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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Cape (Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Cape) - 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:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Shared interest by Mier Management Council and Provincial Department of Agriculture

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Initially a combined effort by Department of Agriculture and Mier Management Council to combat degradation of game camps. Directed towards a male dominated farming community, also involving a few females (ages ranging from middle to old age). An objective was to educate towards awareness to degradation and techniques involving the rehabilitation of these areas and the prevention of getting to this state. Also including methods which prevent returning to this state. Initially using farmer???s days - education. Research came later, focussing on understanding the ecology of the area and then to concentrate on rehabilitation techniques. This was later introduced in farmer???s days, school education and education of management council. Stages of implementation: 1) Realisation by management council that veld was degraded. 2) Department of Agriculture requested to assist ??¡§ in the form of trial and error (i.e. resting camps, poisoning of shrubs). 3) Resting of camps showed no improvement, so Department requested assistance from Agricultural Research Council (Range and Forage Institute) to gain understanding of ecology of area. 4) Once understanding gained and techniques developed, education in the form of farmer???s days, school days and management council. Role of participants: 1) Nature Conservation: Initially involved in game number management. 2) Department of Agriculture: Advisory capacity management of techniques. 3) ARC - Research and advisory. 4) Management council ??¡§ labour control. 5) Community - involved through council in decision-making ??¡§ also jobs provided through labour.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Income generation for tax subsidy in the community, job creation for males in the community, land care, development of eco-tourism, collaboration with local leadership)

Education ??¡§ in techniques to combat desertification, also in prevention of degradation Financial empowerment Management techniques

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Finance, education (very little education with regards to labours)

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	passive	workshops/seminars, public meetings; Discussions to indicate where researchers see the project going and how the land users would like to see it go.
planning	interactive	workshops/seminars, public meetings; Field workshops & meetings-discuss how and where the project should be carried out.
implementation	external support	responsibility for major steps; Labour used for bushpacking responsibility for LandCare committee for salaries and labour.
monitoring/ evaluation	none	public meetings,measurements/observations, reporting, workshop/seminars; Monitoring of project is on going by researchers with help of few labours. Congresses/workshops are used to describe process & public meetings allow community to be informed.
Research	none	on-station; On-farm & on-station is ongoing. Lab work for information on germination processes.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

land user driven (bottom-up). Knowledge of the area

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. directive (top-down). Management due to low education

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• school children/students, planners, politicians/decision makers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Rehabilitation ecological processes, cultivation, preventative agriculture

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Not formal approach; Key elements: Education, Labour, Development; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users, school children/students; Activities: Bushpacking techniques, education; Education

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The project is still in first phase - next phase will include female portion of community.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• equipment

• advise

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored hrough observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Packing designs of Rhigozum plants on bare dunes. The less expensive, most efficient design was chosen.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Rehabilitation techniques must fall within the capabilities and finance of the community.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 80.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 20.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• other

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• paid in cash

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Own input into R &D

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Community participation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Greater responsibility to community)
Healthy integration of Scientists & Community action (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Good communication (Scientists & Community))

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
I do not know

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Slow recovery of natural resources	I don't think there is a way to increase reaction time in this area

7.1 Methods/ sources of information