Approaches

Restoration of degraded lands through participatory land use planning [Sri Lanka]

Village-based participatory land use planning

approaches_6237 - Sri Lanka

Completeness: 97%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
co-compiler:
co-compiler:
Agrarian Research and Production Assistant:

Karunarachchi Mangalika

+94714955038

Department of Agrarian Development

Agrarian Research and Production Assistant Office, Galayata Kandura, Bindunuwewa, Bandarawela.

Sri Lanka

land user:

Podimenike W.M.

+94572232842

Galayata Kandura, Bindunuwewa, Bandarawela.

Sri Lanka

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. Description of the SLM Approach

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

Comments, short description:

https://youtu.be/uHBRGYVT--M
Participatory Land Use Planning for Sustainable Land Management

Date:

03/08/2021

Location:

Dambugasagala, Welimada

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Sri Lanka

Region/ State/ Province:

Badulla District - Uva province

Further specification of location:

Watagamuwa Grama Niladhari Division, Bandarawela Divisional Secretariat Division

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2018

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2021

Comments:

Stakeholders continue to provide extension service for this microwatershed, even though the project was finished.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

Greater social capital as local community is well organized with a strong social bonding among villagers. Farmer organization with leaders appointed by villagers further strengthened the bonding between people for agriculture/ land management related activities.

  • hindering

Lack of interest of young generation on farming.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • enabling

Having access to a comprehensive land use plan for each land increases access for financial resources such as loan facilities from banks, subsidy schemes of TSHDA, Loan facilities of tea factories. Farmers have the option to come with an agreement with a leading supermarket chain in Sri Lanka to obtain financial services/materials with the promise of supplying the products exclusively to the said supermarket chain.

  • hindering

Existing financial wellbeing of farmers and land ownership related issues limits the access.

institutional setting
  • enabling

National, regional and village level institutional set up is existing. Moreover, farmer organizations have strengthened the collective power of farmers to coordinate with institutes. Female farmers have formed “Sithamu” Women's Farmers' Organization and both female and male farmers in the village have formed “Galayata Kandura” Rural Farmer Organization. Land use plan serves as a common platform for the collaboration between institutes enhancing the overall synergy.

  • hindering

Often the lack of coordination between sectoral institutes and top-down approach in decision making. Lack dedicated institutes to coordinate activities at national level.

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

Officers of relevant government institutes namely, DS, LUPPD, Extension service of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Agrarian Development, Department of Export Agriculture and TSHDA are willingly to support farmers. Moreover, RDALP project officers play an important role in coordinating the activity.

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

Majority of farmers own their lands (home gardens and tea smallholdings). Legal frameworks of land ownership and land and water usage are well established.

  • hindering

Delays and complications in solving legal issues pertaining to land use

policies
  • enabling

Land use policy, soil conservation act, national action plan (NAP) to combat land degradation

  • hindering

Lack of implementation of policies and acts

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
  • enabling

Presence of land use committee (at divisional level) and divisional agriculture committee (included all government institutes related to land use) for decision making. The DS is the chairperson of these committee who is also a part of the PLUP process. Farmers have the liberty to take land use decisions within the framework of land use policy and administrative framework. However, field level officers representing government institutes such as LUPPD, Department of Agriculture, Department of Export Agriculture, TSHDA play a supporting role in implementation of these decisions. Absence of Gender biasedness is a very important factor.

  • hindering

Land ownerships, conflicts on land ownership, illegal encroachment of sensitive areas of the micro watershed and political interferences

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

Farmer organizations serve as a platform to share knowledge on SLM. Strong village level extension service is facilitated by the Department of Agriculture, Export Agriculture, TSHDA and other technical services. These officers are available at Agrarian Service Centre and Wednesdays are allocated for meeting with farmers. Moreover, conducting field visits is a part of their duty. Farmer groups have been identified and introduced social media platforms such as WhatsApp® to share SLM knowledge by experts and among themselves. Farmers are capable of operating online interaction facilities such as Zoom® allowing experts to share the knowledge conveniently.

  • hindering

Inadequacy of extension officers

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

Farmers have the choice of marketing their products and enter into the value chain i.e. direct selling at the village vegetable market, private companies those visit to the field for purchasing their products (vegetable, spice crops and tea) and intermediate buyers. 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).

  • hindering

Lack of transport facilities, low market price offered by intermediate buyers, price fluctuations

workload, availability of manpower
  • enabling

Most of the SLM practices which are promoted through this approach are not very labor-intensive. Often, family members are sufficient to establish the majority SLM practices.

  • hindering

Lack of labor force due to the labor migration

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Land users/ village farmers (both men and women)

Express their willingness to involve in PLUP. They are involved in the entire process by actively participating for group discussions and activities with other stakeholders to identify land use related issues, prepare a community land use plan, identify SLM practices and implementation. Further, participation for training programmes and share the knowledge about SLM practices.

  • community-based organizations

“Sithamu” Women's Farmers' Organization and “Galayata Kandura" Rural Farmer Organization

All farmers of the village are members of these community based organizations. These serve as a platform to promote the involvement of farmers in the PLUP process. Moreover, problems/issues arise in the process are discussed within the organization to come up with socially agreed solutions.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

LUPPD, Department of Agriculture, Department of Export Agriculture, Department of Agrarian Development, TSHDA

Identification of village level micro-catchments by LUPPD
Introducing SLM technologies
Provision of training
Oversee the implementation and monitoring the success of field adopted SLM technologies

  • local government

DS office of Bandarawela, Department of Agrarian Development, TSHDA, Department of Agriculture and Department of Export Agriculture

Involved in the PLUP process as key stakeholders responsible for advisory services, conflict resolution, capacity building and overall implementation and monitoring

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

LUPPD, Ministry of Environment (MOE), Natural Resource Management Centre of the Department of Agriculture

Support the preparation of land use plans within the context of legal frame work of the country

  • international organization

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Project coordination, partial financial support, Capacity building

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

LUPPD

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)

Description:

The PLUP described above is focused on restoration of degraded lands at microwatershed level. The multi-sectoral coordination and multi-stakeholder engagement throughout the process are key features of this process leading to the preparation of detailed restoration plan at on-farm and off-farm levels promoting sustainable land management.

Author:

Prof. W.A.U. Vitharana

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. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

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. Financing and external material support

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
To which extent Specify subsidies
partly financed Subsidy for establishment of soil conservation structures
  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery fully financed Pruning kits for fruit tree management, Portable hole drilling machine* for establishment of tea plantations, Bush cutters*, selective plucking machines. *Provided for the Village farmer society
tools fully financed Nursery trays
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed Vegetables seeds
Fruit plants, Tea seedlings fully financed Fruit plants for home gardening and intercropped with tea, tea seedling for infilling
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
UV treated Polyethene fully financed UV treated Polyethene for water harvesting ponds and nursery sheds
  • infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
Rainwater storage tank fully financed Rainwater storage tank to harness water for micro watershed and the downstream areas as ground water
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. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

All land users are part of the approach which empowered land users on knowledge on land degradation, SLM practices and preparation of detailed restoration plan for degraded/poorly management lands. Moreover, training programs and field visits empowered land users with specific skills.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The participatory approach includes field visits, analysis of field evidences to identify degraded lands and lands those have not been properly managed. These allow land users on evidence based decision making to implement SLM practices.

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

The entire process help land users to understand user specific sustainable land management options and also integrate local knowledge and experience. Since SLM options are identified by land users it enables them to implement based on available resources. Involvement relevant stakeholders (e.g. Agriculture extension officers) and training programs help land users for the implementation and maintenance of SLM technologies. Partial financial support and material support further help farmers to implement and maintain SLM practices.

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Multi-sectoral coordination embedder throughout the process improve coordination among stakeholders. The SLM practices which are identified by land users assured to be cost-effective and manageable.

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Involvement of key institutes in the process and documentary evidence on proposed activities enhance the access to financial resources for SLM implementation.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Land users are trained on SLM by providing on-ground hands on experience and through online sessions. Farmers are motivated from others who have already implemented SLM practices.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Interaction between stakeholders is a dominant activity throughout the process. This allows knowledge sharing leading to improve capacities of all stakeholders. FAO officers, Extension officers and officers of Department of Agrarian Development visit each land plot and give further instructions

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Multiple institutions are involved in this approach and they work together in the process of land use planning.

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Increased production of vegetables and fruits through appropriate land use planning and SLM practices enhance the village level food security

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Establishment of rainwater harvesting ponds has been integrated to land use plan. Further, establishment of village level water harvesting tank increase the ground water status. This lead to access for irrigation water during the dry season.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Soil conservation practices and SLM practices lead to enhancement of soil organic carbon levels. Further, rainwater harvesting ponds sustain the water supply during extreme drought periods. These will contribute to the enhance climate resilience potential.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Increase in farmer income is expected through appropriate land use planning and application of SLM practices. Especially, crop diversification options introduced and increased irrigation water availability through rain water harvesting will enhance income opportunities. E.g. intercropping of spice crops (export agricultural crops) with tea as one of the consequences of this approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

Increased production from home gardens and tea smallholdings

  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

Increased crop yields, thus profits are expected through proper land allocation and application of SLM practices

  • reduced land degradation

Reduced land degradation (specially soil erosion) achieved through SLM practices such as application of soil conservation measures (stone bunds, terraces, contour farming) and application of organic fertilizers (compost) produced by farmers.

  • reduced risk of disasters

Soil conservation practices reduce the risk of earth slips which are prevalent in the area. Rainwater harvesting ponds reduce the risk of droughts.

  • payments/ subsidies

Subsidies were provided to implement soil conservation practices. Material support was provided for the preparation of rain water harvesting ponds, establishment of nurseries, and operations in tea lands.

  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

Land users understand the importance of SLM application for their lands through participatory approach and farmer field schools.

  • aesthetic improvement

Aesthetic value of home gardens were improved and it is given extra income for the family.

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. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

One field visit

  • interviews with land users

Three families were interviewed

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

RDAL project officers, Agriculture Research and Production Assistants

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Healthy Soil Matters (FAO, United Nations Colombo, 2021)

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

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules