(632) 923 0459

Guidelines on the Identification, Selection, and Documentation of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Best Practices



These guidelines adopt the principles recommended by the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT). Therefore, most of the contents were based on the principles cited in “Sustainable Land Management: Guidelines and Best Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa, prepared by WOCAT in 2011 with certain modifications to suit the Philippine setting

I Introduction.

The country, with its geographic location and setting, is very vulnerable to various forms of natural resources degradation which are further exacerbated by climate change. Many of these processes and impacts have been studied in detail. For a long time, researches focus on land degradation with lesser emphasis on interventions to combat and prevent it. Sustainable land management (SLM) is the solution to address land degradation. It is the use of land and water resources to meet the changing human needs while ensuring the long-term economic and ecological functions of the land. Its role is crucial in minimizing land degradation, rehabilitating degraded areas and ensuring the optimal use of land resources for the benefits of the present and future generation. However, despite continuous efforts to spread SLM practices, adoption is still alarmingly low. Successful adoption of SLM depends on a combination of factors and it is a challenge to find best SLM practices for diverse local conditions. It is, therefore, essential to provide decision support tools for local land-users, specialists, planners, and decision-makers and invest in knowledge management and decision support mechanisms by following sound procedures and tapping existing knowledge (WOCAT, 2011).

The Bureau of Soils and Water Management in partnership with the Philippine Conservation Approaches and Technologies (PHILCAT) member-institutions is implementing the DA-BAR funded project titled “Development of Decision Support Tools on Sustainable Land Management (SLM) as a Key to address Abiotic Stresses in Areas Vulnerable to Climate Change” The project general objectives is to develop sustainable land management (SLM) decision support tools for combating land degradation and the effects of climate change. At present, while it is recognized that there are a lot of good SLM technologies and approaches being adopted by land-users, they remain scattered and in different formats. There are knowledge gaps specifically in terms of area covered, impacts and economics of SLM and therefore these knowledge are not used to make decisions. Hence, there is a need to document this wealth of knowledge on SLM, put them into a database, and process them into knowledge products that can be used as decision support tools (e.g. overview books, reports, posters and videos) at the planning level. One of the major outputs of the DA-BAR funded project therefore is a documentation of SLM best practices using appropriate and sound methodologies. The World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), a global network of SLM specialists, has already documented SLM Technologies and Approaches. Its methodologies on knowledge management, database, and decision support tools are used worldwide. As the project intends to develop the guidelines for the selection of SLM best practices, it will draw on WOCAT’s first overview book “Where the land is greener” and available compendium of SLM best practices (e.g. SLM in Practice for Sub-Saharan Africa) in terms of guiding principles and framework. These guidelines are prepared for the project staff, partner agencies, and relevant stakeholders and are formulated to:

  • Provide protocol for identifying and selecting SLM best practices in the priority ecosystems of the project;
  • Present the principles and standard tools to document best practices from experiences of land users in addressing land degradation through SLM; and
  • Analyse and discuss promising SLM practices – both approaches and technologies as references in the documentation process.

II Project Objectives.

As a general overview, the project has the following objectives:

General Objectives

To develop sustainable land management (SLM) decision support tools for combating land degradation and the effects of climate change.

Specific Objectives

  1. To document available SLM and climate change adaptation best practices and success stories, both indigenous and science-based knowledge, from different parts of the country;
  2. To increase capacity and awareness of local partners on SLM and adaptation strategies in areas vulnerable to the effects of climate change;
  3. To develop SLM knowledge management and decision support tools using WOCAT methodology
  4. To strengthen the PHILCAT in its advocacy and activities related to SLM; and
  5. To communicate and disseminate results to land users, SWC advocates and specialists, and policy and decision makers to facilitate broader adoption.

III Scope and Coverage of the Guidelines.

The guidelines have two main parts. Part 1 highlights the structure and process of identification and selection of SLM practices, the flow of knowledge from field experiences of land users to other land-user, and the roles and responsibilities of project implementation sub-teams and the SLM Centers and partner agencies to facilitate the process. Part 2 presents the main principles behind SLM and the technical and socio-economic considerations for technologies and approaches to qualify as “best practices” suitable for documentation and up-scaling.

