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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1060, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rehabilitation of Degraded Agricultural Lands in Kandy, Badulla and Nuwara Eliya Districts in the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6305, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (AGRI.PDN) - Sri Lanka', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

25/02/2022

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

Participatory land restoration with the collective efforts of different stakeholders can assure sustainable use of land-resources. This approach promoted sustainable land management technologies such as agroforestry, soil conservation, and soil fertility enhancement practices through inter-sectoral collaboration, including the use of digital tools and Farmer Field Schools (FFS) to provide training and resources, disseminate knowledge, improve market-orientation of farmers, and monitor and evaluate the progress of activities for rehabilitating and increasing the productivity of degraded tea smallholdings in the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Due to unsustainable land management practices the monthly average green-leaf yield of tea smallholdings in Maligamale watershed in the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka is as low as 1000 kg/hectare, whereas the potential is 2400 kg/hectare. Soil erosion, soil fertility decline, low plant density, and poor shade management are among the main reasons for low productivity. This causes reduced household incomes and farmers’ ability to invest in sustainable land management (SLM) practices. Inefficiencies in top-down extension methodology, lack of awareness and training on tea cultivation techniques, poor business practices, lack of access to services and poor perceptions about SLM have reduced profit margins of tea smallholdings. Hence, the aim/ objectives of the approach are to increase the land productivity in tea smallholdings and increase farmer’s incomes and gain environmental benefits through proper implementation of SLM practices. To address this, the Rehabilitation of Degraded Agricultural Land Project (RDALP) introduced a participatory approach together with Tea Smallholdings Development Authority (TSHDA), Department of Agrarian Development and other relevant government institutions, the private sector and farming community. The approach considered methods for strengthening linkages between stakeholder groups, providing training and resources for SLM practices, enhancing market orientation, using ICT for knowledge sharing, monitoring and evaluation, improving perceptions of farming community on agriculture and enhancing food-security of the households.
Firstly, tea smallholders who volunteered to learn about SLM were linked with the experts to collectively develop a participatory land restoration proposal. Site specific limitations for productivity improvement, recommendations, roles of different stakeholders, and training and material needs were identified in the proposal. The existing institutional setup was used for coordination of activities. The experts from government institutes provided training on SLM through farmer field schools, field demonstrations and ICT tools. More specifically, farmers were educated on soil conservation and soil fertility management practices: these included producing organic fertilizers using locally available resources, building live fences with green-manure crops and edible crops, intercropping using export agriculture crops, in-filling, selective weeding, developing and maintaining nurseries, using machinery for cutting pits and harvesting, using safety measures during field operations, and shade tree management. In addition, farmers have been encouraged to share good-practices, keep records and practice soil test-based decision making for nutrient management. Farmers and officers effectively used WhatsApp®, Zoom® and Facebook® for knowledge sharing and for monitoring and evaluating progress. Dissemination of knowledge using ICT and performance-based rewarding helped to recruit more farmers as followers. The TSHDA supported with extension service and regular monitoring of progress. With the support of government institutes, farmers were linked with private sector companies to promote market orientation. Export agriculture crops such as peppers, vanilla, areca nut and cloves were successfully incorporated into tea smallholding landscape, allowing farmers to earn an extra income. The partners from the private sector provided planting materials and extension services to transfer necessary knowledge and skills to the farmers. Machinery was provided to farmer organizations for the members to share.
Improving profitability of farming, improving hygiene and safety of farmers, and reducing time spent on agronomic practices have uplifted the living-status of famers and increased their willingness to invest in SLM. These characters could attract youth to the sector.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos 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 aims/ objectives of the approach are to increase the land productivity in tea smallholdings and increase farmers' income and environmental benefits through proper implementation of SLM practices.

