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)

Institute for Soil, Climate & Water - 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

Inherited, and still practiced, tradition of stone terracing - passed down from generation to generation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The VhaVenda people of Limpopo Province in South Africa have a tradition of building with stone which has been passed down from generation to generation. They construct stone walls around their houses for example, taking a pride in the appearance of their homesteads. There is a historical monument nearby, the stone-built kraal at Dzata, the ruins of which are situated within a few kilometres of the study location. There may even be some evidence that the VhaVenda came originally from the area of the Great Zimbabwe (the famous stone-built fortress in Zimbabwe). It is not surprising therefore that the VhaVenda have used their masonry skills to build terraces in fields to counter erosion and simultaneously to make cultivation - along the contour by oxen - possible. This tradition has been passed down through the ages: it is institutionalised in the community and is practised together by men, women and children on a family basis. It is encouraged by community leaders: a particular example of this was in the 1960s when local chiefs were concerned at the sacred Lake Fundudzi 'turning red' - with sediment eroded from the land - and as a result they launched a conservation campaign to prevent soil wash into the lake. There has been modest and occasional support by the Department of Agriculture, in the form of ad hoc drought relief funds. There is quite a range of technical ability/care taken in terracing. Some walls are meticulously built; others are merely piles of stone across the slope. One of the reasons for this is that work tends to be done on an individual basis. Another result is that fields may take two years or more to be fully terraced. What is evident is that the land users - as well as being experienced masons -appreciate the benefits of the terraces they construct. An investigation of local environmental knowledge and conservation practices has demonstrated this clearly (see reference).

Methods: The causes of erosion were explained by the interviewees as being part natural (rainfall, slope etc) and part anthropogenic (poor road building, up and down ploughing, burning of grassland etc). The main negative impact of erosion was considered to be loss of soil fertility: hence terracing for protection. This indigenous knowledge also extends to soils: eight local soil types and their differences in terms of texture, fertility and erodibility are recognised in the study area.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The objective of the local people is simply to continue making cultivation possible and sustainable, through the local tradition of using stone walls to create terraces and to remove abundant stones from the field.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - the tradition presumably arose as a spontaneous local response to degradation: it remains well entrenched - underlying problems of no flat land to cultivate, soil erosion/fertility decline on sloping fields, and loose stone and rocks impeding animal-draw ploughs

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	self-mobilization	passing on knowledge; passing on of knowledge from generation to generation
planning	self-mobilization
implementation	self-mobilization	family-based (or individual) construction
monitoring/ evaluation	none
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:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Subjects covered:

There was/is no formal training - just father to son/mother to daughter.

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:

Key elements: Some encouragement from Department of Agriculture especially during soil and water conservation campaigns/drought relief periods.

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

Give further details:

support for SWC campaigns from local leaders

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

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

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): 5.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 95.0%

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:

Almost entirely voluntary: some small support (approx 5% of the sample monitored) through Government during times of food scarcity with paid relief work.

A (very) small amount of drought relief in recent years from Government

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:

The VhaVenda have built terraces for generations so far, so no reason to think that things will change.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Traditional approaches have the potential to endure (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Acknowledgement and encouragement by the Government and/or NGOs will help this.)

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?
This tradition was largely unrecognised until recently: therefore an opportunity was lost to encourage people and help the approach spread	Publicise widely and carry out farmer-to-farmer/community-to-community visits to further its spread and the spread of local SWC knowledge more generally.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Critchley W and Netshikhovehla E (1998) Conventional views, changing paradigms and a tradition of soil conservation.