Technologies

Revegetation and re-seeding [South Africa]

Rehabilitation/Restoration of old and degraded land

technologies_1381 - South Africa

View sections

Expand all Collapse all
Completeness: 69%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Klaus Kellner', 'user_id': '472', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 374, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'}

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

Government funded demonstrations
approaches

Government funded demonstrations [South Africa]

Government funded restoration demonstration site to restore degraded land - by community participation. Community becoming the key sake holders - Capacity building.

  • Compiler: Klaus Kellner

2. Description of the SLM Technology

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

Media Gallery

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

Country:

South Africa

Region/ State/ Province:

Limpopo

Further specification of location:

Pietersburg

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

1.0

If precise area is not known, 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.

Map preview

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. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
Comments:

Main animal species and products: Communal land, some commercial

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.

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Longest growing period in days: 210; Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Apr

3.4 Water supply

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

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • area closure (stop use, support restoration)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -graded strips *<sup>3</sup>

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/56/2/56284047-84b5-41dd-953a-cc80f233c2cf.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/1a/9/1a96fba6-a9ea-4b8a-b17d-39fff5106b92.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}
Technical specifications (related to 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%

Author:

Klaus Kellner

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • USD
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

3.60

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Ripping At start of technology and beginning of rainy season
2. Oversowing At start of technology and beginning of rainy season
3. Bush packing At start of technology and beginning of rainy season

4.4 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
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 1850.4
Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. No maintenance
2. Fencing in tact /Once a year

4.6 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
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 250.0
Comments:

Seeds purchasing, Erection of restoration demonstration site.

4.7 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. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

450.00

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)
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

Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
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 used by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Comments:

Communal land

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

Land ownership:
  • communal/ village
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Grazing increase

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Grazing increase

Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Only few people could be employed - more would have liked to earn money

Socio-cultural impacts

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Capacity building awareness

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Farmers and land users did not all agree to the SWC technology

job - creation

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

2

Quantity after SLM:

0

Climate and disaster risk reduction

wind velocity

increased
decreased
Other ecological impacts

soil fertility

decreased
increased

biodiversity

diminished
enhanced

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • > 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 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.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules

No modules