Approaches

Rehabilitation techniques in southern Kalahari - Vegetative and Management [South Africa]

approaches_2335 - South Africa

Completeness: 81%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Smith Desmond

054-4611415

Northern Cape. Department of Agriculture

South Africa

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Cape (Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Cape) - South Africa

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. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Shared interest by Mier Management Council and Provincial Department of Agriculture

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Initially a combined effort by Department of Agriculture and Mier Management Council to combat degradation of game camps. Directed towards a male dominated farming community, also involving a few females (ages ranging from middle to old age). An objective was to educate towards awareness to degradation and techniques involving the rehabilitation of these areas and the prevention of getting to this state. Also including methods which prevent returning to this state. Initially using farmer???s days - education. Research came later, focussing on understanding the ecology of the area and then to concentrate on rehabilitation techniques. This was later introduced in farmer???s days, school education and education of management council. Stages of implementation: 1) Realisation by management council that veld was degraded. 2) Department of Agriculture requested to assist ??¡§ in the form of trial and error (i.e. resting camps, poisoning of shrubs). 3) Resting of camps showed no improvement, so Department requested assistance from Agricultural Research Council (Range and Forage Institute) to gain understanding of ecology of area. 4) Once understanding gained and techniques developed, education in the form of farmer???s days, school days and management council. Role of participants: 1) Nature Conservation: Initially involved in game number management. 2) Department of Agriculture: Advisory capacity management of techniques. 3) ARC - Research and advisory. 4) Management council ??¡§ labour control. 5) Community - involved through council in decision-making ??¡§ also jobs provided through labour.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

South Africa

Region/ State/ Province:

Northern Cape

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1988

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Income generation for tax subsidy in the community, job creation for males in the community, land care, development of eco-tourism, collaboration with local leadership)

Education ??¡§ in techniques to combat desertification, also in prevention of degradation Financial empowerment Management techniques

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Finance, education (very little education with regards to labours)

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Very poor community

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Landcare (money)

institutional setting
  • hindering

Financial - no money in Institute and Department

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Money

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: Hinder: moderate Farm-government won???t allow farmers to own land so attitude can be negative. Community reaps benefits from game farms.

other
  • hindering

Political: leads to mistrust and uneasiness w.r.t. Money

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Work on the problem at hand and ignore politics

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Working land users were mainly men (Women did not work on project because of long distance to work).

Labour, management.
Labour work far too heavy for women (injuries have occurred). Women are directed towards cultivation techniques of Harpagophytum procumbens or basic homeskills (sewing etc.) Males - chopping & packing Rhigozum on dunes (degraded dunes).

  • teachers/ school children/ students
  • NGO

Research, management, education

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Funding

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 passive workshops/seminars, public meetings; Discussions to indicate where researchers see the project going and how the land users would like to see it go.
planning interactive workshops/seminars, public meetings; Field workshops & meetings-discuss how and where the project should be carried out.
implementation external support responsibility for major steps; Labour used for bushpacking responsibility for LandCare committee for salaries and labour.
monitoring/ evaluation none public meetings,measurements/observations, reporting, workshop/seminars; Monitoring of project is on going by researchers with help of few labours. Congresses/workshops are used to describe process & public meetings allow community to be informed.
Research none on-station; On-farm & on-station is ongoing. Lab work for information on germination processes.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Approach

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:

land user driven (bottom-up). Knowledge of the area

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. directive (top-down). Management due to low education

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • school children/students, planners, politicians/decision makers
Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
Subjects covered:

Rehabilitation ecological processes, cultivation, preventative agriculture

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Not formal approach; Key elements: Education, Labour, Development; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users, school children/students; Activities: Bushpacking techniques, education; Education

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The project is still in first phase - next phase will include female portion of community.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, a little
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • equipment
  • advise

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored hrough observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Packing designs of Rhigozum plants on bare dunes. The less expensive, most efficient design was chosen.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • ecology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Rehabilitation techniques must fall within the capabilities and finance of the community.

Research was carried out on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 80.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 20.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery fully financed
tools fully financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
fertilizers fully financed
  • other
Other (specify) To which extent Specify subsidies
Food and transport fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • paid in cash

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Stabilisation of dunes, greater vegetation on dunes.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Farmers realised the simplicity of rehabilitation. The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. Attitudes would change if government allowed ownership of land.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

South Africa railways - lines which cut through dune systems

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Own input into R &D
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Community participation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Greater responsibility to community)
Healthy integration of Scientists & Community action (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Good communication (Scientists & Community))

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?
I do not know
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Slow recovery of natural resources I don't think there is a way to increase reaction time in this area

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules