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

Creating natural resource conservation awareness among the youth

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 other activities than SLM (Alien invasive plants, soil and water conservation, life skills, pollution, water purification, drama and culture)

Create awareness in terms of sustainability & conservation. To create awareness in terms off different focus areas in Resource management, i.e. erosion control, water conservation. To combine learning & adventure. To follow up and evaluate different projects to ensure value adding To take information gained, back to the communities for value adding. To give learners a hands on opportunity.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Physical soil erosion, overgrazing of natural vegetation, invader plants, pollution of fresh water resources

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	interactive	Awareness: specialists and youth. Follow up and planning: specialists and youth
planning	none
implementation	interactive
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 by SLM specialists alone (top-down). Working with youth, consultation was between Department of Agriculture, Free State and management of the outdoor centre.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Youth only

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas
• courses

Subjects covered:

Alien invasive plants, soil and water conservation, life skills, pollution, water purification, drama and culture

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: Experiential learning through implementation

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

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

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through measurements

There were several changes in the approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: (1) Approach for awareness creation changed, e.g. use songs and drama (2) Follow up visits establish a ripple effect (3) Junior LandCare clubs at schools fro continuous involvement and value adding

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 (Free State Department of Agriculture): 85.0%; private sector (Aasvoelberg outdoor centre): 15.0%

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Only the Junior LandCare clubs can continue to an extent on their own. New schools need to be introduced and trained and that requires funding and external inputs like trained facilitators.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Exposure to experience in natural resource management (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuous funding)
Improving interpersonal and personal life skills (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure life-skill training stays integrated to the programme)
Fun (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Make sure fun is integrated in the programme)
Exposure and the possibility for future career choice (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Maintain a positive attitude towards sustainability in general and explain careeer opportunities to them)
Positive contribution to society (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Become involved in local natural resource management initiatives)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Sponsored participation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuous funding)
Existing infrastructure (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuous funding for maintenance and expanding)
Compotent facilitators (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuous training and exposure)
Establishsed and successful programme (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuous evaluatuion and exposure to other similar initiatives)
Available natural resources at the centre supports active learning (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Concerning natural resources land negotiate access to neighbouring propoerties)
Provincial Department of Education support the initiative because it compliments the natural science curriculum (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuous involvement and expand exposure to National Department of Education to enhance a National buy-in)

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?
Funds allow only a limited number of students to participate - some have to be left out	More centres, more funding

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Funding criteria	Change policy to accommodate a broader spectrum of youth
Funding inadequate to make a definite impact	Negotiate for additional and sustained funding
Too few similar centres	Sponsorships to build / develop more centres
Junior LandCare not a priority by executuve management in all provinces	Buy in of managers through continuous exposure to impacts and success stories

7.1 Methods/ sources of information