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

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Government funded project aimed at rangeland management to enhance natural recourse management. The community being the key stake holders.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The community was approached to show where the benchmarks should be erected. The whole community was informed about the project and how they would benefit from it. Benchmarks were erected by the community, thus creating jobs. Initial surveys were conducted so that later comparison in production and species composition could be made after further surveys. The rotational approach was introduced in a communal system.

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 (Cattle improvement. Veld management strategies have been learned. Survey skills learned.)

On-site technology application. Seeing is believing. Community participation. Empowerment of the community to better their own situation. Job creation, community-based natural resource management. Promoting partnerships between public, community and private sectors.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Degraded rangelands, thus insufficient grazing for the cattle.

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	workshops/seminars, public meetings; Training for surveys was provided.
planning	passive	orkshops/seminars; Training
implementation	interactive	responsibility for minor steps; Should apply the rotation.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	measurements/observations; Help with monitoring.
Research	interactive	on-farm; Benchmarks was erected.

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:

land user driven (bottom-up).

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. consultative. The land user did not have the knowledge.

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:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Ecological principles, NRM principals.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Demonstration; Key elements: Benchmark sites, Learning by doing; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: non-governmental agency. Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users, technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Public demonstrations

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Monitoring does not persist if some one is not doing it with them.

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

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements

management of Approach 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, NRM, production monitoring, soil composition, on-site application.

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:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national - Department of Agriculture): 80.0%; national non-government (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)

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Job creation incentive.

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

If yes, describe how:

Extension officers learned from the specialists.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Better grazing. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Keep to the rules of rotational grazing. Keep cattle out of resting velds.)
Specialists help. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The specialists made surveys easy. Assist in erecting.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The committed ADC manager. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Keep him motivated through communication.)
LandCare. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: he buzz words were introduced and community was made aware of the environment.)
Interaction between different cultures. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Specialists and communities were introduced to one another.)

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?
Specialists are very remote.	Not always reachable.
Reduction of cattle numbers.	Resistant to reducing wealth.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Linguistic abilities not sufficient.	Learn to speak Tswana.
Times delays.	The sites are a bit remote and the people only drive during working hours.
NRM application should be sustainable.	Not only based on incentives, but the benefits should be realised.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information