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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 373, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland', '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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The control of livestock numbers, plant management/control, and knowledge and control of plants and essential rest periods.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Conservation committees. Successful commercial farmers. Research. Extension officer acts as an agent for transfer of research info

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 (After mechanical constructions the recovery of the veld by biological processes is continued in order to get the optimal conservation condition)

Maximum use of available source for maximum profit while ecosystem is kept sound

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	none
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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, politicians/decision makers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Plant knowledge, veld management, balancing of stock numbers with veld capacity in accordance with technical norms

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: Agricultural Conservation Committees; Key elements: Livestock reduction, Prevention and reduction of erosion, Plant management; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents, government's existing extension system.
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

There were many changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Timeous adaptations as process developed

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 60.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 40.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

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:

Somebody with initiative will supply the required stimulation to keep the approach alive and well and to help new farmers

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
As consulted with extension officer

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Adequate livestock composition (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Adapt as circumstances change)
Knowledge of veld
Application of veld management with due consideration of seed production and the establishment of seedlings
Means to stabilise serious problems concerning erosion and to effect biological recovery

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?
As consulted

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of subsidy to establish infrastructure and combat severe droughts
Decreased state funding of training institutions - effect on knowledge of average farmer	Sustained extension

7.1 Methods/ sources of information