Map

Land user participation with research (South Africa)

Description

Land user participation with researchers to improve existing and develop new technologies

Aims / objectives: Land users implemented the technology but the success was never evaluated. Contacted researcher who quantitatively assessed the technology. The pros and cons of the technology were discussed with the land user and other farmers in the area. All gave comments and shared experiences of how these technologies can be improved. Adjustments were made and on an experimental and demonstrative way, the adjustments were implemented and evaluated.

Location

Location: North West Province, South Africa

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 25.87, -25.53

Initiation date: 1989

Year of termination: 2001

Type of Approach
Map

Approach aims and enabling environment

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

Radical veld improvement. Better grazing land. Understand degradation - causes and how to control it. Convey knowledge about restoration technologies to as many land users as possible

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Degrade & denuded rangeland Low production of grazing land
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 helped a little the approach implementation: hinder: low Privately owned commercial farms
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Low cost/benefit ratio in the short term Treatment through the SLM Approach: Proper advice to land user about advantages in the long term
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: No knowledge Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awareness & technical support by agriculturists & scientists

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 Farmers association: Mainly white. Only men own the land. Commercially owned & managed land
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
national government (planners, decision-makers) Department Agriculture & Resource conservation
international organization
Lead agency
Land uses together with specialists
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
Mainly:public meetings; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; Land users approached researcher/scientist for help
planning
x
Mainly: public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars; What & how to implement technology
implementation
x
responsibility for major steps; Did apply the technology on their own land
monitoring/ evaluation
x
measurements/observations; By scientist & students primarily but also with land users who helped
Research
x
on-farm; On the farmers/land users owned land
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
  • extensionists/trainers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Land users approached researcher/scientist for help on degradation; natural resources, utilisation & conservation, restoration, reclamation technologies

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Learning by doing & seeing is believing; Key elements: Demonstration, On site/farm, Participation; 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, technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Demonstration - participation
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Knowledge gained & understood
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements; There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: First - demonstration & awareness Second - implementation & training
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Research for better or adjustment of existing reclamation technologies - based in ecology

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: local community / land user(s) (-): 40.0%; government (national): 40.0%; other (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
partly financed
fully financed
agricultural: seeds

x

Labour by land users was

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?

Oversowing, cultivation, erosion & bush encroachment control

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Results - to many other districts & land users by workshops, presentations at conferences, collaborations etc.

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)?

Depending that guidelines about e.g. soil type, oversowing, bush encroachment eradication, cultivation technology etc. is applied correctly

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Learning by doing
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • On farm (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Encouragement by researchers & technicians/extension)
  • Participation by land owners (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Follow-up meetings & evaluation)
  • Farmer to farmer. Farmer to scientist. Scientist to farmer. Scientist to extension - farmer (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Communication; on going support and show interest, continued evaluation & feed back)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Too little communication between researchers, farmers & extension Better participation & interest by all
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Not as many farmers involved as would have liked
  • Farmers are scared to leave their farms & families alone to go to meetings & workshops, especially at night

References

Compiler
  • Klaus Kellner
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Jan. 14, 2009
Last update: June 19, 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