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

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

Department of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture) - Zambia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/09/2001

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:

Rangeland management of communal grazing land, to improve grazing capacity by applying rotation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Benchmarks were identified and monitored to see how the production and vegetation would change if proper management was applied to a specific area. The benchmarks will only be grazed in the winter and rested in summer. The benchmarks were constructed with goat-proof fencing. Benchmarks will illustrate how grazing land can improve with the right management system.
Monitoring of vegetation is done twice a year.

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:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The need to improve grazing lands.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

• Monitoring SLM Technology

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Over grazing, loss of palatable species and thus nutrients for cattle.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Reduced animal performance.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Communal grazing (free roaming goats)

Grazingland comments: Large community owned livestock herds.

Type of grazing system comments: Large community owned livestock herds.

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:

• 1-10 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 1 km2.

Settlement situated 30 km from Kuruman. Lots of sheep and goats. Also cattle, donkeys and horses. Communal grazing.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: management measures

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

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing, droughts, inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (Lack of knowledge)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technology

Location: Maketlele. North West Province

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, increase of surface roughness, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase of groundwater level / recharge of groundwater, reduction in wind speed, increase in soil fertility, improvement of soil structure

Secondary technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: drain / divert, water spreading, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting

Change of land use type: Area divided into camps.

Layout change according to natural and human environment: Camps, benchmarks, fences constructed.

Other type of management: Rotational grazing.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

-0.8

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Area divided into camps.	Management	6 months
2.	Identification and construction of benchmarks.	Management	1 month
3.	Initial survey.	Management	1 week

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	Constructing benchmarks	persons/day/ha	133.0	3.2	425.6
Construction material	Fencing material	ha	1.0	914.64	914.64
Other	Transport (10-7km/l)	ha	1.0	67.07	67.07
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1407.31

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Further surveys.	Management	2 weeks / twice a year
2.	Data analysis.	Management	3 months / after each survey
3.	Establishing a gradient.	Management	2 weeks / once
4.	Maintenance of fencing.	Management	continued / when necessary

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	Maintenance and monitoring	persons/day/ha	10.0	3.2	32.0
Other	Paper bags	ha	1.0	8.05	8.05
Other	Data sheet	ha	1.0	1.0	1.0
Other	Transport (10-7km/l)	ha	1.0	129.27	129.27
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					170.32

Comments:

Fencing of benchmark, conducting surveys and soil analysis.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost of transport depends on the fuel price. The sites are situated far from accommodation. Maintenance of fences and soil analysis.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 1337 m a.s.l.

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 depth on average: Sandy

Soil fertility is medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

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: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

20% of the land users are rich.
55% of the land users are average wealthy.
25% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: State pension, mine workers, family working in the city.

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

Soil

Other ecological impacts

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%

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:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Will increase with awareness adoption of technology.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved rangelands. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Better cattle.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The committed ADC-manager How can they be sustained / enhanced? Meetings
The maintenance of benchmarks as examples.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Cattle must be reduced	Improve rangeland - larger carrying capacity

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Community participation	Give more information