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)

Action Green Heritage (Action Green Heritage) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Community involvement

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Community involvement in SWC and environmental conservation. SWC project for erosion control, reduction of siltation, water conservation, biodiversity increase, and environmental education. An interactive method in some cases combined the approach of the Department or Action Green Heritage, who worked through the tribal chief (traditional authority), the relevant government representatives (extension), and the Transitional Local Council (TLC - Government elected body e.g. municipality). The SWC projects are still in the on-going phase, having passed the implementation stage. The Nature reserves are also on going (the development phase has been finalised). The SWC programmes of NGO and government extension officer, environmental education officer and community are interlinked with the NGO for funding, the Government provides technical background and the TLC ensures broad involvement.

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 (Nearby school involved environmental education for the school children, community, leaders (chiefs) and politicians involved)

Raising awareness, reduce silt soil loss. Nature reserve: financial gain for the community, protection of natural resources & increase biodiversity, awareness raising. Erosion projects: reduce siltation and soil loss and raising awareness. Natural Resource: Financial gain, protection of Natural Resources, an increase in biodiversity and raising awareness. To get community involvement in environmental issues

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Awareness, silt up of dams and rivers, land degradation (erosion) In nature reserves: land degradation, poverty, awareness, not sensitive enough for environmental problems. Erosion project: land degradation, siltation of dams/rivers. Nature Reserves: land degradation, poverty, awareness (lack of environmental knowledge)

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	passive	public meetings; Rapid/participatory rural appraisal is used today
planning	passive	rapid/participatory rural appraisal, public meetings
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	public meetings, reporting;
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. consultative.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Form of training:

• on-the-job

Subjects covered:

On the site for work, fencing, gabions, planting of trees

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: LEP; Key elements: NGO was responsible for education for the people of Lebowa; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: non-governmental agency. Extension staff: Government & NGO 2) Target groups for extension: land users, politicians/decision makers; Activitie

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; They have the staff

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
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc 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 measurements

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements;

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: Involvement of the community in the project from the beginning to a great extent. Reduction of animal numbers.

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 - Nature reserve): 80.0%; international non-government (-): 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

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

In practice maybe because of the need of financial support for staff and management of game Soil conservation - without leading it is not possible

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
financial
job opportunities
are part of the management

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
involvement of community
ownership of the land
little damage & high potential
get financial benefits - uplifting living-standard
sustainable jobs, protection
if transferred to community - can be financed from outside e.g. Development bank, this is only possible if fully transferred to the community

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?
would like to have more influence in the management

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Smaller reserves are overstaffed and poor management - transfer to the community and then employ a manager from outside (may be a solution).
Nature reserves are still regarded as government nature reserves (financial and run). Only if community is to some extent involved in the management, people take ownership.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information