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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 756, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Develo (Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Develo) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 756, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Develo (Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Develo) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

To make the community aware of precious resources like water and the preservation of it, the control of alien encroachment, creation of job opportunities and the training of the undeveloped communities.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The approach objective is to get communities involved in a national project to eradicate alien invaders to conserve the water resource in the main river catchment areas. The objectives of such a project are to make use of labour (job creation) under the poorest of the poor of the rural communities. A group of 25 people was trained in the use of chemicals; cutting down and eradication of trees and alien invaders in an effective manner, as well as different opportunities for entrepreneurs to utilise the wood, for example fire wood and charcoal. The Government is the implementing agent, facilitates and manages the project as well as providing technical advice.

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 (Community upliftment, training (availability of more farm soils), job creation, enhanced grazing capacity.)

Community awareness. Training. Education. Job creation. Uplifting of the poor. Mutual understanding and better communication and labour relations.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Language differences (S.A. contains 11 different official languages). Literacy of the workers. Unqualified people -> expensive training courses. Too many role-players that hampered the initial starting process

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	none
planning	passive	public meetings
implementation	external support	casual labour
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	public meetings;
Research	none

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:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

directive (top-down). Government officials

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• courses

Subjects covered:

Use of hand-tools: chainsaws, handsaws, pangas etc. Also the use of backpack herbicide sprayers

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Working for Water, Alien plant eradication; Key elements: Financial act, Catchment areas, Job creation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system 2) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users, technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Job creation & training; Inhouse experience & training

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Funds were cut and only one follow-up will be done and the clearing of new catchment areas from aliens are stopped due to financial and political instability.

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:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

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

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research on Rangeland reinforcement

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): 100.0%

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

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Salary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Too expensive

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved grazing (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Protect area from over grazing and eradicate seedlings and re-growth)
Improved live standard with job creation

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Job creation
Training
Eradication of aliens/protect water resource (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Follow-up on regrowth)
Awareness towards land care

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?
Project/work/job creation only for 3 months (for the duration of the project)

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Maintenance of land user, follow-up on re-growth	Subsidy
Financial availability

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Reports and businessplans

Available from where? Costs?

Department of Agriculture & Department of Water Affairs (no costs)