The project coverage focuses on the following ecosystems nationwide:

  1. Highland ecosystem with small-holders agriculture for high value crop production under Type 1 & III Climate – Benguet State University, Cordillera Administrative Region.
  2. Irrigated Rice Production Systems under Type 1 and Type III Climate – Bataan Peninsula State University and Central Luzon State University – Region 3
  3. Natural Resources Management and Forest (Watershed) Ecosystem under Type 1 Climate – University of the Philippines at Los Baños – Region 4
  4. Small Island Environment vulnerable to typhoons under Type II Climate – Visayas State University – Region 8
  5. Highland ecosystem with corporate farming for high value crop production under Type IV Climate – Xavier University – Region 10

In essence, the SLM best practices represent solutions (i.e. local innovation and development) to various types of degradation in the priority but not limited to the above ecosystems.

IV Structure and Process of Identification and Selection of SLM Practices: Knowledge Management – Part 1

Figure 1. The flow of knowledge from field level (contributors based on experiences) to the field (users at the planning level) (adopted from WOCAT Presentation)

As land users, SLM specialist, planners, and decision-makers face the challenge of finding best practices for particular conditions, there are decisions that need be made to effectively address the issues at hand. Which SLM technology and approach should be selected? Where and how to apply them? What are the costs and impacts? Who plays what roles? Where and when to invest: on prevention before land degradation starts or on mitigation after degradation has started or on rehabilitation when degradation is most severe? Answers to these questions are crucial in making decisions on which SLM practices to spread and where are the priority areas for intervention. The process will engage the participation of land-users, SLM experts, field implementers, project managers, academe and other stakeholders working on sustainable land management. Considering the process made in other regions (e.g. Sub Saharan Africa), a three-step decision support method as presented below will be adopted to help answer the above-mentioned questions. It is based on improved knowledge management and selection mechanism which involve relevant stakeholders from different levels (WOCAT, 2011). Figure 1 shows the flow of knowledge from the land users to other land users with the corresponding tools and methodologies and expected outputs as outlined by WOCAT.

  1. Identification of SLM practices.

    The project will adopt a participatory sharing and learning approach in which local stakeholders and sources of SLM knowledge will be initially engaged in the process. It will bring together scientific and local knowledge to reflect the current and potential problems and solutions related to land degradation, to identify existing and new SLM practices, and to select a set of these practices for further evaluation and documentation. The first seminar-workshop will be conducted in the SLM Centers to initially identify SLM practices in the priority ecosystems. Resource persons and experts who could share their experiences and knowledge on SLM practices will come from the following institutions:

    1. Department of Agriculture – Regional Field Offices (DA-RFOs) – will be potential sources of best practices and success stories primarily for crop and livestock production and fisheries that contributed to the country’s food production program. They are rich with SWC technologies and approaches which are worthy of documenting so that these best practices will be known and be replicated in other similar conditions.
    2. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)-Regional Offices – will be the sources of SLM and climate change adaptation best practices and success stories on natural resources management (NRM). They have implemented SWC technologies and approaches for environmental protection and sustainability which need to be documented, compiled, and properly communicated to various stakeholders including policy and decision makers.
    3. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) – Regional Offices – will be the potential sources SWC approaches with emphasis on ensuring land tenure security of farmers and land users in agrarian reform communities (ARC). This social arrangement encourages agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) to engage in sustainable land management. DAR has been active in the conduct of trainings on soil and water conservation particularly for ARBs in the uplands.
    4. Local Government Units (LGUs) are the main implementers of SLM technologies and approaches. As important partners, they could present success stories on SLM implemented by their constituents.
    5. State Colleges and Universities (SCUs) and Academe are potential sources of modern technologies on SLM based on their long-term research outputs in the field of agricultural development and natural resources management
    6. Non-government organizations (NGOs) will be engaged in all public consultations to get inputs from them in the assessment of SLM best practices. They are also implementing SLM and with their strong presence in the community, their contributions to the project will be very significant.
    7. Land-users and Soil and Water Conservationist will be the direct sources and contributors of SLM practices through their experiences and knowledge developed through time in actual field application.

    In order to facilitate the identification of SLM practices for documentation, a presentation and report template that will cover the important features of SLM practices will be developed. Guided by the principles of SLM (WOCAT 2011), the report will highlight the practices’ features in term of their contributions to:

    1. Increased land productivity – practices should follow and combine the principles of improving water use efficiency and water productivity (reduce losses, increase storage, improve irrigation); increasing soil fertility, plant management, and attending to micro-climate;
    2. Improved livelihoods – it implies that changes towards SLM should build on – and be sensitive to – values and norms, allow flexibility, and innovation to improve livelihoods. SLM practices such as conservation agriculture, with advantages of reduced labor and inputs will stand a better chance of being adopted;
    3. Improved ecosystems – practices must be environment friendly, reduce the current land degradation, improve biodiversity and increase resilience to climate variation and change.

  2. Assessment of Identified SLM Practices.

    After identifying potential SLM best practices in the priority ecosystems, the next step will be the evaluation, documentation, and assessment of these SLM practices using standard methodologies such as those of WOCAT. The WOCAT standardized tools include Questionnaires on Technologies (QT) and Questionnaires on Approaches (QA). QT addresses the following questions: what are the specifications and main features of the technology; where it is used, i.e. in terms of natural and human environment; and what impact does it have. The questionnaire consists of three main parts: 1) General Information; 2) Specification of SLM Technology; and 3) Analysis of the Technology. On the other hand, QA answers the questions how the implementation was achieved and who achieved it. It also consists of three main parts: 1) General Information; 2) Specification of SLM approach; and 3) Analysis of the SLM approach. Through the process, untapped local knowledge that remains unavailable to others will be recognized. It will also allow a thorough assessment and evaluation of the impacts and benefits of various SLM practices and comparison of different SLM options. QT and QA which will be used in the evaluation of the SLM technologies and approaches can be downloaded in the WOCAT website through this link

    Once documented using WOCAT methodologies, SLM experiences can be made widely available and accessible in a form that allows stakeholders to review the documented practices, understand their particular advantages and disadvantages and make appropriate decisions (WOCAT, 2011). This is an approach whereby the promotion of SLM is build on existing knowledge, first from within location and specific ecosystem itself, and/or from similar conditions and environment elsewhere within the administrative region and the whole country. At this stage, a hands-on training on the application of QT and QA will be conducted at the SLM centers. It will be spearheaded by the concerned project sub-teams and partner PHILCAT institution of specific SLM Center.

  3. Participatory decision-making for the selection of SLM Best Practices.

    Subsequent to the documentation and assessment of potential SLM best practices is to decide which among them are the best bets and to determine the environment where they are suitable for implementation. This will involve the second seminar-workshop with relevant stakeholders with the outputs of the documentation providing the decision support tools to evaluate the best options, compare and rank them, and decide which are the best options for specific condition. The evaluation will be based on cost-effectiveness, their impacts in reducing the severity of land degradation, richness of knowledge, enabling framework conditions, and their roles in addressing socio-cultural and economic issues.

In all stages, stakeholders’ involvement and participation is very important and a key to the success of all undertakings.

V Guiding Principles for Best SLM Practices – Part 2.

Taking the view of TerrAfrica (2011), “best SLM practices” refers to those practices that increase production and are profitable, cost-efficient with primarily rapid but also long-term payback, are easy to learn, socially and culturally accepted, effectively adopted and taken up, environmentally friendly, and are appropriate for all stakeholders including socially marginalized groups (FAO, 2008). Briefly, the primary focus of SLM is on increased land productivity and improved livelihoods and ecosystems which also serve as the guiding principles of SLM best practices.

  1. Increased Land Productivity.

    As a guiding principle, it implies that to increase agricultural productivity a SLM practice should 1) increase water productivity (water use efficiency); 2) enhance soil organic and soil fertility (carbon and nutrient recycling); and 3) produce favorable micro-climate.

    In rainfed agriculture, there is optimal water use efficiency and water productivity when losses due to evaporation, runoff, and drainage are minimized. With large water wastage due to inappropriate land use practices, yield under rainfed agriculture can be increased through better rainwater management as the main entry point into SLM. Best practices in this regard fall into five strategies on rainwater management (WOCAT, 2011), namely:

    1. Diversion and drainage of runoff. Safe discharge or release of surplus rainwater to avoid leaching of nutrients, soil erosion, or landslides. This can be achieved through graded terraces, cut-off drains and diversion ditches.
    2. Impede or slow down runoff. The strategy allows more time for rainwater to infiltrate into the soil and reduces the damaging impact of runoff through soil erosion. This can be accomplished through the use of vegetative strips, hedgerows of closing earth and stone bunds, terraces, etc.
    3. Retain runoff. The strategy is to avoid any movement of water on the land to facilitate rainfall infiltration. Thus, the water storage within the rooting depth of plants is improved and groundwater tables are recharged. The technologies involved are cross-slope barriers, mulching, vegetative cover, minimum or no tillage, etc.
    4. Store runoff through rainwater harvesting. This strategy is being adopted where rainfall is insufficient and therefore runoff needs to be accumulated and stored. This can be applied also in environments with excess water during wet seasons and scarce water during dry seasons. The technologies that can be used are small water impounding projects, farm reservoirs and farm ponds. The stored water can be used for supplemental irrigation, watering livestock or for domestic uses.
    5. Reduce soil evaporation. Water loss from the soil surface can be reduced through soil cover by mulch and vegetation, windbreaks, shade, etc. This is appropriate in drier conditions where evaporation losses are extremely high particularly during dry season.

    For irrigated agriculture, efficient conveyance and distribution of irrigation water are key water-saving strategies (WOCAT, 2011). Best practices for irrigated agriculture include the following:

    1. Increased water use efficiency. Conveyance and distribution can be improved through well-maintained canals, lined canals, properly fixed and installed piping systems, and by avoiding leakages. In case of sprinkler systems, evaporation loss can be reduced by using low pressure sprinkler system during night or early morning, and avoiding irrigation when windy. In case of upland cultivation, irrigation application should be within the soil water holding capacity in the root zone.
    2. Practice of deficit irrigation (i.e. when water is scarce) or the spreading of limited irrigation water over a larger area. It allows achieving considerably higher yields and water use efficiency compared to using water for full irrigation over a smaller area (Oweis and Hachum, 2001).
    3. Supplementary irrigation by complementing rain during period of water deficits, at water-stress sensitivity stages in plant growth. The strategy is a key strategy for unlocking rainfed yield potential and water productivity.
    4. Water harvesting and improved water storage for irrigation during times of surplus and using the stored water for supplementary irrigation during times of water scarcity. This strategy also includes small water impounding project (SWIP) and small farm reservoirs or farm ponds in combination with community level water management.
    5. Integrated irrigation management which goes beyond the technical aspects of management as it considers sustainability dimensions such as coordinated water management, maximized economic and social welfare, and equitable access to water and water services, without compromising the sustainability of ecosystems (Studer, 2009).

    Another important component that should be addressed for increased land productivity is soil fertility. Essentially, healthy and fertile soil is the foundation of land productivity with soil organic matter (SOM) as a key to soil fertility. SOM contains all the essential plant nutrients. It helps absorb and hold nutrients in available forms, maintains good soil structure (i.e. for better soil water holding capacity), and provides habitats for soil organisms. Hence, SLM best practices should maintain or improve a balanced SOM-nutrient cycle. Replenishment and reduction of soil nutrient loss can be achieved through the following options:

