Manual On The Preparation of ILMF Plan and Mainstreaming SLM in The CLUP

Manual on the Preparation of the Integrated Land Management Framework Plan and
Mainstreaming SLM in the CLUP

© 2020 Sustainable Land Management Project
Bureau of Soils and Water Management
ISBN: 978-971-0583-33-1
Implementation of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Practices to Address Land

Degradation and Mitigate Effects of Drought (SLM Project)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or

transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other
electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the Publisher,
except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-
commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the
Publisher at the address below.
The Project “Implementation of SLM Practices to Address Land Degradation and Mitigate
Effects of Drought” is a 4-year project implemented by the Department of Agriculture-
Bureau of Soils and Water Management. The Project aims to strengthen the SLM
frameworks in addressing land degradation challenges and mitigate the effect of
drought to contribute in enhancing integrated natural resource management in the
country. The SLM Project is supported by United Nations Development Programme in
the Philippines and the Global Environment Facility.
Published by the Bureau of Soils and Water Management
For inquiries, please contact:

SRDC Building, Bureau of Soils and Water Management, Visayas Avenue corner Elliptical
Road, Vasra, Quezon City
Telephone Numbers: (+632) 8332-9534
Email: bswmclientcenter@yahoo.com
Photos: SLM Project Management Office

Cover Photo: Arvie F. Loberiano
MANUAL ON THE
PREPARATION OF THE
ILMF PLAN AND
MAINSTREAMING SLM
IN CLUP
MESSAGE
On behalf of the Department of Agriculture and DA-

Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM), I
am honored to present this publication—Manual on
the Preparation of the Sustainable Land
Management Plan—that will serve as guide for
trainers and technical workers in teaching local
government units prepare land-use plans that take
into account Sustainable Land Management (SLM)
principles.
Land degradation is a serious environmental concern

with long-term implications in the sustainability of
the country’s agricultural production and overall
socio-economic well-being. It particularly affects
those who are dependent on natural resources for
their livelihood and income and live below the
poverty line, including our small farmers and fisherfolk.
Hence, the publication of this Manual—a product of the project called Sustainable Land
Management (SLM) Practices to Address Land Degradation and Mitigate Effects of
Drought—is both timely and necessary as it emphasizes the long-term productivity of
family farms. Funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) Philippines, the project is aimed at enhancing the capacities
of LGUs in mainstreaming sustainable land management in planning instruments such as
Comprehensive Land Use Plans.
To effectively implement this Manual — and thus benefit our farmers, ruralfolk and
indigenous peoples in upland and degraded areas — I therefore enjoin the active
participation and support of other DA bureaus, regional field units and agencies, LGUs,
farmers’ groups, and other government agencies and institutions. For one, SLM Training
Manual modules can be incorporated into their existing programs and offered to local
leaders, especially farmers who directly till the land.
We therefore thank the GEF and UNDP Philippines for extending support for this
undertaking. We likewise commend the men and women of the DA-BSWM— led by
Director Sonia M. Salguero and the SLM Project Management Office headed by National
Focal Person, Dr. Gina P. Nilo—for the development of this material, in tandem with the DA-
BSWM Geomatics and Soil Information Technology Division
Maraming salamat, at Mabuhay!
WILLIAM D. DAR, Ph.D.

Secretary
MESSAGE
Land degradation as defined by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
(UNCCD) is the reduction or loss, in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas, of the
biological or economic productivity and complexity of a land resulting from land uses or
from a process or combination of processes, including those which arise from human
activities and habitation patterns such as: soil erosion by wind/water; physical, chemical
and biological or economic deterioration of the properties of soil; and long-term loss of
natural vegetation.
Consistent with the vision of the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) on
sustainable management of soil and water resources for agricultural production systems
that are in harmony with nature where food is health-safe and food resource production is
economically viable and socially acceptable, the BSWM as the focal to the UNCCD worked
in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme for the Project:
Implementation of Sustainable Land Management Practices to Address Land Degradation
and Mitigate the Effects of Drought. The Project was funded by the Global Environment
Facility under land degradation focal area which aims to strengthen SLM frameworks at the
national and systemic levels and develop technologies to address land degradation.
This Project was launched in August 2015 which laid the foundation in meeting the
objective of land degradation neutrality concept that was set by the UNCCD in October of
the same year. Thus, this Project developed the Sustainable Land Management Training
Manual. The development of the SLM Training Manual rooted from the alarming rate and
scale of extreme variabilities in climate where the Project recognized that there is a dire
need to advance the existing SLM practices and technologies and transform it to Adaptive
Land Management (ALM).
The concept of Adaptive Land Management is an adjustment in agricultural land

management practices that considers farmers’ traditional/local knowledge and backed-up
with Scientific knowledge as basis for formulating best management technologies and
practices. Some of the factors that affect decision making are: occurrence of climate change,
mitigating and adapting to its impacts; and the economic realities faced by the farm family
which determines its relationship with the land. This process will better equip the
extension workers and benefit larger number of farmers in the country.
I would like to express my appreciation and congratulations to my BSWM family under the
leadership of Dr. Gina P. Nilo as the Project’s National Focal Person, with technical support
from the Soil Conservation and Management Division Mr. Jose D. Manguerra, and from the
Project Management Office Ms. Mariell A. Evasco, Project Manager, Dr. Rogelio N.
Concepcion, SLM Specialist and Dr. Alexander G. Flor, Capacity Development and Training
Specialist for this significant contribution to advance Sustainable Land Management in
sustaining productive capacity of our agricultural land.
SONIA M. SALGUERO
OIC-Director
FOREWORD
Land degradation in the Philippines is largely caused by the susceptibility of its soils to
erosion due to the hilly and mountainous landforms in many parts of the country. The
widespread clearing of forest lands in steeply sloping and rolling topography leaves the
bare soil highly vulnerable to accelerated erosion of topsoil caused by heavy rainfall and
consequential erosive force of water run-off. The practice of kaingin (or shifting cultivation)
and other forms of unsuitable upland farming in cleared forest areas further worsens the
erosion problem and loss of fertile and productive top soils.
To address these, the Global Environment Facility funded the Project on the
Implementation of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) to Address Land Degradation and
Mitigate Effects of Drought. The Project was implemented from 2015-2019 by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Philippines and executed by the Department of
Agriculture (DA) Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM). The project focuses on
the systemic and institutional levels to strengthen the enabling regulatory, institutional and
financial framework that would govern efforts to address land degradation in the
Philippines. To institutionalize the SLM, the DA, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Forest Management Bureau (FMB), National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Interior and Local Development (DILG),
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), Local Governments of Malaybalay City,
Bukidnon and Abuyog, Leyte actively participated in the implementation of the project.
This resulted to the development of the Integrated Land Management Framework (ILMF)
with entry points for mainstreaming SLM in the Comprehensive Development Plan and the
Provincial Development Physical Framework Plan and the Supplemental Guidelines for
Mainstreaming SLM in the Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) of LGUs approved thru
HLURB Board Resolution no. 991 series of 2019. These strengthened the complementation
among these government institutions concerned with land degradation and ensure that the
incidence and spread of land degradation in vulnerable ecosystems will be avoided and/or
reduced.
To ensure the preparation of the ILM Plan and mainstreaming of SLM, the Project
developed the Manual on the Preparation of the ILM Plan and Mainstreaming of SLM in the
CLUP. This manual is consisted of four modules which tackles on the ILMF, ILM plan
preparation, the value of mainstreaming, and the components of SLM mainstreaming.
This manual will be used specifically by trainors/facilitators/resource persons from DA

Staff Offices, Regional Field Offices, and its attached agencies, bureaus, corporations, DENR-
FMB, DILG and HLURB. Trainors capacitated thru this manual can now provide technical
assistance to LGUs on the preparation of the SLM-enhanced CLUPs.
GINA P. NILO, PhD

National Focal Person
UNDP GEF5 SLM Project
Table of Contents
Messages
Secretary, Department of Agriculture
Director, Bureau of Soils and Water Management
Foreword
Memorandum Circular
Table of Contents
MODULE 1. Integrated Land Management Framework 1

LESSON 1. Rationale for ILMF 2
LESSON 2. Benefits of ILMF 3
LESSON 3. Objectives of ILMF 3
LESSON 4. The Need for Training 4
MODULE 2. ILMF Plan Preparation 5
LESSON 1. Steps in ILMF planning 6
LESSON 2. Objectives Setting, Scope & Limitations 7
LESSON 3. Assessing the Status of Land Resources’ Use 7
LESSON 4. Defining Land Resources Management Issues Challenges 8
LESSON 5. Preparing Land Resources Development and Management
13
Plan
LESSON 6. Mainstreaming Land Resources Management Plan in CLUP 15
LESSON 7. M&E of Performance of ILM Programs & Projects 15
MODULE 3. The Value of Mainstreaming 16
LESSON 1. Rationale Behind Mainstreaming SLM 17
LESSON 2. Objectives of mainstreaming 17
MODULE 4. Components of SLM Mainstreaming 19
LESSON 1. SLM Mainstreaming Workflow 20
LESSON 2. Mainstream SLM in Vision and Mission Setting 22
LESSON 3. Mainstream SLM in Ecological Profile and Situation Analysis 23
LESSON 4. Mainstream SLM in Analysis of Issues and Challenges 29
LESSON 5. Mainstream SLM in Goals, Objectives and Target Setting 35
LESSON 6. Mainstream SLM in Proposed Devt Thrust & Spatial Strategies 36
LESSON 7. Mainstream SLM in Proposed Land Use 38
LESSON 8. Mainstream SLM in Formulation of Zoning 39
LESSON 9. Mainstream SLM in Implementation of SLM Enhanced CLUP 41
LESSON 10. Mainstream SLM in CLUP Monitoring, Review & Evaluation 43
Annex: Competency Development Program Guide 45

Project Core Team 59
Acknowledgement 60
Executive Summary
This knowledge product is an indicative Training of Trainors Manual compiled by the

Project’s Capacity Development Expert for those serving as trainers/facilitators/resource
persons on Adaptive Land Management or ALM. Adaptive Land Management is not only
an innovation of the BSWM-UNDP-GEF Sustainable Land Management Practices to
Address Land Degradation and Mitigate Effects of Drought Project but a concrete and
original contribution to the SLM body of knowledge. It was conceptualized and coined by
the manual’s subject matter expert, Dr. Rogelio Concepcion, as a means of making SLM
more relevant to and more appreciated by the farm family. ALM is described as:
1. An approach to managing agricultural land resources that enhances the

farmer’s ability to maintain land productivity by adapting to his environmental,
economic and social circumstances with the welfare of his family foremost in
mind. In ALM, sustainability is measured by the farm family’s ability to adapt.
ALM is pragmatic, it is guided by a sense of responsibility towards land as an
intergenerational resource.
2. Transformative since it defines the dynamic relationship of the farm family to
their land. Ordinarily, SLM focuses exclusively on the science of land, water and
air. ALM, on the other hand, incorporates traditional knowledge and practices
for combating land degradation. While SLM highlights land management
technologies, ALM emphasizes land management processes and its temporal
and spatial dimensions.
3. Adopting the long-term perspective of responsible agriculture, it recognizes that
land management considerations are not confined merely to the production of
raw material. Compared to conventional SLM, ALM includes the management of
externalities such as off-farm and non-farm economic opportunities. It is not
exclusively concerned with land degradation and rehabilitation but considers
the functional relationships of land degradation/rehabilitation, crop yield and
income that makes the farmer adopt the three-tiered strategy of plot-field-
landscape.
4. Considers seasonal variations in land degradation. It considers natural land
degradation as landscape specific benchmarks.
The above characteristics were captured in the four modules and 24 lessons found in
this knowledge product. It is based on the competencies identified by the Project for
ALM interventions per stakeholder group.
Module 1
Integrated Land Management Framework:
Rationale and Objectives
By Candido S. Cabrido, Jr., PhD
Learning objectives:
At the end of the module, the trainor should be able to train his/her participants:
1. To articulate on the rationale for ILMF;

2. To discuss the benefits of ILMF;
3. To enumerate the objectives of ILMF; and
4. To argue for the need for ILMF Training.
Training methods and materials:
1. Lecture/discussion
2. Slide and video presentations
3. Field visits and ocular inspections
4. Practicum
Guide questions:
1. What is the rationale behind the integrated land management framework?

2. What are the benefits of ILMF?
3. What are the objectives of ILMF?
4. Why is there a need for ILMF Training?
1 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

Lesson 1. Rationale for ILMF
The integrated land management framework designed to address the gaps and barriers
in implementing sustainable land management at the national and local levels. These
gaps and barriers include the following:
• Weak coordination in program implementation on land resources management

among the national government agencies such as DA-BSWM, DENR-FMB and
DAR. These national government agencies have no systematic means of
coordinating their plans and programs related to sustainable land management.
As such, efforts are not harmonized and synergized and therefore these
agencies are not able to maximize their use of program resources at the local
level.
• Limited knowledge on SLM best practices and technology packages

appropriate for given environmental and socio-economic conditions at the local
level. Many of the LGU personnel working under the municipal agriculture office
(MAO) lack the technical competence and experience in the transfer of SLM best
practices and technology at the farm level as part of their extension services.
They are having difficulties in matching the type of SLM package for given types
of land degradation problems. In effect, matured SLM technologies are not
properly disseminated among the small farmers to solve their specific types of
land degradation problems.
• Lack of demonstration projects to showcase various types of effective soil and

water conservation technologies in sloping farmlands. There is little information
on effective indigenous SLM systems because of lack of research and
documentation. Moreover, there is no systematized early warning mechanism
and responsive action measures for prolonged drought events. Agro-
meteorological forecasting for drought is not yet well-established at the local
level and communication and preparation for impending drought events are
poorly organized. Small farmers are mostly helpless in coping with prolonged
drought situations.
• Data gaps for assessment and mapping of land degradation across the
landscape. A key barrier is the outdated status of data and maps on the
assessment of drought hotspots, soil fertility deficient areas, highly eroded and
erosion-prone areas, critical watersheds, salinity prone areas, remaining prime
agricultural lands, and actual coverage of upland farms beyond 18% slope.
BSWM’s land degradation assessment (LADA) has maps on land use system,
erosion rate, and fertility decline but these maps are only available for 3 regions
out of the 17 regions in the country. There is also lack of monitoring system for
tracking land use changes and land degradation extent and impacts on
agriculture and forestry production. These spatial data and information are
badly needed for scientific and pragmatic SLM planning and priority
programming at the national and local levels.
• Absence of national and local level framework for SLM mainstreaming, i.e.,
controlling land degradation and upscaling SLM. Plans and programs of DENR,
DAR and DA regional offices lack SLM prescriptions for various types of
agriculture and agro-forestry land uses and farming systems for the simple
DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project 2

reason that it is viewed as a sectoral concern and SLM practices and technology
remain applicable at the project level and are not mainstreamed or
institutionalized in national and local programs and plans. The land use and
agriculture and forestry sector development plans and programs of many LGUs
are usually deficient on SLM measures. LGUs’ CLUP and CDP have components
on agriculture land use and agriculture sector development but many of these
LGU plans have not systematically integrated SLM including investment
programs in their programs and projects including investment programs.
Lesson 2. Benefits of ILMF
There are many identified potential benefits of ILMF planning and mainstreaming.
• SLM is systematically integrated in local development planning and

program implementation processes (consideration of SLM in local policy
and decision-making).
• Ensure local budget support for SLM programs and projects by their
inclusion in local development investment plan (LDIP).
• Soil and land resources conservation strategies and innovative
technologies are integrated in local agricultural development programs and
extension work.
• LGUs’ C/MAOs, C/MENROs and C/MPDOs are capacitated through hands-
on training in SLM planning, mainstreaming and project implementation.
• Productivity of soil and land resources and income of farmers are improved
and sustained through adoption of appropriate SLM technologies and
services.
• Land conversion (agriculture vs. Urban development; forest lands vs
agriculture; and forest land vs settlements) is effectively monitored and
controlled.
The framework adopts the “convergence approach” to sustainable land management
(SLM) as it aims to contribute in addressing the land degradation concerns through a
systemic approach and institutional collaboration framework of strategy. The project shall
focus on overcoming the hurdles or barriers for the attainment of SLM.
Lesson 3. Objectives of ILMF
The objective of the ILMF study is to develop a framework on integrated land

management (ILM) for adoption by DA, DENR and DAR in the preparation of their
development and management plans for sustainable agriculture and forestry
conservation and production. It is intended to establish a conducive enabling policy
instrument to guide and direct the collective actions of DA, DENR and DAR in the
application of SLM at the national level.
At the local level, the ILMF aims to provide a template and some guidelines in the
preparation of SLM framework plan for city and municipal LGUs which have substantial
area of agricultural lands in which their economy is very dependent upon. Being science-
based and empirical, the ILMF/SLM plan lays down a robust foundation for mainstreaming
in the CLUPs and CDPs of LGUs. The project also aims to improve the planning and
technical competence of MAO, MENRO, MPDO and MARO on SLM through hands-on
training on the preparation of ILMF/SLM plans for their localities.

The framework will focus at the systemic and institutional levels to strengthen enabling
regulatory, institutional and financial framework that would govern efforts to address land
degradation at the local level. It will mainstream SLM policies and programs into the
development plans of LGUs through the guidance of government agencies such as DA,
DENR, DAR and HLURB to effect complementation among these government institutions
concerned with SLM. Collaborative efforts among these agencies is expected to minimize
land degradation, thus improving land productivity and socioeconomic well-being of
small farmers.
Lesson 4. Rationale for training
Preparation of the integrated land management framework (ILMF) will enable LGUs to
systematically organize their multi-faceted responsibilities in performing their tasks on
managing land resources for sustainable agriculture and agro-forestry. A template on
ILMF provides the list of data needed, approach and methods for planning and
programming sustainable land resources management services and technologies by the
City/Municipal LGUs which have substantial agriculture and forest lands for production
and conservation.
For the LGUs to fulfil their key role in ILMF/SLM, they need to be capacitated. Thus, this
project will undertake hands-on training and workshops on the preparation of
municipal/city’s ILMF and on the application of guidelines and procedures for
mainstreaming ILMF in their comprehensive land use plan (CLUP), comprehensive
development plan (CPD) and local development investment plan (LDIP).

Module 2
ILM Plan Preparation
1. To draft the objectives setting, scope & limitations of the ILM plan;
2. To assess the status of land resource use;
3. To define land resources management issues challenges;
4. To prepare the land resources development & management plan;
5. To mainstreaming land resources management plan into the CLUP; and
6. To monitor & evaluate the performance of ILM programs & projects.
4. Practicum
Guide questions:
1. How are the objectives setting, scope & limitations of the ILMF prepared?
2. How do we assess the status of land resource use?
3. What are the major land resources management issues and challenges?
4. How is the land resources development and management plan prepared?
5. How can the land resources management plan be mainstreamed into the CLUP?
6. How is performance of ILM programs & projects monitored and evaluated?

Lesson 1. Steps in ILMF planning
The major steps in the preparation of the integrated land management framework plan (ILMFp) at the municipal level are presented in figure 2 and
briefly described below.
Figure 3.1. Integrated land management framework planning process

Lesson 2. Objectives setting, scope & limitations of land resources
management study
The main objectives of the ILMF is to guide LGUs in managing their land resources for
sustainable agriculture and agro-forestry development and resiliency to climate change;
and to reduce poverty among small marginal and small farmers through better production
and increase in income. The focus of the ILMF is the agriculture sector including lowland
and upland agriculture and agro-forestry. The framework is limited to the municipal and
city agricultural land resources management.
Lesson 3. Assessing the status of land resource use
The state of land resources in the locality using its administrative boundary is assessed
in terms of the following parameters:
• Agricultural lands’ physical and economic profile: agro-edaphic and agro-climatic

factors (soils; topography/slope; fertility; rainfall; solar radiation; temperature) and
economic profile (employment and income contribution to local economy). These
data and information can be sourced from the LGU’s CLUP and from national
government agencies such as the DA, BSWM, DENR, and pag-asa. Spatial
data/information are available from namria, DA-AMIA project, dost noah project and
other studies covering the locality of interest.
• Agricultural land uses (annual & perennial crops, poultry and livestock, inland
fisheries, grazing lands, other agricultural land uses – irrigation, swip, etc.). These
data are usually provided in the locality’s CLUP and CDP.
• Land degradation types, their causes and effects are assessed and mapped. Some
data/information are usually available in the CLUP and CDP reports of LGUs. The
land degradation types, their causes and effects are compiled and analyzed in this
study from various sources including the BSWM, FMB and DA’s AMIA project. In the
absence of readily available data, the LGU must seek technical assistance from
BSWM in land degradation assessment and mapping of the locality’s agricultural and
agro-forestry lands being cultivated.
• Landscape approach in integrated agricultural planning was adopted in this study.

Land degradation is evaluated from the landscape continuum starting from the
watershed down to the lowland and coastal areas to capture the dynamics of
sediment and water flow. This planning approach elicits a string of measures from
the landscape perspective from upstream to downstream mix of interventions.
• Agricultural land resources accounting and valuation. Through this method of

assessment, the physical stock and economic value of the natural endowment of a
locality in terms of agricultural and agro-forest land resources is known. Thus, the
means to properly develop, utilize and manage the locality’s land resources’ wealth
can appropriately be planned to improve their contribution to the local economy and
the welfare of the farmers. Data and information on agricultural areas cultivated,
cropping intensity, yield and production needed for physical accounting can be
collected from CLUP and CDP or can be generated through workshops, kiis and fgds
with farmers’ organizations. Economic data such as farmgate and market prices of

commodities, production inputs and labor can be obtained from DA, nfa, dti and
through kiis and fgds with farmers’ organizations.
• Given the state of land resources in the locality and their present uses, conservation
needs and development opportunities, the gaps, issues and challenges to attain
sustainable agriculture development can be examined more thoroughly.
Lesson 4. Defining land resources management issues challenges
Existing efforts being undertaken by the farmers themselves; the LGU (MAOs) to help the
farmers; and direct technical assistance by ngas in addressing land degradation
problems and challenges in the localities are determined and inventoried.
Data/information can be derived from the MAO and NGAs such as DA, DENR, and DAR
which have technical and funding support given to the LGU and/or directly to farmers.
From the results of the assessment, the gaps and constraints in addressing land
degradation (soil erosion, soil pollution, fertility depletion, soil acidification, etc.) Are
determined for appropriate actions by concerned institutions. Analysis can be aided by
getting feedback from small farmers through kiis, fgds and workshops.
Existing crops planted in the agricultural areas of the municipality are matched with the
crop suitability assessment of these areas to determine potential yield, production and
income versus the present situation. Crop suitability data and maps are available from
the DA AMIA project and BSWM while data/information on existing crops planted in the
area can be obtained from the CLUP/CDP and through rapid field survey and mapping.
Data on the extent and locations of agricultural lands in general and prime lands in
particular are collected from DAR-MARO, HLURB or BSWM. The annual rate of conversion
of agricultural lands in general and prime lands in particular are estimated from historical
data collected from MARO, MAO, BSWM or HLURB. Future scenarios are projected if the
rate of land conversion further continues in the distant future. The impacts of land
conversion on food self-sufficiency of the locality is assessed and measures to regulate
and improve current production of remaining lands are determined.
Potential impacts of climate change and natural disasters on agricultural production (rice
and other selected major crops grown in the locality) are evaluated using the climate
change vulnerability index method (ccvai) and disaster risk method (hea). Found below
are the indicators, data needed and the method for computing ccvai.
Hazard exposure assessment method. Hazard exposure assessment (hea) method

adopted in the study is a simplified version of the NEDA dra tool (2012). The simplified
version determines the level of exposure of the agriculture sector to various hazards.
The simplified version involved three main steps:
• Determination of natural hazards existing in the locality which affect agriculture such
as soil erosion, flooding, drought and sea level rise. All existing hazards affecting the
city or municipality are identified and characterized in terms of the sites or locations
affected and their level of susceptibility or intensity. The output in this step is the

hazard map indicating various susceptibility levels of agriculture lands in different
sites or location.
• Assessment of the extent and level of exposure of the agricultural lands to different
hazards. The output in this step is the exposure maps of agricultural lands to various
hazard susceptibilities or intensities. The total area and percent of the total area of
agricultural lands exposed at high, medium, and low susceptibility levels to hazards
(e.g., soil erosion, flood, and drought).
• Summary of assessment – agricultural lands exposed to high level of susceptibility

are identified and given priority for DRRM program and project interventions.
Likewise, those agricultural areas exposed to more than one hazard are mapped and
given high priority.
The criteria for prioritization of agricultural lands for DRRM interventions are those
barangays with the: highest percent of total area exposed to high hazard susceptibility
level; most number of hazards found (multiple hazards); and high incidence of poverty
Climate change vulnerability assessment method. The ccva method adopted in this
study is an enhanced version of the va index method developed by NEDA (2012).
Enhancement was made possible by reviewing and improving the agriculture sector va
indicators and adopting only those with available reliable data. Staff of MAO and MENRO
should be involved in assigning weights of importance to the va sub-indices and sectoral
indicators in the computation of the vulnerability index for the agriculture sector.
The va index method is a composite index method that determines the level of
vulnerability of environment and natural resources and development sectors in a given
location to climate change impacts. It combines bio-physical, social, economic and
institutional indicators (Cabrido, et. Al. 2013).
Vulnerability is defined as a function of exposure (e), sensitivity (s), and adaptive capacity
(ac).
These components are quantified by identifying and rating appropriate indicators for a
given climate change impact, and then summing up the indicator scores to derive the
values for the e, s, and ac sub-indices, and subsequently summing up the values for the
3 sub-indices to get the composite vulnerability index value for a given climate change
impact on a given development sector.
Exposure refers to the elements at risk (i.e., agriculture) to climate change parameters or
their attendant impacts such as flood, drought, sea level rise, strong wind, heat stress and
others. These elements may also be exposed to secondary changes as a result of these
primary climate changes – e.g., reduced income due to rainfall reductions/drought. If a
system is protected from some of these changes (e.g. Irrigated rice from drought,
drainage improvement from flood) then exposure to the stressor is reduced.
Sensitivity reflects the responsiveness or susceptibilities of a system to climatic

influences, and the degree to which changes in climate might affect that system in its
current form. Sensitive systems are highly responsive/susceptible to climate and can be

significantly affected by small climate changes. Different physical environments will
respond in different ways, even if they are exposed to the same manifestation of climate
change. For example, plants or animals that die in response to small changes in
temperature or water availability are highly sensitive – physiologically they cannot cope
with the stress. Sensitive systems are often those that are close to a threshold or tipping
point which means a small change in stress results in a large reaction. Systems that can
endure significant changes would be considered to have a low sensitivity.
Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate
variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of
opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. The adaptive capacity of a system (i.e.,
agriculture system) or society describes its ability to modify its characteristics or behavior
so as to cope better with changes in external conditions. The more adaptive a system,
the less vulnerable it is. Adaptive capacity describes how well a system can adapt or
modify to cope with the climate changes to which it is exposed to reduce harm.
The adaptive capacity of society is correlated with various social factors, including
gender, ethnicity, religion, class and age. Together these social factors tend to give rise
to differences in human capital (such as levels of education and status of health), financial
capital (wealth/income) and access to governance and institutions, which in turn affect
ability to anticipate, cope with, and respond to change). Since these all vary on the micro
scale, this is particularly important when working at the City/Municipal and barangay
levels.
The va framework employed in this study is diagrammatically presented below.
Figure 3.2. Vulnerability assessment framework
The summary of steps in the va index method adopted is as follows:
• Analysis of climate profile and climate change projections for 2020 and 2050.
• Identification of the climate change impacts on the agriculture sector.
• Formulation of indicators to characterize the sensitivity, exposure and adaptive
capacity sub-indices of the agriculture sector in the municipality or city.
• Collection of data inputs to operationalize the indicators characterizing specific
climate change impacts on agriculture sector.
• Generation of GIS maps on sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity for a given
climate change impact on agriculture sector.

• Overlaying of GIS maps on sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity and
computation of the vulnerability index and generation of va index map and tables for
a given climate change impact on agriculture sector. Va index for climate change
scenarios for 2020 and 2050 are also estimated by using projected rainfall volumes
and their effects on soil erosion, flood and drought. Projected temperature values
for 2020 and 2050 are used to estimate their effects on heat stress and climate
related diseases.
• Analysis of GIS va index maps and identification of highly vulnerable sites for priority
cc adaptation and mitigation interventions.
Computing the vulnerability index. First step in va is the identification of climate change
impacts on agriculture sector. For every climate change impact (e.g., soil erosion, flood,
drought, etc.) On the agriculture sector, the next step is to select a number of indicators
that best characterize the degree or level of vulnerability of the agriculture sector
expressed in terms of sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity indicators under that
given impact. Examples of indicators to characterize the vulnerability of agriculture to
flood are as follows:
Sensitivity indicators: topography/slope, rainfall volume, depth and duration of flood and
stage of crop development. Low lying areas are more susceptible to flooding than sloping
areas; high volume of rainfall creates more floods than lower volume of rainfall during
storms; deeper flood waters are most destructive to crops than lower flood level; flood
water that remains for a longer period of time is more damaging; and flowering stage of
rice is most sensitive to flooding than maturity stage.
Exposure indicators: extent of agricultural lands affected; number of farmers affected;

and yield and income reduction due to flood damage. The more areas affected, the
exposure value is higher; more farmers affected means higher exposure value; greater
yield reduction results in lower income, therefore exposure value is higher.
Adaptive capacity indicators: number of farmers with crop insurance; number of farmers
adjusting their cropping calendar; and number of farmers using flood resistant variety of
crop. The more number of farmers with crop insurance means higher adaptive capacity;
more farmers with access to agro climatic forecast bulletins can adjust their cropping
calenDAR to avoid flooding season resulting in higher adaptive capacity values; and more
number of farmers using flood resistant variety or crops means higher adaptive capacity.
The set of indicators are assigned their individual weights of importance. The weighted
values of the indicators are summed to derive the values for sensitivity, exposure and
adaptive capacity indices. Then the vulnerability index is computed as the summation of
the values of susceptibility, exposure and adaptive capacity sub-indices. The level of
vulnerability of the sector to the given impact is expressed in five scales, namely: (1)
extremely high, (2) very high, (3) high, (4) moderate, and (5) low with assigned values from
5 (extreme high) to 1 (low impacts).
The final value derived is the level of vulnerability of the sector with respect to the specific
impact of climate change. Inasmuch as the location of the impact is known, the
vulnerability value resulting from the impact can then be mapped.

The vulnerability of the agriculture sector and the farmers to climate change depends on
the state or quality of agricultural lands, location and level of social and economic
development and institutional or governance capacity. The more vulnerable is the
agriculture sector and farming population, the greater is the negative impacts of climate
change.
Computation of the vulnerability index (vow) proceeds in three stages. It starts with the
calculation of haj which is the jet climate change impact indicator for the itch sub-index. The
indicator is calculated as a weighted average of selected sub-indicators, hike, as follows:
H ij = ∑ hijk wijk
h
Where, k =1
hike= kth sub-indicator of itch vulnerability sub-index and the jet climate change impact
indicator n
∑w
=1
h
Whisk=weight for the kth sub-indicator and ijk
k =1
Then it, the itch
sub-index, is calculated as a weighted average using results from the
previous stage as follows:
m
T i = ∑ H ij wij
H
Where, j =1
Haj= jet climate change impact indicator of the itch vulnerability sub-index
why=weight for the jet climate change impact indicator of the itch vulnerability sub-index
and
m
∑w =1
H
ij
j =1
in the final stage, the vulnerability index, vow, is calculated as a weighted average of the
sub-indices, it, as follows:
3
Vw = ∑T i wi
T
where, i =1
tch
It= i vulnerability sub-index 3
∑w =1
T
With=weight for the itch vulnerability sub-index and i
i =1
Vulnerability index mapping. All determinants of vulnerability heavily require GIS

mapping for these to be useful for decision-making as this technique directly
communicates the areas needing intervention. The assessment of vulnerability involves
both ordinal assessment and overlay mapping methods. The results of the vulnerability
index measurement are translated into spatial thematic maps showing various levels or
degrees of vulnerability. These vulnerability maps serve as a development constraint map
for sectoral and local planners. Likewise, these maps guide planners in prioritizing
geographic areas for program and project identification and implementation.
The agriculture areas in the municipal or city map are first delineated to focus the analysis
in the sector being studied. For example, assessing the vulnerability of the agriculture

sector to erosion should delineate first the agricultural areas before analyzing soil erosion
vulnerability.
Under va index mapping, each indicator characterizing a given cc impact or hazard to a

specific development sector (i.e., agriculture sector) is spatially plotted on the area’s
administrative map. Then all the cc indicators characterizing a given cc impact are
overlaid to generate the level of sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity of mapped
areas. The same procedure is done until all the cc impacts or hazards are mapped.
Hence, the results from the GIS overlays are individual maps for each cc impact/hazard.
The different cc impact/hazard maps are also overlaid to determine which areas are
highly vulnerable to more than one cc impact or hazard. GIS technology is employed for
the mapping and also for automatic generation of the tabulated data or statistics for each
of the cc impact/hazard for specific sites. Tabulated data are disaggregated at the
barangay levels. Va index for each barangay is computed because some impacts, e.g.,
drought or flood may not be serious in the agriculture sector of the municipality as a
whole but may be serious in one or two of its barangays. The resulting maps therefore
show agricultural which are highly vulnerable to various cc impacts/natural hazards.
Location of agricultural areas and crops planted therein which are highly vulnerable and
highly exposed to disaster are identified and mapped. Agricultural areas highly exposed
to flood, drought and sea level rise and also those areas which are climate risk free or
non-vulnerable are mapped. Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
measures are proposed for the high risk and vulnerable areas while agricultural
development expansion is proposed for relatively climate risk-free areas.
Lesson 5. Preparing land resources development and management

plan
The ILMF plan preparation uses a matrix template which tabulates and defines the
following parameters for planning:
1. Issues and challenges based on assessment findings

2. Development objectives to address issues and challenges, as well as gaps and
constraints
3. Strategies and measures to address specific land degradation problems
4. Programs and projects (short-term, medium term and long-term) corresponding
to the measures identified
5. Priority programs and projects
6. Indicators (objectively verifiable indicators of success/ performance)
7. Implementing institutions (lead + cooperating institutions)
8. Resources required and possible sources (investment requirements)