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	Government agencies, representatives from farmer organizations, RDALP team. Discussions to develop participatory land use plans for a region and identify the sectors to be developed
planning	interactive	Government agencies, representatives from farmer organizations, RDALP team Discussions, site visits and field programs to identify factors limiting land productivity and implementation of SLM practices Identify strategies to address these limitations Identify how the private sector can contribute and invite them to invest
implementation	interactive	Government agencies, leaders of farmer organizations, farmers, RDALP team, private sector companies Training and dissemination of knowledge through demonstrations, farmer training programs, farmer field schools Progress monitoring and evaluation Provide advisory services to farmers as needed Conduct performance-based rewarding to motivate the practitioners and to recruit followers
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	TSHDA, RDALP team, farmers, private sector companies make observations in fields, guiding land users, exchange photos through whatsapp® Some private sector companies also involve in monitoring and field evaluating process (Adamjee Lukmanjee (Pvt) Ltd)

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Training was provided for both men and women; age between 20-70 years old

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Form of training:

• Zoom discussions, Farm Field Schools

Subjects covered:

Soil conservation practices, intercropping in tea lands, organic fertilizer preparation (compost tea, vermi- compost), burying of pruned plant parts, infilling, documentation, improving tea buds quality and quantity, handling of machines for cutting pits and tea plucking

Comments:

Farmer trainings are much important to spread easy agronomic practices and scientific knowledge to farmers

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:

Demonstration, advisory service was carried out through: government extension system, agricultural instructors and some private sector companies such as Adamjee Lukmanjee (Pvt) Ltd company which is giving support to enhance vanilla cultivation as an intercrop

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

• providing safety kits and tea plants for infilling

Give further details:

Organizing and conducting training programs, providing machineries for tea plucking and cutting pits, distribute safety kits among land users

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

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

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Provide machinery for cutting pits and plucking, safety kits and tea plants for infilling as material support, provide financial support for soil testing, to add liming material for correcting soil pH for those who performed soil testing
The material and financial support was provided by RDALP team with contributions from TSHDA and private sector based on performance evaluation

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• other

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Most of the time family members are engaged with field activities and hire labour for tea plucking

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

Approach has converted the most of non- productive lands to productive levels with the support of external bodies. Lands needs low external inputs as farmers produce required fertilizers by themselves in their own land by using natural organic materials. The crop diversification helps to reduce risk of crop losses and increase various income pathways to farmer. As well as approach helps access to markets. And there is a trend of farmers who succeed with approach to share their knowledge and experience with others. The ICT knowledge provided by the approach is much useful in that aspect. So, land users can sustain what has been implemented through the approach.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increased the production and product variability due to practicing intercropping
Reducing land degradation
Increased market opportunities
Improve the knowledge due to training programs and regular visits of agricultural officers

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Encouraging the participation of women in the field-based activities as a result of hygienic and time saving practices ex; mechanization, introduction of safety kits
Increase in soil fertility and reduction of soil erosion (due to application of organic manure, vermi-compost and improve the ground cover due to minimum tillage)
Using ICT in knowledge dissemination. This increased social cohesion, resilience and fast dissemination of knowledge.
Facilitating inter-sectoral collaboration taking a participatory approach throughout the process

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?
Water scarcity	Better to introduce rain water harvesting system and improved irrigation methods like drip-irrigation to increase water use efficiency
Males are need to use some heavy machinery	Males are migrating to cities looking for jobs and therefore, the field activities are affected. Need to enhance income further to retain them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
A systematic impact assessment with key performance indicators should be developed with the involvement of farmers at the initial stage. This was missing in the approach and it was done only towards the latter part of the project	Farmers have not maintained records prior to inception of the project. It is important to develop key performance indicators at the very beginning to evaluate how the system performance change so that even farmers can witness the changes through time. Otherwise, they cannot recall the situation before implementing the approach

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Improving livelihoods of women tea smallholders through sustainable land management practices, 2021

Available from where? Costs?

Daily Financial Times newspaper

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Improving livelihoods of women tea smallholders through sustainable land management practices, 2021

URL:

https://srilanka.un.org/en/127297-improving-livelihoods-women-tea-smallholders-through-sustainable-land-management-practices