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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Farmer approached extension officer (acquire free service) for technical advise & subsidy

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The farmer was faced with serious sheet erosion on his farm. The farmer had good results where there had been treatment of this problem on a small scale. Having grown up with parents who were keen soil conservationists it was his duty to do something about this serious problem. The farmer then approached the local extension officer for technical advice and also subsidy. Work of this volume is a long-term project and needs support in the form of subsidies as no farmer can afford these expenses, due to the low returns of livestock farming today and the lack of capital. As far back as 1960, ripping of sheet erosion was being done successfully without a subsidy. This was on a small scale, bit by bit each year as our finances dictated.

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

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

To get subsidies to be able to do a good job of the ripping. We had seen from past experiences that shallow and inadequate ripping was a waste of money. Equipment would have to be bought or hired, however.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Subsidy for ripping sheet erosion

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	self-mobilization	own idea
planning	interactive	rapid/participatory rural appraisal; Farmer approached Department of Agriculture
implementation	self-mobilization	responsibility for major steps; Farmer approached Department of Agriculture
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: reporting; Farmer keep records on economics, extension officer wrote reports
Research	interactive	on-farm; Farmer informed extension officer about changes, results of measurements kept by extension officer

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

land user driven (bottom-up).

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Subjects covered:

Farmer asked for support by the Department. The technology was a co-development of farmer and extension officer.

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:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; A lot of them have been visiting the place. Results and reports are available by the Department and there were also some scientists of a University who produced a database on SWC. (Potchefstroom).

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 measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Experiences on how deep to rip and what and when to sow.

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 - subsidy): 50.0%; other (farmer): 50.0%

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)

• labour

• equipment

• agricultural

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

repayment conditions: Subsidy.

Interest was lower than market rate.

Specify credit receivers:

Land ownership

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Owner supported financially by government (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue with subsidies)
Department open for new ideas
Extension officer very enthusiastic (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Good partnership)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information