    1. Improved fallow systems through the planting of fast growing leguminous crops into a fallow to rapidly replenish soil fertility. The planting of nutrient fixing plants (legumes) can be done either in sequence, as intercrop or in rotation basis.
    2. Residue management, a practice that ideally leaves 30% or more of the soil surface covered with crop residues after harvest. It requires residue from the previous crop as the main resource and thus burning is directly discouraged and avoided. In the process, it minimizes soil erosion, improves water infiltration, and therefore conserves soil moisture.
    3. Application of improved compost and manure mainly from plant residues and domestic livestock, respectively can help to close the nutrient cycle by ensuring that these do not become losses to the system. It also contributes in building up the SOM that maintains soil structure and health as well as soil fertility.
    4. Tapping nutrients takes place through the roots of trees and other perennial plants when mixed with annual crops. Trees take up nutrients from the deep subsoil below the rooting depth of annual crops and return them to the topsoil in the form of mulch and litter. This enhances the availability of nutrients for annual crops.
    5. Minimum soil disturbance through reduced or zero tillage systems which leave more biological surface residues, provide environment for enhanced soil biotic activity, and maintain more intact and inter-connected pores and better soil aggregates.

    Crop management and improved agronomy are also important to supplement good SLM practices. Getting the right choice of planting materials that are adaptable to drought, pest and diseases, salinity and other constraints coupled with effective management should be considered. Good SLM practices can reduce weed growth by cover cropping, crop residues spreading, mulching and minimum soil disturbance. In terms of pests and diseases control, the selection of more resistant species and varieties and the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) using biological and natural control are good options for SLM.

    Creating and/or maintaining favorable micro-climate condition is also a key to improve land productivity. Such condition can be achieved by reducing the impacts of strong winds and storms (e.g. through windbreaks and shelter breaks), protecting against high temperature and radiation (e.g. using agro-forestry and multi-storey cropping), and keeping the soil as moist as possible (e.g. good soil cover through vegetation or mulch).

  2. Improved Livelihoods.

    The importance of SLM would not be fully appreciated if it will not bring improvement in livelihoods of land users. It is central to the adoption and spreading of SLM and as one of the guiding principles it should be counted in the selection of best practices. One of the indicators that a SLM practice would contribute to the land users’ livelihood is its cost and benefit. Based on experiences (e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa), SLM practices can be categorized with respect to benefits-cost ratio into four classes, namely:

    1. Positive paybacks in the short-term (immediate) and long-term (sustained). This is the ideal case, where land users generate profit right from the beginning and then receiving continuous returns which provides them the opportunity of paying back loans and credits quickly.
    2. Break-even in the short-term but provides long term positive paybacks. This implies higher inputs at the beginning but after the establishment, there is a sustained increase in benefits thus provides an increasing paybacks or profit over time.
    3. Negative paybacks in the short-term but provide long term benefits. Initial investments are considerably high with longer build-up period to generate the optimum benefits. In this case, land users might be constrained to make long-term investments where the establishment costs require assistance and external sources (i.e. beyond land users’ capacity). The maintenance costs however could be covered by local sources or by land users themselves from their direct paybacks.
    4. High initial returns (short-term) but poor or no returns in the long-term. These options are tempting to land users but will lose attractiveness in the long run due to the declining benefits over time. For instance, the so called Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s introduced agricultural intensification that led to large production increases through the introduction of new high yielding varieties that requires large amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, yield responses decline after few years due to various forms of degradation (e.g. depletion of organic matter, degradation of soil structure, changes in soil nutrient balance, and soil and water pollution) brought by excessive use of chemical inputs.

    An accurate assessment of benefits and costs in the short-and long-term is therefore necessary to select SLM best practices.

    Apart from benefits and costs, other elements related to improved livelihoods that should be assessed are:

    1. Access to inputs and equipment such as machinery, planting materials, fertilizers etc. There should also be secured markets for inputs and products.
    2. Access to knowledge related to SLM is also important. Practices that are easy to learn and build on existing experiences and knowledge have the best chance of being taken up.
    3. Practices are socially and culturally acceptable: aesthetics and beliefs, norms and values.
    4. Flexible enough to allow and encourage local adaptation and mitigation.
    5. Have value added to the land and to the quality of life.

