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

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

Rehabilitation of Degraded Agricultural Lands in Kandy, Badulla and Nuwara Eliya Districts in the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka

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

Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (AGRI.PDN) - Sri Lanka

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

24/02/2022

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

Microwatershed-based participatory land use planning is a systematic and interactive process that primarily focuses on the optimal allocation of village land resources according to needs and demands of the people while promoting sustainable land management. Key features of this approach are multi-sectoral coordination, multi-stakeholder engagement and the active participation of land users throughout the participatory land use planning process.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Sapugasulpatha/ Galayata Kandura microwatershed is located in Bandarawela Divisional Secretariat (DS), Badulla District, Sri Lanka. Unsustainable land management has led to land degradation causing associated challenges. There was a need to identify strategies for restoration of degraded lands while addressing water scarcity. In 2018, the Rehabilitation of Degraded Agricultural Lands Project (RDALP) introduced participatory land use planning (PLUP) for this microwatershed. Previously, stakeholders were dealt with individually. But the PLUP process relies on the active involvement of all stakeholders. Key is microcatchment level planning - embedded in multi-sectoral coordination and multi-stakeholder engagement.
The process is initiated by the district office of the Land Use Policy Planning Department (LUPPD). Firstly, the LUPPD identifies microwatersheds and develops land use/cover maps. It is assisted by the Bandarawela DS, which is the administrative body for lands in the area and has the capacity to coordinate all relevant stakeholders. Then, officers of the LUPPD meet with community leaders, representatives of farmer organizations and field level officers to verify the land use maps through field visits. Demarcation of individual plots on these maps is also carried out. Next, a field visit is conducted with all stakeholders to identify the status of land degradation and the current crop management practices. This is, effectively, “training of trainers”. Subsequently, the community prepares maps of land degradation and management types with the support of LUPPD.
This is followed by a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) process with all stakeholders. In the PRA, issues related to land degradation/use, ownership, conflicts and socio-economic concerns are discussed. Participants come to an initial consensus on solutions. After this, a detailed action plan is prepared and stakeholders identified. The next stage involves the development of land use plans for the entire microwatershed targeting the restoration of degraded and poorly managed lands. The land use plan covers both on-farm and off-farm land, and provides recommendations for SLM practices over the entire microwatershed: it serves as a detailed land restoration plan. Then, detailed discussions are held with specific stakeholders to prepare sector-based plans. This includes detailed plans for individual farms. As an example, officers of Tea Smallholdings Development Authority (TSHDA) provide inputs to develop detailed plans for smallholder tea cultivation - including plans for individual farmers. Subsequently, implementation is performed jointly by stakeholders. If, for example, a farm is identified for tea cultivation intercropped with export crops, officers both from TSHDA and the Department of Export Agriculture extend their support. The approach includes farmer field schools (FFS) conducted by the Department of Agrarian Development officers and project officers of RDALP. Moreover, farmers are encouraged to use social media (WhatsApp®) to share their knowledge and experiences with SLM practices. The local community is also exposed to examples of good SLM through field visits. The final step is evaluation and monitoring. This is performed by the officers of the Agrarian Service Development, RDALP, and also by individuals. A divisional agricultural committee is mandated to perform continuous monitoring of implementation. PLUP provides the stimulus for farmers to continue SLM - since practices are not enforced but identified themselves. Further, firm bonding is established between land users and other stakeholders, including government institutes, strengthening the likelihood of sustainability.

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

1)Identification and mapping of degraded lands at microwatershed level.
2)Integration of multi-sectoral coordination and multi-stakeholder engagement in participatory land use planning implemented at village micro watershed level.
3)Identification of land management related issues and factors contributing to land degradation and prioritizing sustainable land use/management options through participatory approach.
4)Development and implementation of a land use plan and an action plan to restore and mitigate the degradation within the micro watershed employing PLUP approach.
5)Maintenance and promotion of ecosystem services for the sustainability of rural livelihoods.
6)Reduction of the pressure of competitive land use on 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	Community leaders, LUPPD, DS and RDAL Project officers. The process is initiated by the district office of LUPPD which is the responsible national level authority to prepare sustainable land use plans. The regional office identifies village level micro catchment and develop land use/cover maps. The DS serves as a body that coordinate the activity by linking relevant stakeholders.
planning	interactive	Community leaders, land users, LUPPD, DS and RDALP officers. Planning of the PLUP process is performed by these parties.
implementation	interactive	Land users, community leaders, Department of Agrarian Development, Department of Agriculture, Department of Export Agriculture, TSHDA, officers of RDALP, other officers representing different agriculture sectors and land users. Implementation of the restoration plan for individual farm is performed jointly by different stake holders. As an example if a farmers` land is identified for tea cultivation intercropped with export agricultural crops, officers both from TSHDA and Department of Export Agriculture extend their support for implementation.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Land users, Department of Agrarian Development, RDALP officers, individual stakeholders, Department of Agriculture, officers of Natural Resource management Centre and divisional agricultural committee. Please note that participatory monitoring mechanism was implemented.
Marketing	self-mobilization	Land users (farmers), private companies and intermediate sellers. Farmers have the choice of marketing their products by direct selling at the village vegetable market, through private companies those visit to the field for purchasing their products (vegetable and tea) and intermediate buyers. Moreover, farmers also have the option to come into a contract with a leading supermarket chain to sell their products if they are willing to adopt Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)

