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

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 improve the quality & quantity of water production and biodiversity in the Blyde River catchment area.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Stabilise, landscape and re-vegetate degraded wetlands in the upper Blyde River catchment. The objective was to re-instate the previous water table and vegetation by slowing down run-off through the building of gabions, landfills, reshaping and hydroseeding. Participants: Government funding

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 (Catchment management)

To rehabilitate degraded wetlands in the upper Blyde Rive catchment area To employ jobless people in adjacent local community

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Stopping head-cut erosion, landscape old mine trenches, re-vegetate area of bare soil, re-visit burning programme

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	survey; Wetland condition survey identified these two wetlands as priorities for rehabilitation work
planning	none	consultation; Inputs of various specialists were used to draw up a business plan
implementation	external support	Contractor, casual labour; Landscaping contractor was employed to implement business plan
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	reporting, measurements/observations; Fixed point photography & vegetation transects, water quality tests. Report is available
Research	none

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:

consultative. Also land user driven Land-users (Mpumalanga Parks Board with advice from Frik Bronkhorst). Men make decisions, no women in the specific posts.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. consultative. Also land user driven

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

• SWC specialists

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Rehabilitation and importance of the wetland ecosystem in water management

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: Mpumalanga Wetland Project, Mpumalanga Parks Board; Key elements: Capacity building among land users, Wetland conservation, Wetland rehabilitation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system. Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: land user

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Got the expertise and gained much from this activity to contribute

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

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

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:

Vegetation transects to monitor dynamics, fixed point photographs, water quality tests

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Parks Board officials/advisory, supervision & monitoring

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)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Job creation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Governmental funding)
Working for water principle (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Governmental funding)
Opportunity to be exposed to the practical side of wetland rehabilitation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Rehabilitation of others wetlands and monitoring the present situation)
Contribute towards the natural hydrological regime of the catchment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Monitoring)
Opportunity for land users to combine ideas and to improve relationships (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Work towards a better environment)

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?
No action from a steering committee	Get steering committee up and going
Lack of practical experiences on wetland rehabilitation	Get more experiences

7.1 Methods/ sources of information