic groups: Tswana speaking (Ba-Suping) |
|
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers |
|
|
teachers/ school children/ students |
University |
|
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
|
|
international organization |
|
|
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
planning
interviews/questionnaires, public meetings; Interviews with most viable group. Public meetings: what should we look at in the areas.
implementation
casual labour, responsibility for minor steps; Erosion control.
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
-
school children/students
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
Gabion construction
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Participatory rural approach; Key elements: Involvement in gabion construction; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent. Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: erosion control through gabion construction
Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Extension officers available for information on erosion and encroachment control.
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
There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Initially only the extension officers were interviewed in groups; the communities as well, but in the end individual interviews proofed more effective. Woody component analysis: Where all members worked on one quadrate at the start, we changed the strategy to three teams of two people each, each team having their own specific responsibilities.
Research
Research treated the following topics
-
sociology
-
economics / marketing
-
ecology
-
technology
Sociology: interviews/trust building. Ecology: explain what we are doing. Technology: gabion construction
Research was carried out both on station and 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: international non-government (funding): 80.0%; local community / land user(s) (labour, material): 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?
They did not adapt, but their awareness were raised.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
The people worked with the specialist in establishing the technology.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
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
-
Awareness of erosion and bush encroachment as well as possible solution to it (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: School available; provide with poster, books, etc. Farmer's meetings.)
-
A community member can make a difference.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Trust of people obtained (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Deliver on the promises)
-
The community was motivated to implement their own water supply
-
Awareness of grazing strategy on the condition of the grazing field (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Motivate extension officer to really provide appropriate solutions)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
-
The projects do not address the problems the land users have
Refer identified problems to the relevant experts
-
Implementation of project takes a long time
Explain to the involved person the planned time schedule
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
Number of available SWC specialist insufficient for amount of work
Train the amount of specialist/give the necessary background.
-
Use of translators
Make it clear to exact translations are given
-
Linguistic abilities not sufficient
Use translators
References
Date of documentation: Jan. 14, 2009
Last update: June 19, 2017
Resource persons
-
Saroné de Wet - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- School of Environmental Science and Development, North West University (NWU) - South Africa
Project