(Garðar Þorfinnsson)

Participatory cost-sharing restoration programme (Iceland)

Farmers Heal the Land

Description

Collaboration between farmers and a governmental institute on rangeland restoration and improved land management

Aims / objectives: FHL is a governmental cost-sharing programme operated by the SCSI and run at national level. The FHL programme has been ongoing since 1990. It started as an experimental programme in Northeast Iceland, but couple of years later it was extended nationwide. It builds on voluntary participation of farmers who want to restore damaged rangelands in the lowland. The programme was established foremost to ease cooperation and strengthen social bonds between the SCSI and sheep farmers. Nevertheless, increased rangeland restoration and improved grazing management were also key targets underpinning the establishment of the FHL initiative, and formed the backbone of its prime policy.

Methods: The FHL programme is run by the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI) and targets large-scale rangeland restoration, primarily among sheep farmers. The programme builds on voluntary approaches and uses direct and indirect incentives to motivate its participants. Farmers who want to participate apply for membership of the SCSI. The SCSI evaluates the condition of potential restoration areas and decides if they meet requirements. Each participant receives, annually, a fixed subsidy to purchase fertilizer and if needed, commercial grass seeds. Participants in the FHL project are visited approximately biannually by a regional SCSI advisor that estimates the restoration progress, discusses next steps and consults the participants on rangeland management related issues. Usually, each restoration area is treated for a couple of years before it is considered to have passed the first level of the restoration process. The restoration areas are mapped, and based on the maps participants asked to make a 3-5 year long implementation plan.

Role of stakeholders: As land stewardship plays a vital role in this programme, the role of the primary stakeholders (the farmers) is fundamental. They indeed drive the programme, although they get professional guidance and support from the extension offices of the SCSI. They are responsible for all implementation and land management on a local scale, within their own holdings.

Other important information: no further information

Location

Location: Rangarvellir, Rangarthing Ytra, Iceland

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Initiation date: 1990

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (rangeland restoration, sustainable land management, participatory approaches, stakeholder involvement)

To improve the ecological condition of the degraded rangelands for future generations. To facilitate behavioral changes toward more sustainable rangeland management.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems to be addressed by the approach were severe soil and vegetation degradation that substantially reduced biomass productivity, lack of financial support and local advisory system
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: the approach provides subsidies to participants Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Institutional setting: Establishment of extension offices that provide advisory service on restoration and SLM technologies and approaches, free of charge to all land users. Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Establishment of extension offices that provide advisory service on restoration and SLM technologies and approaches, free of charge to all land users. Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Treatment through the SLM Approach:

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Main actors - voluntary work, mostly at their own expenses
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
local government Provide small scale funding
national government (planners, decision-makers) Main funding contributor - advisory system - local support
international organization
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
planning
x
implementation
x
monitoring/ evaluation
x
Research
x
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • Researchers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
  • local advisors that visit/contact all participants
Subjects covered

E.g. the role of ecosystem services for human well-being, ecosystem resilience and natural hazards, the importance of proper grazing management and the importance of merging local and external knowledge to secure more effective long-term social-ecological progress.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: visual estimation bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers of the SCSI technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through measurements; indicators: Researchers in collaboration with the SCSI economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations area treated aspects were monitored by project staff through observations There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Reduced amount of fertilizer and seed when restoration areas are treated
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: government: 78.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 2.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
partly financed
fully financed
agricultural: fertilizers

Up to 85% of the cost of the fertilizer

x

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Builds up trust between farmers and governmental officials. Awareness raising and can facilitate discussions on improved rangeland management
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • governement pays the most awareness rising farmers to restore the land
  • government has to trust that the farmer is doing the job checking in the field (but number of used material difficult to count afterwards und the right time in the spring)

References

Compiler
  • Thorunn Petursdottir
Editors
Reviewer
  • Jan Reichert
  • Hanspeter Liniger
Date of documentation: Junie 1, 2015
Last update: Junie 29, 2020
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International