Approaches

Working for Water [South Africa]

approaches_2338 - South Africa

Completeness: 83%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Barac Anuschka

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Wilhelmsplatz 1, 37073 Göttingen

Germany

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

de Wet Sarone

Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education

South Africa

SLM specialist:

Fulls Erich

Department of Agriculture (Gauteng)

South Africa

SLM specialist:

Lepin Edward

South Africa

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Georg August Universität Göttingen (Georg August Universität Göttingen) - Germany
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Develo (Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Develo) - South Africa
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - 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

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Reshaping of gully erosion through integration of silt fences, erosion blankets and brush packing
technologies

Reshaping of gully erosion through integration of silt ... [South Africa]

The rehabilitation of active gully erosion by re-sloping the banks of the gully in an effort to manage the energy of the water entering the system. Bare soil is protected from erosion by covering it with erosion blankets, brush packing and the establishment of silt fences.

  • Compiler: Dirk Pretorius

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Government funded restoration/rehabilitation initiative as part of Working for Water project. Aim was to eradicate alien invasive.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The aim was to eradicate alien invasive species and then to revegetate the area in order to recover the natural grazing for livestock. Community participation plays a very important role, making them aware of the importance of restoring degraded rangelands. The approach for applying SWC technologies included making use of community members (at a daily wage) to carry out the labour intensive technologies and thus also playing a part in increasing community awareness.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

South Africa

Region/ State/ Province:

Gauteng

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1996

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2000

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 (Job creation and capacity building of SWC technicians. Improvement of grazing and vegetation cover, in order to conserve soil and water.)

On-site or on-farm technology application, thus making community aware of positive effect of restoration technology. To see to it that job creation occurs in surrounding communities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The evaluation of a restoration trail after the control of alien woody invasive vegetation in the Gauteng Province and to restore degraded rangeland to nearest original state before degradation took place (= improve grazing).

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

No funds available for restoration.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Apply more cost effective approaches or apply for funds.

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation: Land users did not liked what happened, do not think the approach will work. Some appreciation for what is being done.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Equipment used is too labour intensive and take a lot of time.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: If enough funds were available, mechanical equipment could be used (faster and more effective).

other
  • hindering

Involvement of community.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Negotiation and awareness programmes.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Working land users were work equally divided between men and women (Volunteers from communities for

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

DAF and Provincial Department of Agriculture (initiative an

  • international organization

Funding

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 public meetings
planning passive
implementation external support Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: casual labour
monitoring/ evaluation passive
Research passive on-farm

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Actors in approach

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

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • SLM specialists alone
Explain:

directive (top-down). Identify by DARF.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). directive (top-down).

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • SWC specialists, extensionists/trainers
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • demonstration areas
Subjects covered:

Ecological principles, restoration technologies.

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: Demonstration; Key elements: Rural community appraisal, participatory rural approach; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system. Extension staff: specifically hired project employees 3) Target groups for extension: technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: People in charge of field work etc.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Except for being inadequate, there are not enough funds available to continue the activities. Expert advise from specialists after evaluation is also needed to be adequate.

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:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

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 no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: One site establishment for restoration purposes, thus no changes where made because no future project is planned in area in near future.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • ecology
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Soil related research and analyses and also restoration technology application information.

Research was carried out on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • < 2,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Donors): 10.0%; government (national - Water Affairs (DAF)): 80.0%; national non-government (University): 10.0%

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
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery fully financed
tools fully financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
fertilizers fully financed
Biocides fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • paid in cash
Comments:

Job creation and community involvement.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

To layout contours to prevent erosion and serve as catchment for water. Establishment of grass also served as stabiliser to prevent erosion and also serves as fodder in addition.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Unsure.

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

Most land users benefited from the approach and they are either in direct vicinity or were part of the job creation. They know the benefit of the results from restoration obtained and this might have inspired them to carry on. If some funds were to be available (from the land users themselves) they might be able to continue the approach by themselves and they know they will benefit from it.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Job creation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Appoint members could involve rest of community to help look after restored area (improved grazing).)
Training. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Community members learnt a lot about conservation and they can now carry on with it on their own (they have the knowledge).)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Job creation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Appoint a community member to look after the area and see that if is managed.)
Awareness and training. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Personal improvement to understand how to take care of land and how to improve it.)
Inter-cultural co-operation.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Not enough communication between specialists and community members on important factors. Better communication from start of approach or project.
Linguistic abilities not sufficient (especially on side of specialists). To obtain some simple linguistic abilities, such as how to greet and ask approach related questions.
SWC technology application must not be built on job creation incentives (only), but must be sustainable in the long term without incentives (job creations) by the land users.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules