Inter-sectoral collaboration for sustainable land management in tea smallholdings [Sri Lanka]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Head Soil Science
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: William Critchley, Rima Mekdaschi Studer
Inter-sectoral collaboration for sustainable land management in tea smallholdings
approaches_6182 - Sri Lanka
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
co-compiler:
co-compiler:
Agrarian Research and Production Assistant:
Iroshini Senevirathna
+94778278582
iroshinisenavirathna@gmail.com
Department of Agrarian Development
Agrarian Research and Production Assistant Office, "Nila Sewana", Pambadeniya
Sri Lanka
land user:
Pushpa Ranjani
+94767817221
“Sithamu Ranliya” farmer's organization
Pambadeniya, Panvilathanna
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 LankaName 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 Lanka1.3 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. Description of the SLM Approach
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
Comments, short description:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU3--fHKY1k
Application of ICT for knowledge dissemination and agricultural extension service
Date:
20/07/2021
Location:
Pambadeniya, Panvilathanna
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Sri Lanka
Region/ State/ Province:
Kandy District- Central Province
Further specification of location:
Pambadeniya village
Comments:
The region is in the Maligamale watershed in the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka.
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
2017
Comments:
Approach is still carrying out by land user
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
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- enabling
Increased livelihood requirements and access to education, market and health services
- hindering
Migration of youth and males to cities
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- enabling
Providing funds/ subsidies has increased the access to financial resources (subsidy schemes of TSHDA, Loan facilities of tea factories)
- hindering
Access of farmers to resources is limited by their financial situation as well as geographic location.
institutional setting
- enabling
An institutional set-up for facilitating the approach already exists and all technical support is providing by institutes
- hindering
Mandate of some institutions are not clearly defined. Decision making is very often a top-down approach
collaboration/ coordination of actors
- enabling
Institutes have some level of collaboration
- hindering
There is lack of motivation to initiate collaboration and the level of collaboration depends on the commitments of the officers. Institutional mechanisms do not encourage the collaborations
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- enabling
Some land users own their land
- hindering
Some lands used by farmers are owned by the state and there are issues on land rights. Water availability is problematic to farmers as the crop is maintained as a rainfed crop. In the region, drinking water is supplied in ten days interval during dry-months
policies
- enabling
National soil conservation act
- hindering
Implementation of policies to action is very low
land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
- enabling
Farmers participated in the decision-making process related to land management. Land is maintained based on the advice given under the approach. Most of the technologies introduced were not gender biased and therefore, involvement of women in management practices increased
- hindering
Dependence on males is high for agronomic practices in tea-cultivation
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- enabling
Farmers were guided through farmer training programs, practical sessions, farmer field schools, Zoom® meetings, sharing knowledge through WhatsApp® groups and Facebook.
- hindering
Shortage of tea extension officers
markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
- enabling
Private companies come to fields to purchase products and they provide extension support and material inputs to some extent to the farmers who have established links with them
- hindering
Market orientation of farmers is low and their ability to negotiate prices is poor due to various factors
workload, availability of manpower
- enabling
Labour resources are available. Introduction of machinery created shared responsibilities and reduced labour demand while creating an income source for the farmer organizations. Decent working environment with safety kits and machineries will encourage the labour force to remain in the sector
- hindering
Labour force continuously moving away from the industry
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
Men and women farmers are involved in tea cultivation
They involved in practicing SLM technologies as the technologies were not gender biased. But the operation of mechanical weeder and auger for infilling are mainly done by male farmers.
- community-based organizations
Farmer organizations
Support coordination of activities with farmers
Support Farmer Field Schools
Maintain common equipment and rent for members and non-members to support SLM practices
- SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
Tea Smallholding Development Authority, Department of Agrarian Development, Department of Export Agriculture, Department of Agriculture
Provide tea plants for infilling, promote inter-cropping and provide technical guidance to farmers
Serve as resource-persons in Farmer Field Schools and in WhatsApp® groups
- researchers
University of Uva Wellassa, Sri Lanka
Study the effectiveness of knowledge dissemination approach and effectiveness of some SLM technologies
- private sector
Several private sector companies are involved (Bio Food (Pvt) Ltd, Adamjee Lukmanjee (Pvt) Ltd)
Buying products, providing planting materials and continuing extension services to transfer necessary knowledge and skills to the farmers who are linked with them
- local government
Local government institutes are involved in the process (Tea Smallholdings Development Authority (TSHDA), Department of Agrarian Development, Department of Agriculture, Department of Export Agriculture, Divisional Secretariat office- Doluwa
Capacity building, advisory services on fertilizer usage, land management, crop selection etc.
- national government (planners, decision-makers)
Ministry of Environment
Helps to raise awareness among private and government sector stakeholders and within communities about SLM approaches and technologies,
Project coordination and partial financial support
- international organization
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Project coordination, partial financial support and capacity building
If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:
Tea Smallholdings Development Authority (TSHDA)
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)
Description:
Before implementing the approach the level of productivity of tea lands that belong to the farmers who participated in the project were in class ‘C’ and below. In this scale of productivity lands were classified from A to D where A is the best and D is the worst. After implementation of the approach most of the fields upgraded to ‘A’ and ‘B’ performance levels. An interview conducted with a farmer revealed that the average green-leaf tea yield before and after participating in the approach were 1000 kg/ha/month and 2400 kg/ha/month, respectively.
Author:
Warshi S. Dandeniya
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. 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; 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. 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:
- 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
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
machinery | fully financed | Tea plucking machines, grass cutting machines and machine for cutting pits in tea lands |
tools | fully financed | Tea buds collecting buckets |
- agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
Planting materials, liming materials | fully financed | Tea plants for infilling, liming materials to correct soil pH, soil testing service |
- other
Other (specify) | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
Safety kits | fully financed |
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. 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
Application of organic fertilizers such as compost tea, vermi-compost enhance the market value and some farmers ventured into organic tea production
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Participatory approach in all stages of the project and farmer field schools encouraged the farmers and officers for evidence-based decision making. This also helped to recruit followers for the approach.
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Approach helps to maintain better environment within the community as it introduced practices that improved safety and hygiene of the farmers while being more efficient. Farmers have been maintaining the SLM technologies
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Approach used existing institutional set-up and farmer organizations to coordinate the activities. Therefore, it was cost effective and helped to strengthen the collaborations between stakeholders
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Introducing private sector collaborations and improving market orientation of farmers helped to attract financial support to maintain sustainability of the approach
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Approach improved the knowledge and capacity of practitioners. Although only about 25 farmers attended farmer field school the number of farmers who joined WhatsApp group is high as 70. Farmers are sharing knowledge and experiences and were able to improve land productivity through the approach
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders were improved similarly. Several officers were trained on SLM practices and technologies, use of ICT for extension, etc
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Approach helps to strengthen the collaboration between institutes and stakeholders
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Improving communication through the project supported the stakeholders to build healthy relationships.
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Approach helps to earn income in different ways. It is not limited for tea. They can earn money by selling the harvest from intercropping such as vanilla, pepper cultivation, managing nurseries, etc.
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Women engagement is high as the new agronomic measures help to reduce time spent on field practices
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Usage of ICT knowledge, improving hygiene and safety of farmers, increased their willingness to invest on SLM and these characters could attract youth to the sector
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Increased family improved food security of the practitioners. In addition, the approach promoted intercropping tea with export agricultural crops/ fruit crops and the use of edible crops in fencing. These also increased food supply. Since the mechanization and safety kits helped to reduce time spent on field work the farmers, especially women, were able to invest more time in their home garden and increase the provision of nutritious food to the household
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Linkages developed through government entities increased market access. Further some farmers ventured into organic tea production using SLM practices and training provided through the approach. This helped them to reach a niche market
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
Improving soil fertility status has improved the resilience of tea stand for drought. Therefore, the effect of climate change on the income was only slightly affected. Further the SLM techniques they practiced helped them to rely less on inorganic fertilizers and therefore, the farmers were less affected by the fertilizer shortage in the market that happened due to changes in government policies. Using ICT tools for communication helped the farmers to share knowledge and coordinate activities even under COVID19 pandemic situation. They have got used to distant learning methods with this and now able to seek support from experts without having to travel
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Farmer organizations were given some machinery for weeding and land preparation like activities. The members from the farmer organizations, who were trained to use the machinery, provided their service to the farmers for a payment from which a fraction is given to the farmer organization for maintaining the equipment. In addition, some farmers started nursery management as a business
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- increased production
Infilling and improving soil fertility increased canopy cover leading to increased productivity
- increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
Product variability inside field supported diversity of income sources. Farmers who practiced organic farming methods were able to reach a niche market and get ore income
- reduced land degradation
Due to well organized farmer training sessions or demonstrations in their fields SLM practices became more popular and farmers invested to maintain the practices they initiated
- reduced risk of disasters
Fields established well with SLM technologies were more resilient to drought and fertilizer shortage in the market
- prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
Improvement in health and hygiene of workers improved their image. Operating WhatsApp® groups also improved social cohesion
- enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
Due to regular observations of agricultural officers
- aesthetic improvement
With live fences and good canopy cover of the tea stand the field looks healthy and farmers claimed they were motivated to continue the good practices because of these
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. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
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
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules