Approaches

Government funded demonstrations [South Africa]

approaches_2341 - South Africa

Completeness: 86%

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:

Barac Anushka

Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education

South Africa

SLM specialist:

Van den Berg Loraine

Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education

South Africa

SLM specialist:

J van Rensburg Anja

Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education

South Africa

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Van der Walt Izak

Provincial Soil Conservation Department in Northern Province

South Africa

SLM specialist:

Monque Augustine

Provincial Soil Conservation Department in Northern Province

South Africa

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - South Africa
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Department of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture) - Zambia
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Province (Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Province) - 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. Description of the SLM Approach

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

Country:

South Africa

Region/ State/ Province:

North West Province

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2002

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

No money for restoration. Negative cost/benefit ration in short term.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Apply more cost effective technologies

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation: Help: land users again appreciated the role and importance of the natural resources. Hinder: lack of land tenure and ownership.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

No awareness and skills

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Capacity building and job creation. Commitment by stake holders and rural communities assured.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Specific ethnic groups: Sotho's

Work done and technology carried out by community. Mostly women as they need to earn money for food and household. Community councils; tribal authority - Chiefs make decisions.

  • NGO

University helped with implementation of technology

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Funded mainly by NDA

  • international organization

Funds

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

National specialists improved and designed technologies and land users gave inputs with regard to type of area, plants and usage of grazing land.

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)

Description:

Organogram

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. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

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. Financing and external material support

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
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery partly financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
fertilizers fully financed
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
Fence fully financed
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. 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

Oversowing and better soil seed bank; good cultivation methods; certain adapted grass species used.

Land users do not own the land - any SWC application can be of more value and land users will be more committed if they take ownership.

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

Approach will be extended to other rural areas.

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. 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