Approaches

Land user participation with research [South Africa]

approaches_2342 - 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:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Klaus Kellner', 'user_id': '472', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 374, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

South Africa

Region/ State/ Province:

North West Province

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1989

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

2001

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 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

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Low cost/benefit ratio in the short term

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Proper advice to land user about advantages in the long term

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: hinder: low Privately owned commercial farms

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

No knowledge

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awareness & technical support by agriculturists & scientists

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • 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
If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

Land uses together with specialists

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 interactive Mainly:public meetings; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; Land users approached researcher/scientist for help
planning interactive Mainly: public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars; What & how to implement technology
implementation interactive responsibility for major steps; Did apply the technology on their own land
monitoring/ evaluation interactive measurements/observations; By scientist & students primarily but also with land users who helped
Research interactive on-farm; On the farmers/land users owned land

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists
Explain:

land user driven (bottom-up). That technology be evaluated & improved

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. consultative. Scientist & technician, land user

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
  • extensionists/trainers
Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
Subjects covered:

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

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

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, moderately
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:

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

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

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

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:
  • 2,000-10,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (-): 40.0%; government (national): 40.0%; other (University): 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)

  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

By land owner

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

Oversowing, cultivation, erosion & bush encroachment control

N/A

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

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

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:

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Learning by doing
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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)

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?
Too little communication between researchers, farmers & extension Better participation & interest by all
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be 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

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