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

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

Agricultural Research Council (ARC) - 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

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Planting without ploughing in a crop rotation system to improve moisture management, reduce erosion and increase crop yield.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Farmers deal with major problems such as shortages and bad implements, soil erosion and high input costs. The purpose of the project is to involve farmers in their own development, by demonstrating and training in Conservation Agriculture technologies. The methods of doing this include on-farm demonstrations (farm-led) and training courses (discovery-learning courses). The project is in the final stage; the exit plan is already implemented. The participants are both land owners and managers of the project.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

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

To empower community to take ownership of the projects. To train community in sustainable utilisation of their Natural Resources. To improve food security.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Physical and chemical degraded land. Changing of attitudes and getting community to take ownership of project.

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

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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	external support	Mainly:interviews/questionnaires; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal
planning	interactive	Mainly: public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars
implementation	self-mobilization	responsibility for major steps; Study groups/Training/Farm-led demo's
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Mainly: interviews/questionnaires; partly: reporting;
Research	passive	on-farm; On-farm research - technologies implemented on-farm by farmer-led demo's.

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

land user driven (bottom-up).

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. land user driven (bottom-up).

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists, extensionists/trainers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Farm planning/Soil fertility/Management/Post management/No-tillage management/etc.

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

• Meetings and courses

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Farming Systems Research & Extension; Key elements: Training, Demonstrations, Participation; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: non-governmental agency. Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Farmer groups/On-farm - Farmer-led demonstrations

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Very well understanding of SWC technology.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through measurements

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Had to focus more on participatory training.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Fertiliser calibration trails/Cultivar (different crops) trails, etc.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national - NDA): 90.0%; international non-government (-): 10.0%

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)

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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
Like new way of training (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Learning-by-doing courses)
Increase income

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Ownership of project (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Follow-up meetings and training)
On-farm
Extension services (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: On-going support)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Can only involve a certain amount of farmers every year	Train trainers

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Demonstration and assessment of sustainable land management practices in the Mlondozi district of Mpumalanga. Du Preez, Kidson, Beukes & Smith, 1998, 1999, 2000.

Available from where? Costs?

ARC - ISCW