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)

School of Environmental Science and Development, North West University (NWU) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Participatory Rural Approach including a partly holistic approach; between social and environmental sciences.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Developing sustainable management of land and other natural resources in rural communities. Assess the historical process, causes, nature and extent of desertification and its human impact. An empirical study of the attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of the local population with regard to land use. Develop policy guidelines for integrated rural development focussing on spatial planning, settlement models, land use control measures, ecological restoration and sustainable farming practices. Pilot interviews with the extension officers were followed by interviews with members of the communities themselves. Plant surveys were conducted at the study areas.

Stages of implementation: There were 5 stages of implementation included in the pilot interviews, the main interviews and the plant surveys. Task 1: Preliminary negotiations with officials, authorities and local communities, including a literature and methodological review. Task 2: Data collection includes satellite data and aerial photographs, ground truth (site visits, meetings, surveys, interviews and questionnaires - a PRA approach. Task 3: Analysis and interpretation include archival research, image processing ad interpretation and analysis of surveys and questionnaires. Task 4: Validation and cross referencing by accuracy testing of remotely sensed results, historical cross referencing, comparison to Botswana results, comparison of results (communal land vs. commercial land). Task 5: Reporting.

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 other activities than SLM (Suitable management, integrated community-base, rural development, land resources, natural resources.)

Developing sustainable management of land and other natural resources in rural communities. Specific objectives: Assess the historical process, courses, nature and extent of desertification and its human impact. Did an empirical study of the attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of the local population with regard to land use. Finally, we want to develop policy guidelines for integrated rural development focussing on spatial planning, settlement models, land use control measures, ecological restoration and sustainable farming practices.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Desertification and its human impact, with the specific incorporation of indigenous or traditional knowledge. Inadequate policy towards integrated rural development.

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	none
planning	interactive	interviews/questionnaires, public meetings; Interviews with most viable group. Public meetings: what should we look at in the areas.
implementation	interactive	casual labour, responsibility for minor steps; Erosion control.
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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:

consultative.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. consultative.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• school children/students

Form of training:

• on-the-job

Subjects covered:

Gabion construction

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Participatory rural approach; Key elements: Involvement in gabion construction; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent. Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: erosion control through gabion construction

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Extension officers available for information on erosion and encroachment control.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

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 measurements

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

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

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Initially only the extension officers were interviewed in groups; the communities as well, but in the end individual interviews proofed more effective. Woody component analysis: Where all members worked on one quadrate at the start, we changed the strategy to three teams of two people each, each team having their own specific responsibilities.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Sociology: interviews/trust building. Ecology: explain what we are doing. Technology: gabion construction

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (funding): 80.0%; local community / land user(s) (labour, material): 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)

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

• food-for-work

Comments:

Guides received food parcels. Other incentives; future change in policy.

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

No: Erosion - the wire mesh baskets must be supplied by the appropriate companies, but otherwise they might pack stones without the wire mesh baskets. Yes for bush encroachment.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Awareness of erosion and bush encroachment as well as possible solution to it (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: School available; provide with poster, books, etc. Farmer's meetings.)
A community member can make a difference.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Trust of people obtained (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Deliver on the promises)
The community was motivated to implement their own water supply
Awareness of grazing strategy on the condition of the grazing field (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Motivate extension officer to really provide appropriate solutions)

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?
The projects do not address the problems the land users have	Refer identified problems to the relevant experts
Implementation of project takes a long time	Explain to the involved person the planned time schedule

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Number of available SWC specialist insufficient for amount of work	Train the amount of specialist/give the necessary background.
Use of translators	Make it clear to exact translations are given
Linguistic abilities not sufficient	Use translators

7.1 Methods/ sources of information