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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 57, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Province (Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Province) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 57, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Province (Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Province) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 57, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Province (Dept. of Agriculture, Northern 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

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Awareness raising and community participation. Capacity building, to teach the aim and type of technologies to the communities with the help of extension workers, scientists and academic staff, including postgraduate students. The main aim is to improve the condition of the land for high grazing capacity and production potential.

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 (Capacity building of SWC technicians and community members.)

Awareness and participation. Training of technologies for restoration. On site or 'On-Farm' technology application.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Restoring degraded land (old lands) by cultivation and oversowing technologies.

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	passive	Mainly:public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars
planning	passive	Mainly: workshops/seminars; partly: public meetings
implementation	external support	Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: casual labour
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	interactive	on-farm

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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

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

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Ecological principles; Restoration technologies; NRM principles.

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: Demonstration/Participation; Key elements: 'Learning by Doing'; 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: non-governmental agency.
Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Monitoring, data analysis and presenting of results will be conducted by Research staff and project implementation. Expert advice needed on a continuous basis.

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:

• 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
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

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

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through measurements

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: This was one site establishment for demonstration purposes of technologies.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Vegetation and soil monitoring/analysis. Application of restoration technologies in demonstration plots.

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:

• < 2,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national - Agriculture): 80.0%; national non-government (University): 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

• agricultural

• construction

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Job-creation incentives

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

If yes, describe how:

Extension workers have learned the SWC technology from specialists (University researcher) and he/she together with the land user will hopefully extend the technology to larger and other areas on that own. Specialist must however make results available o

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Learned a lot - especially with regard to the restoration process
Earned money - job-creation
Knowledge about sustainable rangeland management strategies improved
School children and teachers involved. School projects on SWC technologies and restoration ecology in particular

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Co-operation between all stakeholders (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By making data and analysis scientifically sound - results better)
Land users, technicians/extension, researcher, policy makers
SWC technology will be monitored by scientists - value added to project

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?
Often too long before action is taken	Faster action. Extension better and more committed
Linguistic abilities. Land user has another language (Sotho), not spoken by specialist	Take local language classes and learn local language
SWC technology application must not only be build on job-creation incentives, but must be sustainable in the long term and applied by land user without payment.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Often too long before action is taken	Faster action. Extension better and more committed
Linguistic abilities. Land user has another language (Sotho), not spoken by specialist	Take local language classes and learn local language
SWC technology application must not only be build on job-creation incentives, but must be sustainable in the long term and applied by land user without payment.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information