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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 127, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Dept of Agriculture North West Province (Dept of Agriculture North West Province) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Rangeland rehabilitation where we use perennial grasses to rehabilitate the footslopes in a semi-arid region on a clay loam soil

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Different techniques (mechanical: e.g. ripper, dyker plough) as well as biological (stone dams, loose dams) are used to rehabilitate a totally degraded area. Different combinations are also used: e.g., ripper with seed and ripper without seed, to see if there is a natural seed bank left. The research is being done in a semi-arid area and on a footslope (medium depth and clay loam soil). The purpose is to get palatable vegetation back in the area for animal consumption. In the process, erosion is stopped and water run-off decreased. At the same time, the community is also trained and educated regarding management, grazing capacity, etc.

Researchers and technicians of the Provincial Department of Agriculture planted the experiment. The community is always present when any treatment is applied. The area is fenced off and maintained by the Department. The community will take full responsibility of the trial at a later stage. They are very eager to take over and their participation is very good.

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.):

From the researchers of the Department of Agriculture

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

Comments:

Main animal species and products: Cattle & goats, donkey

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Too many animals for the specific area. No camps - so no form of rotation possible; no management plans - animals can walk and graze where they want to.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Need more land so that the animals have a larger area to move in.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Cattle & goats, donkey (transport)

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

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of vegetative measures: scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

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

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Rand

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

6.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Fencing of area	1week (end of growing season)
2.	Application of different techniques (treatments)	2 weeks (beginning of growing season)
3.	Planting of grass	2 days (beginning of growing season)

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Keep fence in tact	/Regularly

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labours didn't want any money - they feel that they will reap the benefit in the end.
The implements must come from Potchefstroom which is 300km from the area.

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 lo because organic material is gone due to overgrazing & water erosion

Topsoil organic matter: No organic matter

Soil drainage / infiltration is poor and there is a very high water runoff

Soil water storage capacity is very low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

100% of the land users are poor and own 100% of the land.
Market orientation of production system: Sunflowers and maize for self subsistence

5.7 Average area of land used 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

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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

• > 50%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many 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

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Quickly done

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Quickest way to get more palatable grass, a more economical way
Very effective
Biological methods
Manpower to do it
Community was not paid, more sustainable

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?
Expensive
It is difficult to get the seed
Seed itself is expensive

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Community do not have implements	Maybe landcare
Lack of knowledge (a lot is needed)	Come and see, learnt a lot by implementing
On a bigger scale - fence off more or less impossible - at this stage (can not afford)	Maybe branch packing (enough black thorn bush encroachment)
Do not understand the system

7.1 Methods/ sources of information