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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Alternative and cost effective methods to control soil erosion

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Research alternative, cost effective measures to control soil erosion Training of potentail contractor to errect soil conservation structures (Black Economic Empowerment) Wider acceptance and adoption of techniques by neighbouring communities

Methods: On-site research Literature research Needs analysis Trial and error Awareness ampaigns and information days Job creation to build structures

Stages of implementation: Control invader plants Literature research Design small structures Construction of erosion structures and stock watering Research on run-off trials Data analysis Information sharing

Role of stakeholders: Construction of small structures, controll invader plans, construction of stock watering

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 (Control invader and alien plants)

Research alternative, cost effective measures to control soil erosion Training of potentail contractor to errect soil conservation structures (Black Economic Empowerment) Wider acceptance and adoption of techniques by neighbouring communities

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Soil erosion Lost of grazing due to invader and alien plants Over grazing Lack of stock / grazing management Lack of knowledge

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
planning	passive
implementation	external support
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
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:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

• land user

Form of training:

• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Construction of SWC structures and training on veld management. Control of invader plants.

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: Cost effective erosion control and veld management; Key elements: Awareness, Meetings formal and informal, Farm visits and participatory approaches

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Empowered through project to continue with SWC activities

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: Functionaing (effectiveness) of structures

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: Adoption of technology

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: Area treatede / conserved

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: No. of community actively involved

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: Maintenance and acceptance

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Redesign of small structures and different application of materials

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Run-off trials and participatory approaches for community participation

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (Agricultural Research Council): 80.0%; national non-government: 15.0%; local community / land user(s): 5.0%

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:

Grant paid for labour

Material for SWC structures were fully financed

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Temporary job creation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Not sustainable if there are no follow up projects)
Improved natural resource condition (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Maintain structures / control invasive plants / implement grazing system)
Contractor empowered with unique SWC methods - niche market (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue empowerment with training and informatin sharing. He has to advertise his services.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Empowerment of community with knowledge and skills (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure the adaption and implementation of structures and maintenance of current structures)
Empowerment of contractor (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Follow up projects and work for private sector)
Holistic approach towards environmental problems (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: systems approach deal with real causes of degradation. More partnerships and more stakholders involved.)
Cost effective methods to control soil conservation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More on-site research andawareness of test method technologies and approaches.)
Alien plant control (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Follow up and more research monitoring and evaluation)
Improved veld management (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Monitoring and evaluation)

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?
No ownership of land (land tennure - commonage)	Review use of commonages - need new policy
Low educational levels - difficalt to train, learn new technologies	Continue education, training and awareness
Contractor needs administrative empowerment	Capacity building

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of local expertise in SWC structures / small structures	Continue with researh and information shareing at national / international level.
Capacity on project management side	More and better trained project managers.
Financial support: Huge problem - small budget	Convince national donors about extent and degree of degradation problems. Look for private donors.
Politics exclude commercial farmers - project coud have bigger impact	Decision for restoration and conservation must be based on ecological needs and not political agendas.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information