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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 374, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO (Potchefstroom Universiteit vir CHO) - 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

Land user participation with researchers to improve existing and develop new technologies

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Land users implemented the technology but the success was never evaluated. Contacted researcher who quantitatively assessed the technology. The pros and cons of the technology were discussed with the land user and other farmers in the area. All gave comments and shared experiences of how these technologies can be improved. Adjustments were made and on an experimental and demonstrative way, the adjustments were implemented and evaluated.

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 on SLM only

Radical veld improvement. Better grazing land. Understand degradation - causes and how to control it. Convey knowledge about restoration technologies to as many land users as possible

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Degrade & denuded rangeland Low production of grazing land

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	interactive	Mainly:public meetings; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; Land users approached researcher/scientist for help
planning	interactive	Mainly: public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars; What & how to implement technology
implementation	interactive	responsibility for major steps; Did apply the technology on their own land
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	measurements/observations; By scientist & students primarily but also with land users who helped
Research	interactive	on-farm; On the farmers/land users owned land

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). That technology be evaluated & improved

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. consultative. Scientist & technician, land user

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• extensionists/trainers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Land users approached researcher/scientist for help on degradation; natural resources, utilisation & conservation, restoration, reclamation technologies

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:

Learning by doing & seeing is believing; Key elements: Demonstration, On site/farm, Participation; 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, technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Demonstration - participation
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Knowledge gained & understood

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:

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

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

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: First - demonstration & awareness Second - implementation & training

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research for better or adjustment of existing reclamation technologies - based in ecology

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:

• 2,000-10,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (-): 40.0%; government (national): 40.0%; other (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)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

By land owner

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:

Depending that guidelines about e.g. soil type, oversowing, bush encroachment eradication, cultivation technology etc. is applied correctly

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Learning by doing

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
On farm (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Encouragement by researchers & technicians/extension)
Participation by land owners (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Follow-up meetings & evaluation)
Farmer to farmer. Farmer to scientist. Scientist to farmer. Scientist to extension - farmer (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Communication; on going support and show interest, continued evaluation & feed back)

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?
Too little communication between researchers, farmers & extension	Better participation & interest by all

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Not as many farmers involved as would have liked
Farmers are scared to leave their farms & families alone to go to meetings & workshops, especially at night

7.1 Methods/ sources of information