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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - South Africa

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

03/09/2001

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Revegetation of old, degraded land. Restoring area to increase grazing capacity and production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Vegetative (revegetation/re-seeding) improvement for an increase in grass production and to increase the grazing capacity of the area.
The rural community identified an old degraded land - the area was fenced to exclude grazing by large herbivores. The woody species that encroached the area were debushed. Area was ploughed and re-seeded with palatable, climax, big tufted, perennial grass species. Some plots were covered with twigs (bush packing). The area was protected from grazing. Monitoring of vegetation was done at the end of the growing season.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Restore degraded areas

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Overgrazing and loss of palatable, climax vegetation.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): No grazing for animals; bush/woody encroachment.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Communal land, some commercial

Grazingland comments: Large herds of livestock - but not owned individually - communally managed.
Land users owned few cattle/small stock in herd.

Type of grazing system comments: Large herds of livestock - but not owned individually - communally managed.
Land users owned few cattle/small stock in herd.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 210; Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Apr

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 1 km2.

Old land near rural villages, Sekgopo, 50 km north of Pietersburg in the Northern Province of South Africa. Old land degraded.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -graded strips *³

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Ha: aridification

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing, education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of knowledge)

Secondary causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (Cropping on marginal lands), labour availability (Lack of labour)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Experimental plot

Location: Sekgopo. Northern Province

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, increase in organic matter, increase in soil fertility, improvement of ground cover

Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, reduction of slope angle, increase of surface roughness, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, water harvesting / increase water supply, water spreading, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting, reduction in wind speed, improvement of soil structure

Aligned: -graded strips
Vegetative material: G : grass
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.00
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.00
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.00
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.30

Grass species: 5 Perennial, climax grass types

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 4.00%

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Ripping	Vegetative	At start of technology and beginning of rainy season
2.	Oversowing	Vegetative	At start of technology and beginning of rainy season
3.	Bush packing	Vegetative	At start of technology and beginning of rainy season

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Bush packing, sowing and ripping	persons/day/ha	172.0	3.2	550.4	10.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	30.0	30.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	150.0	150.0
Construction material	Fencing	ha	1.0	1100.0	1100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1850.4

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	No maintenance	Vegetative
2.	Fencing in tact	Vegetative	/Once a year

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Maintain fence	persons/day/ha	62.5	3.2	200.0	10.0
Construction material	Fence	ha	1.0	50.0	50.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					250.0

Comments:

Seeds purchasing, Erection of restoration demonstration site.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour, fencing and maintenance. Maintenance costs include man days and travelling for vegetation monitoring and sampling.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is low

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 3% - 4%

100% of the land users are poor and own 100% of the land (Communal land).

Off-farm income specification: Old age pensions (state pensions), Mine workers (family members working in Cities).

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• more than 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

11 households, covering 100 percent of the stated area

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

Comments:

10 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates

1 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: With proper awareness and participation, adoption and implementation rate will be higher.