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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

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

Development and capacity building in participating communities through the implementation of measures to prevent topsoil losses through erosion in the Molatedi dam catchment area.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Initiated by Welkom Farmers' Association through the Marico corridor sub-regional soil conservation committee. The aims were: 1) development and capacity building in participating communities and 2) implementation of measures to prevent topsoil losses through erosion in the Molatedi dam catchment area.

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 (Development objective, Rehabilitation of the production potential of the land, Job creation component, Training component, Stabilising the catchment area of the Molatedi dam against erosion and excessive topsoil losses.)

Help the community, work together

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Unemployment. Lack of training. Erosion - loss of topsoil. Rehabilitation of natural resources

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	public meetings; Monthly - special meetings as need arose
planning	interactive	public meetings; Monthly - special meetings as need arose
implementation	interactive	Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: responsibility for minor steps; Monthly - special meetings as need arose
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

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

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Description of training component

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 ad hoc monitored through observations

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 ad hoc monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Project period was only 6 months. Very strict procedures had to be followed in all events. E.g. wager sheets - full particulars of workers External audit concerning finances.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Observation with everted tyre structure

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:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national - Development bank of RSA, NEF fund): 60.0%; local community / land user(s) (Commercial farmers): 40.0%

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

• other

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

No funding available

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Job creation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Project planning must be done carefully and job creation planned according to sustainability)
Improvement of natural resources (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plan additional new projects)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Project initiated by land users (bottom-up approach) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Necessary support from institutions (financial, technical - provide research, information, training etc.))
Equal rights and participation for all participants (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure equal representing on a joint implementing committee)
Adequate technical assistance (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure that capable technicians are involved with planning and execution of project)
Adequate financial assistance (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Budget to be draw-up by all specialists and land users)

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?
Project was not long enough

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The budget was unbalanced and not drawn up with all stakeholders involved	Involve specialists and all the role players in the project
Payment of daily wages as opposed to paying for task executed well.	Develop contractors that is paid according to work done and productivity.
The budget was inadequate for material needed for conservation works	Draw up a budget with SWC specialists input to ensure funds for conservation works
The facilitator was not capable to do facilitation	Use well trained proven facilitator acceptable to participation communities

7.1 Methods/ sources of information