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

Explain:

This is a participatory approach in which stakeholders make collective decisions on the selection of appropriate technologies. Multi-stakeholder engagement is a prominent characteristic.

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 farmers of the microwatershed

Form of training:

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

Form of training:

• social media (WhatsApp®) and online meetings via Zoom® platform

Subjects covered:

Sustainable Land Management practices, compost preparation, liquid fertilizer preparation, water harvesting techniques, soil conservation practices and pruning of fruit trees

Comments:

Farmers have shown a great interest on sharing knowledge and experiences through the social media

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Well organized advisory service is available in Sri Lanka which is conducted through the field officers of the Department of Agriculture, Export Agriculture, TSHDA. These officers are available at Agrarian Service Centre and Wednesdays are allocated for meeting with farmers and making field visits is a part of their job. Moreover, members of the project team RDALP also served as trainers. Importantly, community leaders and farmer organization representatives were trained as trainers to assure the sustainability.

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
• regional

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The PLUP process strengthens the institutional coordination and their roles at village level.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

• infrastructure

Give further details:

Details are provided in Table 6.3

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Field level government officers are entrusted with the monitoring process with the participation of land users

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

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

GEF and local government institutions

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):

Financial support for soil conservation, materials for preparation of nursery sheds (4x4 feet), vegetable seeds and fruit plants for home gardening, tea seedlings for infilling and polythene for rain water harvesting ponds

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• labour

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

• infrastructure

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Most of the time family members are engaged with field activities

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

If yes, specify:

Land use policy and agriculture policy of Sri Lanka are overarching instruments. Moreover, regulations identified in the Soil Conservation Act of Sri Lanka promote SLM technologies.

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:

There is a greater potential for farmers to continue SLM practices since such practices are not forcefully enforced but identified by land users themselves through a participatory approach. Therefore, SLM technologies identified by farmers suit to their socio-economic capacity. Further, strong bonding is established with land users and other stakeholders such as government institutes, that will lead to the sustainability of the approach.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Multi-sectoral coordination and multi-stakeholder engagement throughout all activities of the approach
Land users perceive a sense of ownership of the SLM practice implemented through the approach
Training programmes conducted through online platforms motivate farmers to implement SLM on their own land while improving the awareness on SLM practices
Greater potential of enhancement of the farmer income through practices such as crop diversification, intercropping etc.
Enhanced food security

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Field evidence suggested farmers have willingly embraced the approach to restore their degraded lands
The approach has enhanced collaborations with land users and other stakeholders
The approach has inculcated ownership of the entire process on 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?
Marketing of Vegetables	Though farmers has access to village vegetable market, if farmers can be incorporated to the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) program this limitation can be overcome.
Lack of financial resources	Formally link a financial supporting institute as a key stakeholder (e.g. Banks, social protection schemes)
Lack of labor	Though land users identified less labor intensive SLM practices, the provision of necessary machinery could have substitute such practices with more appropriate ones.
Time constraints of land users to participate continuously	Use of ICT tools and scheduling meetings at convenient times for land users

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
PLUP approach is a time consuming process	Simplify the PLUP process
This approach requires a large number of officers to carry out	Simplify the PLUP process
Incompatibility of micro-watershed boundaries and administrative boundaries	Use administrative boundaries in planning process
Negative attitude of some institutions and some officials towards collective effort	National level stakeholders should be made aware of the project activities and incorporate them into their plans
Some stakeholders' involvement exceeds beyond their mandate	Ensuring that each institution executes their mandate and the due respect for their intervention

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Healthy Soil Matters, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Colombo, 2021

Available from where? Costs?

SriCAT website

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guidelines for participatory land use planning

Available from where? Costs?

LUPPD

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Healthy Soil Matters, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Colombo, 2021

URL:

https://sricat.net/index.php/en/media-gallery/documents/248-healthy-soil-matters