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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 62, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Cape (Dept. of Agriculture, Northern Cape) - 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

To make the people aware of veld degradation, rehabilitation & the participation of the people

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Improve standard of living of community members by making handcrafts and selling wood. It is an approach where the community is fully involved (a demand driven project). Training of the people to do packing and cutting of branches.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

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 (Rehabilitation (veld reinforcement))

Community awareness. Training. Education

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Language. Literacy. Understanding of the social & cultural structure

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	Mainly: public meetings, rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: interviews/questionnaires
implementation	interactive	Mainly: responsibility for minor steps; partly: responsibility for major steps
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 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. 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

• school children/students, politicians/decision mak

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Rehabilitation, degradation, production increase, awareness, branch packing

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

• Homes of community members

Describe/ comments:

1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: non-governmental agency 2) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: non-governmental agency; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users,

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:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored

economic / production aspects were regular monitored

area treated aspects were regular monitored

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: More people get involved, more meetings

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

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): 80.0%; international non-government (-): 10.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 10.0%

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

• infrastructure

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

• paid in cash

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:

Only financial support

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Training of extension officers

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Community participation
Awareness
Technology transfer
Improve life standard
Better understanding of social structure

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?
Short term benefit is very low
Not all the people were involved, difficult to keep all the people together

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Slower acceptance
To be sustainable you have to pay the people
continuous motivation

7.1 Methods/ sources of information