  3. Improved ecosystem (Environment-friendly).

    The principles of increased production should also aim at improving ecosystem functions and services. Best practices, therefore, should be environment-friendly, reduce current land degradation, improve biodiversity, and increase resilience to climate variability and change Depending on the stage of land degradation, SLM introduction can be differentiated into prevention and mitigation of land degradation or rehabilitation of already degraded land as shown in Figure 2 (WOCAT, 2007). Prevention implies deployment of SLM measures that maintain the natural resources and their environmental and productive functions on land that may be prone to land degradation and that good land management practices is already in place. Mitigation is intervention intended to reduce on-going degradation which means that degradation has already begun. The aim is to stop further degradation and start improving resources and their ecosystem functions. Rehabilitation is required when the land is already degraded to such an extent that the original use is no longer possible and the land has become practically unproductive and the ecosystem seriously disturbed.

    Figure 2. Prevention, mitigation and rehabilitation of land degradation

    The investment costs and benefits will depend on the degree of degradation that the SLM interventions intend to address. For instance, rehabilitation usually implies high investment cost with medium long term benefits. Priority should be given to low input agronomic and vegetative measures than the more demanding and expensive structural measures. The latter will only be applied if the former cheaper options are not adequate to provide the solutions required.

    A key concern that should be looked into in the assessment of SLM best practices is their contribution in the conservation of biodiversity. Plant and animal biodiversity are central to human well-being as it support food production and a source of fiber, wood and medicines. Agro-biodiversity must also be taken care and therefore precautionary principle needs to be applied in terms of maintaining as many varieties of plants and animals as possible for the future.

    Another environmental concern that SLM practices should address is adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. Adaptation can be achieved through more resilient technologies (e.g. mulching and improved plant cover) and approaches that enhance flexibility and responsiveness to change. On the other hand, mitigation of climate change can be realized through SLM practices that sequester carbon in the soil and in perennial vegetation (e.g. afforestation, agro-forestry, reduced tillage, improved grazing).

VI Annex 1 - Guide to the presentation of Approaches

  1. General Information of the Approach

    1. Brief description of the approach

      • Provide common and local name of the Approach (if any), the major SLM technologies being promoted and its focus (i.e. conservation only, conservation with other activities, mainly other activities)
      • Define the area (in sq km2) in which the SLM approach has been applied (including specific location and center coordinate (lat and long)**
      • Photographs showing impressions of the Approach (e.g. stakeholders interacting with each other, training, other activities pertaining to its implementation)

        • ** Approach area is defined based on administrative units, catchments boundaries, land use types, social groups, etc.

  2. Specification of SLM Approach

    1. Description, objectives and operation

      • Definition of the Approach in one sentence (As a guide, an Approach consists of the following elements: participants and stakeholders; inputs and means-financial, materials, legislative/policies, etc.); know-how – technical, scientific, practical and to whom know-how belongs)
      • Provide summarized characteristics of the Approach – aims and objectives, methods used, stages of implementation, roles of participants.
      • Provide organization chart or flow chart of the Approach (i.e. organogram) and identify its implementing bodies (e.g. international, national government, local government, NGO, private sector, local community/land users, etc.) and designer (e.g. national specialists, international specialists, land users, etc.)

    2. Problems and constraints

      • Main problems to be addressed by the Approach (e.g. low agricultural production, lack of technical knowledge, lack of funds, conflict over resource use, poverty etc)
      • Main constraints (e.g. socio-cultural, financial, institutional, legal, technical, etc.) that hinder the implementation of the technology and how the Approach treated them.

    3. Participation

      • Involved stakeholders/target groups (e.g. individual land users, group of land users, SLM specialists/advisors, planners, politicians/decision makers, teachers/students, etc) and the nature or type of their involvement at various phases (initiation, planning, implementation, monitoring/evaluation, research) of the Approach
      • Describe the differences in participation of men and women in the implementation of the Approach and extent of involvement of socially and economically disadvantaged groups, if any.

    4. Financing and support

      • Sources and percentage contribution of each source (e.g. international donors, national government, international NGOs, national NGOs, local government, private sector, local community/land users)
      • Provide the annual budget for the SLM component of the approach (e.g. training and extension, research, and implementation)
      • Indicate if the approach provide training and awareness raising. To whom - land users, field staff, agricultural advisors, etc. and what forms of training (e.g. on the job, hands-on, site visits, demonstration, public meetings, etc.) Indicate if research is a part of the approach. What types of research (e.g. economics/marketing, sociology, ecology, technology, etc.)
      • Indicate if there are contributions per area provided by the government, private sector, etc. Specify (e.g. subsidies, compensations, etc.)
      • Describe labor provided by land users if substantial (i.e. voluntary, food-for-work, paid in cash, rewarded with other material support)
      • Describe availability of of credit provided under the approach, if any.
      • Describe the support (e.g. financing, training, equipment) under the approach provided to local institutions, if any.

  3. Analysis of SLM Approach

    1. Methods of monitoring and evaluation

      • Describe the monitoring procedures which indicate the methods (visual observations, ,measurements), frequency, and by whom, i.e. looking on the following aspects: bio-physical, socio-cultural, technical, economic/production, number of land users involved, management approach, others)
      • Describe changes in the Approach as result of the monitoring/ evaluation
      • Describe changes in the Technology as a result of the monitoring and evaluation

    2. Impact analysis

      • Describe the contribution of the Approach to improve sustainable land management
      • Describe if other land users/projects adopt the Approach? Which land users/projects? How many? (Socio-economic)
      • Describe the contribution of the Approach to improve livelihoods and human well-being (Socio-economic)
      • Describe the contribution of the Approach to improve the situation of the socially and economically disadvantaged groups
      • Describe if the approach contributed to alleviate poverty
      • Training, advisory service and research – how effective training, advisory service and research to target groups: land users, SLM specialists, planners, politician/decision makers, teachers, students; how effective was research contributing to the Approach effectiveness

    3. Land ownership, land use rights/water rights and legislation

      • Positive effects of existing land ownership, land use rights/water rights in the implementation of the approach.
      • Problems on land ownership, land use rights/water rights that affect the implementation of the approach, if any and how the approach overcame these problems.

    4. Subsidies

      • If subsidies were used, are they likely to have long term impacts on the implementation of SLM? In what way?

    5. Concluding statement

      • Describe the motivation of land users to implement SLM (e.g. increased productivity, increased profit, enforcement of laws, prestige, payment/subsidies, reduced workload, affiliation to movement/project/networks, environmental consciousness, well-being and livelihood improvement, aesthetic, etc.)
      • Sustainability - Describe whether the land users can continue the Approach activities even without support.
      • Major strengths and advantages of the Approach and how can they be sustained.
      • Major weaknesses and disadvantages of the Approach and how can they be overcome.

    6. Provide the list of Contributors and References that relate to the Approach being described

VII Annex 2 - Guide to the presentation of Technologies

Each of the SLM technology implemented through the Approach should be described accordingly to the following guide...

  1. General Information of SLM Technology

    1. Brief Description of the technology (w/ photographs)

      • Provide the common and local name of the technology, its definition and concise description; cite the program/project, system, or mechanism that facilitate the promotion and implementation of the technology.
      • Define the area where the SLM Technology is applied (i.e. Municipality and Province and SLM Technology area covered in ha or km2)**

        • ** Technology area is defined as the area where a particular Technology is actually applied. Approach area is defined based on administrative units, catchments boundaries, land use types, social groups, etc.

  2. Specification of SLM Technology

    1. Purpose and classification

      • Specify the major land use problems related to soil, water and vegetation in the area where the technology is being applied including the types of land degradation it addressed; characterize the purpose of the technology in terms of conservation measures that compose the technology (whether agronomic1, vegetative2, structural3 or management4 or their combination); and the goals it pursue (i.e. whether prevention of land degradation, mitigation/reduction of land degradation, or rehabilitation/restoration of degraded lands)

        • 1 Agronomic measures - associated with annual crops repeated routinely, do not lead to changes in slope profile and independent of slope
        2 Vegetative measures - involved the use of perennial grasses, shrubs or trees, of long duration, lead to changes in slope profile and are spaced according to slope
        3 Structural measures - carried out to control runoff, wind velocity and erosion and to harvest rainwater, lead to a change in slope profile, involve major earth movements and/or construction with wood, stone, earth etc
        4 Management measures - involved fundamental change in land use, no agronomic and structural measures, often improved vegetative cover and reduce the intensity of use

    2. Technical drawing or sketch (with dimensions)

      • Technical specifications, measurements, gradients etc. to complement the photograph in (1). The drawing should be simple and schematic to understand the technology.

    3. Overview of costs

      To cover the costs of labor, equipment, construction materials and agricultural inputs during the establishment and maintenance (recurrent ) of the technology; and by % of total establishment and maintenance cost borne by land users

      • Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs (e.g. slope, soil depth, labor, etc.)

    4. Natural environment

      Give the details of the natural (bio-physical conditions where the SLM technology is applied

      • Average annual rainfall and seasonality, length of dry periods (if known); number of growing seasons per year; what climatic extremes the technology is tolerant of or sensitive to
      • Elevation (i.e. in terms of meters above sea level) and landforms (i.e. plateau/plain, ridges, mountain slopes, hill slopes, footslopes, valley floors); average slopes (i.e. flat, 0-2%; gentle, 3-5%; moderate, 6-8%; rolling, 9-16%; hilly, 17-30%; steep, 31-60%; very steep, >60%
      • General soil description
      • Water availability from both surface and ground water sources

    5. Human environment and land use

      • Land users applying the technology (e.g. whether individual/household, small-scale land users, medium scale land users, large scale land users, women, etc.); types of cropping system and major crops being applied; and average size of cropland per household
      • Land ownership and level of wealth status of land users (i.e. whether very rich, rich, average, poor, very poor) using local standard
      • Access to services and infrastructure (( i.e. health, education, sanitation, market, road and transport , credit, etc)
      • Water supply sources (rainfed, irrigated, mixed rainfed-irrigated, post-flooding)

  3. Analysis of SLM Technology

    1. Impacts: Benefits and advantages

      On-site (actual area where the technology is applied)

      • Estimated % increase in yield/production and farm income attributed to the technology; indicate payback period
      • Socio-cultural benefits attributable to the technology (i.e. improved cultural and recreational opportunities, strengthen community institutions
      • Estimated % increase in soil cover and % decrease in soil erosion and soil loss

      Off-site (adjacent area or areas further away from the area where the technology is applied), if any

    2. Impacts: Disadvantages, if any

      On-site (actual area where the technology is applied)

      • Estimated % decrease in production and farm income attributed to the technology; negative payback
      • Socio-cultural disadvantages attributable to the technology (e.g. loss of cultural and recreational opportunities, socio-cultural conflicts, increased health problems etc.
      • Estimated % decrease in soil cover and % increase in soil erosion and soil loss

      Off-site (adjacent area or areas further away from the area where the technology is applied), if any

    3. Sensitivity and tolerance to climate extremes and gradual climate changes

      • To what climate extremes (heavy rainfall, flood, drought) and/or gradual climate change (temperature increase, rainfall increase) has technology been exposed? When?
      • Provide observations on the sensitivity and tolerance of the technology to climate extreme and gradual climate changes.

    4. Acceptance or adoption

      • Number of land users who have implemented the technology with external material support (e.g. food-for-work, payment, subsidized machineries etc.)
      • Number of land user who have made spontaneous adoption (i.e. voluntary adoption without material support other than technical guidance

    5. Concluding statement

      • What are the major strengths/advantages of the technology and how they can be sustained/enhanced?
      • What are the major weakness/disadvantages of the technology how can they be overcome?

Republic of the Philippines

All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated.

Privacy Policy

About GOVPH

Learn more about the Philippine government, its structure, how government works and the people behind it.

Government Links