Prioritized programs and Objectively
Issues & Development Strategies and Implementing Resources
projects verifiable
challenges objectives measures institutions required
Medium term Long term indicators
Table 3.1. Matrix for outlining ILMF plan for municipal LGUs

Lesson 6. Mainstreaming land resources management plan in
CLUP
Guidelines and procedures for mainstreaming ILMF in CLUP, CDP and LDIP are prepared
which essentially contains in matrix and procedural forms the following:
o Entry points (planning process and plan chapter of CLUP or CDP)

o What to mainstream (causes and impacts of land degradation types and SLM
practices and technologies)
o How to mainstream (methods for mainstreaming – assessment of issues and
challenges and appropriate measures to address various types of land
degradation)
Data base/information needed for mainstreaming is compiled including maps.
Guidelines and procedures for mainstreaming are applied in the pilot municipalities’
CLUP or CDP.
20Lesson 7. Monitoring & evaluation of performance of ILM

projects
• M&E indicators are established and defined for measuring the performance of
ILM programs and projects
• Baseline information on the status of land degradation types in the municipality
based on the indicators identified are collected
• Current land degradation is measured and matched with the baseline indicators
to determine whether there is positive improvement, no change or negative
change in the land degradation indicators (list of preliminary key land
degradation indicators is given in chapter 9 of this report)
• Measures to improve adoption of SLM efforts (practices and technologies) which
are effective in resolving land degradation problems are determined.
A sample outline in preparing the integrated land management framework plan is found
below:
Proposed Outline of the ILMF Plan
Chapter 1.0 Context and Rationale of ILMF

Chapter 2.0 Objectives and Scope
Chapter 3.0 Agriculture and Agro-forestry Physical and Economic Profile
Chapter 4.0 Land Degradation Types, Cause and Effects
Chapter 5.0 Land Resources Accounting and Valuation
Chapter 6.0 Assessment of Issues and Challenges
Chapter 7.0 ILMF Plan
Chapter 8.0 Mainstreaming ILMF in CLUP and CDP

Module 3
The Value of Mainstream
1. To provide the rationale behind mainstreaming SLM; and
2. To enumerate the objectives of mainstreaming.

4. Practicum
Guide questions:
1. Why must SLM be mainstreamed into the CLUP process?
2. What are the objectives of mainstreaming?

Lesson 1. Introduction
Land degradation problems are not properly and fully being addressed on the ground
due to the fact that many small farmers are not well-informed and do not have access to
most of the SLM technologies and practices that are prescribed and packaged by
concerned national agencies such as BSWM for agricultural lands and FMB for agro-
forestry lands. Likewise, many of the small farmers are also not aware and do not fully
recognize some of the “silent and hardly visible” types of land degradation such as sheet
erosion, nutrient depletion, acidification or salinization, especially if they do not have
access to soils laboratory or to knowledgeable soil field technicians.
Furthermore, many of the MAOs which are given the responsibility to assist small farmers
with their production needs may not be updated on SLM technologies and practices since
they are very much preoccupied with their day to day assignments and extension work.
Thus, many of the MAOs and also MENROs are most likely not able to keep themselves
abreast of latest developments and innovations on addressing land degradation causes
and impacts. The lack of capability among MAO and MENRO technical staff in SLM is a
constraining factor that has to be overcome in the local agriculture land resources
management.
Two critical gaps were identified in systematically and scientifically solving different types
and combinations of land degradation problems. First is the need for the LGUs of
agriculture-dependent municipalities and cities to recognize through scientific evaluation
or studies the land degradation problems besetting their small farmers. Hence, LGUs
through their MAOs, and MENROs should be able to diagnose, applying scientific
methods, the land degradation causes and impacts in their localities to enable them to
confidently craft an integrated land management framework plan or simply an SLM plan.
This plan will lay down the foundation for investing on effective ways and means of
solving various types of land degradation problems. Second is the lack of pilot
demonstration sites on sustainable farming practices and technologies adapted to
specific local conditions considering the peculiarities on physical, biological, economic
and social factors, which small farmers can actually learn from and adopt. The BSWM has
techno-demo farms on SLM but these are established in very few selected sites only;
thus, making these demonstration farms not easily accessible to other farmers.
Lesson 2. Rationale behind mainstreaming SLM
Mainstreaming is an approach to ensure that SLM concerns are integrated into the local
development planning and decision-making processes of agriculture-based cities and
municipalities. Through mainstreaming, the LGU realizes the importance of SLM and the
need to institutionalize and provide regular investments on it. Moreover, the proposed
policies, strategies and programs and projects on SLM are institutionalized in the
planning and governance system of the LGUs through the mainstreaming process.
CLUP is the long-term spatial development plan (usually covering 9 year-period)

that strategically lays down the various land use allocations to support the
sustainable development of a locality (city or municipality). It serves to guide
zoning which sets out the physical development guidelines and controls,

including designation of priority and critical development, protection,
production, settlement and institutional areas inside the LGU boundary. On the
other hand, CDP covers sectoral development policies, strategies, programs and
projects with a time horizon of 3 to 6 years. The development sectors covered
are social, economic, physical, environmental, and institutional. The plan is the
basis for setting-up the local executive-legislative agenda and the local
development investment program (LDIP). This study will only cover
mainstreaming of SLM in the CLUP. Future similar study or project may cover
CDP.
Mainstreaming of SLM in the CLUP of LGUs is expected to produce the following

outcomes:
• SLM best practices and technology packages are automatically integrated and
become part of the CLUP.
• SLM systematically receives funding allocation from the LGUs and national
government agencies with mandate on localizing SLM.
• Agriculture technicians and extension workers from LGUs are equipped with
planning tools and technical knowledge and skills for the dissemination of SLM
technologies at the municipal/city level.
• Selection of SLM measures are based on scientific assessment that rationalizes
local decision making and program investment.
• Land limitations and potentials for food production are fully accounted for in the
allocation of different agriculture land uses
Lesson 3. Objectives of SLM mainstreaming
With land degradation assessment and proposed SLM measures integrated, the CLUP is
able to produce a considerably environmentally sound and sustainable development
design for land use and development. The mainstreaming process therefore rationalizes
the necessary adjustments and corrections in the spatial and agriculture development
plans at the municipal/city level.
The specific objectives of mainstreaming SLM in the CLUP are:
1. To determine the impacts of land degradation and climate change on

agricultural production and on the socio-economic welfare of farming
communities;
2. To rationalize and institutionalize SLM in the CLUP of LGUs.
3. To provide budget support for sustainable land management by the LGUs
At the local level, the integration of SLM practices and package of technologies into the
LGUs’ land use and agricultural and agro-forestry sector development plans will address
in a comprehensive manner, the issues and problems of land degradation. It is most
prudent and strategic to mainstream SLM in the LGUs’ CLUPs where the use and
allocation of land resources in space and time are rationalized and carried out at the local
level. Part of such guidelines is the formulation of decision protocols on conflicting and
competing land uses in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

Module 4
Components of SLM Mainstreaming
At the end of the module, the trainor should be able to train his/her participants to
mainstream SLM into the following sections of the CLUP:
1. Vision and mission setting
2. Ecological profile and situation analysis
3. Analysis of issues and challenges
4. Goals, objectives and target setting
5. Proposed development thrust & spatial strategies
6. Proposed land use
7. Formulation of zoning
8. Implementation of SLM enhanced CLUP
9. Monitoring, review & evaluation
4. Practicum
Guide questions:
How can we mainstream SLM into the following sections of the CLUP?
• Vision and mission setting
• Ecological profile and situation analysis
• Analysis of issues and challenges
• Goals, objectives and target setting
• Proposed development thrust & spatial strategies
• Proposed land use
• Formulation of zoning
• Implementation of SLM enhanced CLUP
• Monitoring, revi ew & evaluation

Lesson 1. SLM mainstreaming workflow
SLM mainstreaming consists of the following workflow:
Figure 3.3. Prescribed system of SLM mainstreaming
The system for mainstreaming ILMF/SLM plan in the CLUP is illustrated in figure 3.1. Using
the ILMF/SLM templates prepared under the project, the ILMF/SLM plan is prepared
hands-on jointly by the LGU staff of the MAO, MENRO and MPDO through a series of
training-workshops conducted by BSWM’s technical training team in partnership with
HLURB’s core training teams or hired service providers from the academe, ngo or
consulting firms. The draft ILMF/SLM plan produced by the LGU is then submitted to
BSWM for technical review and revision. The revised plan is then endorsed to the LGU’s
Sangguniang bayan through its local executive for review and approval.
Prior to the application of the mainstreaming guidelines, these are first submitted to
HLURB for review, comments and approval. The HLURB-approved mainstreaming
guidelines and instructions are then endorsed to DILG for the issuance of administrative
order to all concerned LGUs (agriculture and/or agro-forestry based LGUs). The ao serves
as a mandate to all concerned LGUs (municipalities and cities with substantial agricultural

and or agroforestry lands) to apply the mainstreaming guidelines in integrating SLM
concerns in their updated CLUP.
An SLM enhanced CLUP is produced as a result of full mainstreaming. The enhanced

CLUP undergoes the usual process of review and approval required under the rules and
protocols of HLURB and/or the land use committee of the provincial government.
Monitoring and evaluation (m&e) using SLM indicators are carried out as part of the m&e
of the CLUP in assessing the performance of SLM implementation. An SLM m&e report
is generated as part of the CLUP’s m&e.
Simplified guidelines for mainstreaming. Guidelines were designed to define the

process of mainstreaming SLM in CLUP in simplified ways that LGU planners can easily
grapple with and fully operationalize. The guidelines were crafted to be user-friendly to
all classes of LGUs considering their limited data and knowledge in mainstreaming. It is
principally intended to facilitate the conduct of mainstreaming by LGU planners given
some training. More specifically, the set of guidelines aims to: provide in a capsulized
form the mainstreaming guidelines and general instructions; and set up the basic
elements for mainstreaming. These processes refer to: -where to mainstream in the CLUP
main planning process/plan chapter; -what aspects or information on the ILMFp/SLM to
mainstream; and –how to analyze the results of mainstreaming using certain tools and
methods.
The simplified guidelines for mainstreaming SLM in the CLUP are structured in the
following ways and logical sequence:
Entry points in the CLUP planning process and plan chapters. The entry points for
mainstreaming SLM concerns are the steps in CLUP planning process and the main
chapters in the CLUP.
What SLM concerns to mainstream and data inputs needed and their sources. The
specific SLM concerns or inputs to be mainstreamed in every CLUP planning step and
plan chapter are defined. The data needed for SLM analysis and their sources are
identified.
How to mainstream. This part describes the methods for analyzing data and the
mainstreaming of results and findings in the CLUP planning step and plan chapter. It
describes the tools and techniques in analyzing data and the results and findings of the
analyses that should be mainstreamed.
Outputs of mainstreaming process for the particular CLUP planning step and plan
chapter. This portion describes the final outputs of mainstreaming. These outputs are the
products of the analysis of data and they are presented in final form that will be
mainstreamed.
Using the structure given above, the simplified guidelines for mainstreaming SLM
concerns are concisely described in the tables below following the CLUP planning steps
and plan chapters.

Lesson 2. Mainstream SLM in vision and mission setting
Mainstreaming in vision setting. The following table provides a step by step guide to
mainstreaming SLM in vision setting for the CLUP.
Entry point: CLUP planning

Vision setting
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM Statement or phrase on “conservation of land and
concerns water resources for sustainable agriculture
development” in the existing vision statement of
agriculture-based municipalities and cities
Data inputs needed and
CLUP existing vision statement.
sources
How to mainstream: methods Conduct stakeholders (farmers’ organizations,
for data analysis and results csos, private sector and academic institutions)
and findings for mainstreaming consultation in vision formulation.
Comments and suggestions by other stakeholders

through oral (meetings) or written communications
are evaluated and considered.
Outputs of mainstreaming: Output 1: enhanced vision statement considering
SLM
Table 3.2. Mainstreaming in vision setting
Mainstreaming in mission setting. The following table provides a step by step guide to
mainstreaming SLM in CLUP mission setting.

Mission setting
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM Statement or phrase on “institutionalizing
concerns sustainable land management in the policies and
plans of agriculture-based LGUs” in the existing
mission statement in CLUP.
Data inputs needed and sources CLUP existing mission statement
How to mainstream: methods for -conduct stakeholders (farmers’ organizations,
data analysis and results and csos, private sector, academe and LGU staff)
findings for mainstreaming consultation in mission formulation.
-comments and suggestions by other
stakeholders through oral (meetings) or written
communications are evaluated and considered.
Outputs of mainstreaming: Output 2. Enhanced mission statement
considering SLM
Table 3.3. Mainstreaming in mission setting

Lesson 3. Mainstream SLM in ecological profile and situation
analysis
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in ecological
profiling and CLUP situation analysis.
Entry point: CLUP planning Ecological profile and situation analysis of the
step/plan chapter agriculture sub-sector under the economic sector
1) land resources profile: data and maps
Agro-edaphic and agro-climatic factors - soil types;
topography/ slope; fertility; rainfall; solar radiation;
What to mainstream: SLM temperature, etc., and vegetation cover types
concerns (forest, grass, shrubs).
-population profile: farm households engaged in
farming, agriculture enterprises, and agro-forestry
and their annual average per capita income.
-statistical data and maps on land resources profile
and vegetation cover types from BSWM, DA-AMIA
Data inputs needed and project, FMB, namria and LGU’s CLUP or ILMF/SLM
sources plan (if any).
-population of farmers and their dependents and
their income statistics from psa and LGUs’ cbms
Compile data and information on land resources
profile and vegetation cover types from various
sources.
Highlight land resources characteristics – their

general potentials and limitations for agriculture
development and integrate in the CLUP’s physical
profile section. If the CLUP already contains the
physical and vegetation profiles, just enhance it with
How to mainstream: the data gathered from selected government
Methods for data analysis agencies such as DA, BSWM and FMB.
and results and findings for
mainstreaming Compile data on farming population’s profile.
Highlight population size, household size, average

size of farms, poverty incidence and annual income
from farming and other sources.
Calculate the indicative pressure on agricultural and

agroforestry lands by growing population (average
ratio of agricultural lands in hectares per farmer;
agroforestry land in hectares by farmer)
Output 3:
Comprehensive land resources profile (soil and
climate characteristics); general potentials and
Outputs of mainstreaming: limitations
Farming households’ profile.

Indicative level of population pressure on
agricultural lands
2) agricultural land uses (annual & perennial crops,

poultry and livestock, inland fisheries, grazing lands,
and agriculture support infrastructure – irrigation,
What to mainstream: SLM
swip, farm-to-market roads, storage and drying
concerns
facilities).
Present the different agricultural uses in statistics
(location and extent) and georeferenced GIS maps.
Statistical data and GIS maps of existing agricultural
and agro-forestry land uses and agriculture support
sources
facilities from LGU, BSWM, DA, namria and FMB.
Prepare maps and tables on the locations and
extents of various agricultural land uses and agro-
How to mainstream:
forestry areas (if not yet provided in the CLUP)
methods for data analysis
Provide the types, number and location of
mainstreaming
agriculture support facilities in the barangays for
improved agricultural production.
Output 4:
Locations and extents of agricultural lands; uses of
Outputs of mainstreaming:
agricultural lands and population and income of
farming families.
What to mainstream: SLM 3) location and extent of prime agricultural lands

concerns
See output 4 on statistics and maps on the location
and extent of agricultural lands.
Data inputs needed and Criteria on identifying prime agricultural lands

sources provided under carl and npaad.
Npaad maps on prime agricultural lands.
Other available maps from DA-AMIA and BSWM,
DAR-MARO, LGU-MAO, and nia.
Extract the location and extent of prime agricultural
lands from the npaad maps.
Give emphasis on the location of irrigated and

irrigable areas with funding commitment.
How to mainstream:
methods for data analysis Validate npaad maps on the ground with DA-BSWM,
and results and findings for LGU’s MAO and DAR’s MARO.
mainstreaming
Update npaad map of the municipality or city based
on validation results.
Agricultural lands identified under ao 20, s. Of 1992,

as nonnegotiable for conversion are as follows:

1) all irrigated lands where water is available to
support rice and other crop production;
2) all irrigated lands where water is not available for
rice and other crop production but within areas
programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by
DA and national irrigation administration (nia); and
3) all irrigable lands already covered by irrigation
projects with firm funding commitments at the time
of the application for land conversion or
reclassification.
Npaad classification of prime agricultural lands:
"network of protected areas for agricultural and
agro-industrial development (npaad)" refers to
agricultural areas identified by DA through BSWM in
coordination with namria in order to ensure the
efficient utilization of land for agriculture and agro-
industrial development and promote sustainable
growth.
The npaad covers all irrigated areas, all irrigable
lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm
funding commitments; all alluvial plain land highly
suitable for agriculture whether irrigated or not;
agro-industrial crop lands or lands presently planted
to industrial crops that support the viability of
existing agricultural infrastructure and agro-based
enterprises, highlands, areas located at an elevation
of five hundred (500) meters or above and have the
potential for growing semi temperate and high-
value crops; all agricultural lands that are ecological
fragile, the conversion of which will result in serious
environmental degradation, and mangrove areas
and fish sanctuaries.
Identify the type and extent of prime agricultural
lands located near or adjacent to fast growing urban
areas.
Output 5.
Updated npaad map based on ground validation
with focus on irrigated and irrigable (with funding
Outputs of mainstreaming: commitment or programmed for irrigation
development) prime agricultural lands.
Location and extent of prime agricultural lands vis-
à-vis rapidly expanding urban areas
4) agricultural land resources accounting (and

What to mainstream: SLM
valuation); wealth accounting and contribution to
concerns
local economy
Data inputs needed and Historical statistics (last 5 years) on physical area
sources planted to various crops and fruit trees and

economic values of production from LGU-MAO,
surveys and interviews of key respondents.
Total income or revenues generated by the

municipality from various data sources.
Agricultural resource accounting from ILMF/SLM

plan (if any)
Refer to output 4.
Analyze 5-year trend in size of total cultivated
agricultural lands and its production values.
Note whether physical area planted and value of

How to mainstream:
production are increasing, decreasing or more or
less constant.
mainstreaming
Compute percentage contribution of agriculture
from the total income of the municipality during the
last five years (or the number of years with reliable
data available).
Output 6.
Report on agriculture resource accounting showing
changes in agriculture land use and income from
Outputs of mainstreaming: production.
declining or increasing contribution of agriculture in

the local economy is indicated.
What to mainstream: SLM 5) existing natural hazards/disasters affecting

concerns agriculture lands
Types of natural disasters frequently affecting
agriculture in the municipality for the last 5-10 years
extracted from the LGUs DRRM plan.
Typhoon data from pagasa, and flooding map from

mgb; data on drought occurrences during the last 10
sources
years from pagasa, BSWM or LGU data base.
Reported physical damages and income losses on

agricultural crops from natural disasters from LGU
drrmo or MAO reports.
Gather maps showing location and extent of
agricultural areas affected by typhoons, frequented
How to mainstream: by flood and seasonally affected by drought for the
methods for data analysis last 5 to 10 years.
mainstreaming If these maps are not available from LGU’s ddrmo,
prepare GIS overlay of hazard maps such as flood
susceptibility map downloaded from mgb website

with the municipality’s land use map; and overlay of
drought map from pagasa or BSWM (if available)
with the municipality’s land use map. These overlays
should delineate the location and extent of
agriculture areas affected seriously by high flooding
and intense and prolonged drought.
Compile statistics on the damages created by

natural disasters over 5 to 10-year period and
calculate the average annual cost of damages.
Output 7.
Map of highly hazard prone agricultural lands and
the reported or computed average economic losses
annually for the last 5 years.
What to mainstream: SLM 6) existing climate change impacts affecting

concerns agricultural crops
Existing and projected temperature and rainfall data
of the province/locality from pagasa.
Reported flooding and drought events over the last

5-10 years and their intensity and trend whether
increasing, stationary or decreasing.
sources
See also output 7 on map of highly hazard prone
agricultural lands.
Above data are available if the LGU has already an

lccap report or cc and DRRM enhanced CLUP
Gather or prepare maps of the location and extent
of agricultural areas highly exposed to flood and
drought based on historical reports. See output 7.
Determine the trend on flood depths and duration

based on historical data.
Analyze the impacts of projected increase or
decrease in rainfall over these exposed areas and
determine whether projected climate change will
How to mainstream:
increase or decrease flooding and drought in 2020
and 2050.
mainstreaming
Note down other cc impacts on agriculture
observed in the locality.
Above analysis can be found in the LGU lccap

report, if the LGU has already prepared one or from
the LGU ILMF/SLM report, or from its cc and DRRM
enhanced CLUP, is it has already prepared one.
Some examples of established negative climate
change impacts on agriculture as follows:

Temperature increase/decrease:
Decrease yield due to heat stress; increase pest
outbreaks
Rainfall increase/decrease:
Flooding; drought; damage to crops; soil erosion;
low crop productivity; damages to aquaculture
Sea level rise:
Salinity intrusion
Decrease in crop yield; low production in
aquaculture
El nino/prolonged drought:
Crop damage; increased livestock deaths; massive
fish kills
Storm surge:
Affects soil salinity and growth of crops; uproots
coconut and other trees; destroys aquaculture
Output 8.
Maps of agricultural areas showing increasing and
decreasing severity of flood (depths and duration)
and drought (frequency and duration) based on
historical data and projected temperature and
rainfall.
What to mainstream: SLM 7) existing policies, programs and projects of LGU

concerns on SLM
Local resolutions and ordinances passed by sb
related to SLM.
Existing plan, programs and projects on SLM by
sources
LGU, if any.
LGU ILMF/SLM plan, if any

-list down and briefly describe the resolutions and
ordinances passed by sb on SLM
-list down and briefly describe the programs and
projects being undertaken by LGU on SLM and their
amount of funding
Determine whether LGU is actively supporting SLM

How to mainstream:
using certain criteria given below.
Determine whether an LGU is actively supporting
SLM using the following indicators:
mainstreaming
1) it has passed resolutions and ordinances
supporting SLM;
2) it has an SLM plan as part of their CLUP or a
separate ILMF/SLM plan;
3) it implements programs and projects on SLM; and
4) it has regularly allotted budget for SLM programs
and projects.

Output 9.
Inventory of policies, plan, programs and projects on
Outputs of mainstreaming: SLM.
Assessment of LGU support to SLM.
Table 3.4. Mainstream SLM in ecological profile and situation analysis
Lesson 4. Mainstream SLM in analysis of issues and challenges
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in the analysis
of issues and challenges on land use.

Analysis of issues and challenges
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM 1) land degradation types, extent and status or level;
concerns and use of land degradation criteria for their priority
ranking
Data inputs needed and Data on land degradation types, causes and impacts
sources from CLUP, ILMF/SLM plan (if any), BSWM, MAO and
FMB.
Land degradation maps from BSWM

How to mainstream: Prepare listing of land degradation types identified in
methods for data analysis the municipality by BSWM, FMB and/or LGU MAO,
and results and findings for MENRO and MPDO
mainstreaming
Determine the main causes and impacts of major land
degradation types in the municipality – refer to
ILMF/SLM template prepared by this project
Prioritize identified land degradation types using land

degradation criteria into various critical levels: highly,
moderately, fairly and non-critical.
Using GIS, map areas (location and extent) where land

degradation types are serious or critical.
Examples of land degradation types commonly
affecting agricultural areas in the philippines include:
Soil erosion, fertility depletion, soil acidification, and
soil salinization.
Land conversion is also included because of the
irretrievable loss of highly productive agriculture
lands.
Examples of land degradation criteria for prioritizing
land degradation types are as follows:

step/plan chapter
1) extent or magnitude of land degradation (area in
hectares) – the higher is the size, the higher is the
priority rating (>70% of total agricultural lands
degraded = very high; 50 – 69% = high; 30 – 49% =
moderate; 10-29% = low; and <10% = very low)
2) average amount in net income lost for the last 5
years – the higher is the average amount of net
income lost, the higher is the priority rating (>70% of
net income from agriculture = very high; 50 – 69% =
high; 30 – 49% = moderate; 10-29% = low; and <10% =
very low)
3) numbers of farmers affected – the more number of

farmers affected, the higher is the priority rating
Priority rating can be scaled 1 to 5 with 5 as the highest
and 1 as the lowest.
The rating classification is as follows:

5 – very highly critical
4 – highly critical
3 – moderately critical
2 – fairly critical
1 – non-critical
For land conversion, the two criteria are:

1) percent of the total agricultural lands converted; and
2) percent of prime agricultural lands converted from

the total area of agricultural lands.
Outputs of mainstreaming: Output 10.
Map showing location and extent of agriculture lands
suffering from serious or highly critical land
degradation types.
Priority ranking of land degradation types.
What to mainstream: SLM 2) extent, rate and spatial directions of agricultural

concerns lands’ conversion (classified as agricultural lands and
prime agricultural lands).
Data inputs needed and See output 5 on the location and extent of prime
sources agricultural lands – npaad with focus on irrigated and
irrigable lands with funding commitment.
Historical data and map on agricultural land use

changes (agricultural land conversion) in the
city/municipality over the last 10-15 years or whatever
data are available from MARO, MAO, existing or
previous CLUPs or other related studies.

step/plan chapter
How to mainstream: Map changes in agricultural lands over the last 5 or 10
methods for data analysis years, whichever data are available, to determine the
and results and findings for areas affected and the spatial directions of land use
mainstreaming conversion.
Area and percent changes in land use can be derived

by overlaying past or baseline year and most recent
land use maps derived from satellite imagery
mapping.
If locally generated land use maps of the past and

most recent years are not available, vegetation maps
from namria for the municipality can be used (e.g.,
2004 and 2009 or most recent) where the agriculture
land use maps can be overlaid and changes can be
determined.
Compute annual rate of conversion for the historical

time period available and for the last 5 years.
Do the same analysis for prime lands if local data

permits or using ground validated data from npaad.
Analyze spatially, the location of agricultural lands

converted and their proximity to urban areas to
determine the path or directions of urban expansion.
Total agricultural areas (and prime lands) lost during
the last 10-15 years and its percentage over the total
agricultural areas in the beginning year
Map indicating spatial path or direction of urban

development and agricultural areas at risk of
conversion.
What to mainstream: SLM 3) potential impacts of climate change and natural

concerns disasters on agriculture employing ccva and hea tools
Data inputs needed and See outputs 7 and 8 for your reference maps and
sources statistical data.
Potential climate change impact and hazard maps on
flooding, drought, soil erosion, storm surge and sea
level rise from lccap and/or ILMF/SLM plan of LGU.
Hazard maps can also be downloaded from the

websites of mgb, pagasa, DA-AMIA and dost project
noah.

step/plan chapter
Enhanced CLUP, if available (the LGU may have
already mainstreamed climate change and disaster
risks concerns into their CLUP).
How to mainstream: Overlay hazard maps with agriculture land use map to
methods for data analysis identify and delineate areas highly exposed to natural
and results and findings for hazards exacerbated by climate change.
mainstreaming
Apply the ccva and hea methods provided in the ILMF
report to determine and map the potential extent and
level of exposure and vulnerability of agriculture to
various hazards to include: flood, drought, typhoon,
storm surge and sea level rise.
Refer also to outputs 7 and 8.
Refer to the annexes of the ILMF report of this project

for the detailed methods of hea and ccva.
GIS staffs are needed in the conduct of hea and ccva

mapping.
Location of vulnerable areas to drought:
Region i ‐ ilocos sur and ilocos norte
Region ii ‐ cagayan valley
Region ix ‐ zamboanga del norte, zamboanga del sur
Region x ‐ bukidnon, lanao del norte, misamis oriental
Region xi ‐ davao del sur, davao oriental
Region xii ‐ south cotabato, general santos, sarangani
Armm ‐ Maguindanao
Most of the drought areas are planted to rice and corn

and other grains.
Maps and tables showing the potential level of
exposure and vulnerability of agricultural lands to
typhoon, flood, drought and storm surge.
What to mainstream: SLM 4) potentials and constraints for agriculture

concerns development; areas suitable and non-suitable for
agriculture development based on crop suitability
information and maps
Data inputs needed and Crop suitability data and maps from BSWM and DA-
sources AMIA
See output 10 for areas with serious land degradation

problems and also data from BSWM and MAO.
Problem soils for agriculture development from

BSWM nap-dldd and LADA reports.

step/plan chapter
See outputs 7, 8, and 12 on agricultural areas
frequently exposed to serious flooding and drought;
and abandoned agricultural lands from MAO and
MARO.
How to mainstream: Using available crop suitability maps from BSWM and
methods for data analysis DA-AMIA, determine the location and extent of
and results and findings for suitable areas to various crops and also those areas
mainstreaming which are marginal or with low suitability to various
crops.
Overlay the map showing the location and extent of

agricultural lands with serious production limitations
due to various land degradation types and exposure
to serious flooding or drought
Overlay the map showing the location and extent of

agriculture areas with problem soils which are
marginal for agriculture development
Prepare composite maps of crop suitability and their

land limitations, if any.
Determine and map the location and extent of

abandoned agricultural lands which are suitable for
crop production.
Characteristics of problem soils

Areas with steep slopes (>30%)
Soils with poor drainage (water‐logged or flooded for

significant part of the year such as fluvaquents and
hydraquents)
Coarse textured soils (with less than 18% clay and

more than 65% sand or have gravelly stones, boulders
or rock outcrops in the surface layers or at the surface
such as the tropopsamments)
Heavy cracking clays (30% or more clay to at least 50

centimeter (cm) from the surface after the upper 20
cm of soil are mixed, cracks at least 1 cm wide at 50
cm depth and high bulk density between the cracks
such as vertisols classified as uderts and usterts)
severe fertility limitations (deficiencies in major and

minor plant nutrients when cultivated such as ultisols
and oxisols)

step/plan chapter
Land with saline and sodic soil limitations (mainly
situated in coastal areas)
Map showing areas with high potential for crop
production and those with serious limitations due to
land degradation and high level of exposure to
flooding and drought.
Map showing areas and extents of abandoned lands

which are suitable for agriculture for interim cultivation
or gardening until final use is decided by landowners.
What to mainstream: SLM 5) institutional capacity assessment of LGU on SLM

concerns planning and implementation
Data inputs needed and Capacity assessment instrument
sources
Results and findings of capacity assessment survey of
LGU – MAO, MENRO and MPDO staff
How to mainstream: Conduct survey on SLM capacity and competence of
methods for data analysis MAO, MENRO and MPDO
and results and findings for Assess technical capability of MAO, MENRO and
mainstreaming MPDO staff to conduct land degradation analysis,
prepare SLM plan and propose appropriate SLM
programs and projects.
Assess technical capability of MAO and MENRO to

establish demonstration sites on SLM practices and
technologies.
Institutional capacity assessment of concerned LGU
staff on land degradation assessment, SLM planning
and demonstration sites’ establishment.
Table 3.5. Mainstream SLM in analysis of issues and challenges

Lesson 5. Mainstream SLM in goals, objectives and target setting
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in setting the
goals, objectives and targets for the CLUP.

Goals, objectives and target setting
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM 1) goal, objectives and targets to address issues
concerns and challenges on SLM particularly land
degradation and land conversion, among others
Data inputs needed and sources Goal and objectives of SLM sourced from the
LGU’s ILMF/SLM plan and melded or matched
with relevant goals and objectives on agriculture
provided in the CLUP
How to mainstream: methods for Harmonize the goals and objectives of SLM with
data analysis and results and those of the agriculture component of CLUP; and
findings for mainstreaming adding objectives and targets specific for SLM.
Present for comments and approval by

stakeholders of the proposed goals, objectives
and targets on SLM
Goal, objectives and targets on SLM based on
issues and problems identified on land
degradation and land conversion
What to mainstream: SLM 2) goal and objectives to address institutional

concerns capacity weaknesses, constraints and gaps
Data inputs needed and sources Goal and objectives are formulated based on the
results of LGU capacity assessment (see output
14)
How to mainstream: methods for Set goals, objectives and targets to strengthen
data analysis and results and the capacity of LGU staff (MAO, MENRO, MPDO)
findings for mainstreaming in SLM planning and programs and projects
identification and implementation.
Goals and objectives are set to address LGU

staffs’ capacity weaknesses
Goal, objectives and targets on institutional
capacity strengthening of LGU’s MAO, MENRO
and MPDO staff on SLM
What to mainstream: SLM 3) goal and objectives to address program

concerns funding constraints and low farmers’ income and
poverty status
Data inputs needed and sources Goal and objectives to mobilize more funds to
support SLM and improve the production and
income of small farmers

Goals, objectives and target setting
step/plan chapter
see outputs 3, 6 and 9 for data inputs
How to mainstream: methods for Analyze LGUs existing programs and projects on
data analysis and results and SLM and allocated budget to determine
findings for mainstreaming adequacy of investments in addressing critical
land degradation problems in the locality’s
agricultural lands.
Goals and objectives are set to address the need

for more investments in targeted SLM programs
Goal, objectives and targets to mobilize more
funds from various sources to support urgent
SLM programs to improve the income of small
farmers
Table 3.6. Mainstream SLM in goals, objectives and target setting
Lesson 6. Mainstream SLM in proposed or desired development

thrust and spatial strategies
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in the CLUP’s
proposed or desired development thrust and spatial strategies.
Entry point: CLUP planning Proposed or desired development thrust and

step/plan chapter spatial strategies
What to mainstream: SLM 1) sustainable agriculture and agro-industrial
concerns development as a development thrust in
agriculture-based municipalities and cities
Data inputs needed and sources Development thrusts and spatial strategy on
agriculture from existing CLUP.
See output 4 for the location and extent of various

agriculture land uses; output 6 for the agriculture
resource accounting; outputs 7, 8, 12 for the
maps on hazard prone agricultural lands; output
10 for the map on the location and extent of land
degradation; output 13 for map of crop suitability.
How to mainstream: methods for Formulate spatial strategy for agriculture and
data analysis and results and agro-industry development in the locality.
findings for mainstreaming
Identify and map location and extent of agriculture
areas for development and their land
development requirements; and the locations for
agriculture support facilities such as farm-to-
market roads, irrigation, product processing and
market centers, etc. To show their spatial linkages

Entry point: CLUP planning Proposed or desired development thrust and
step/plan chapter spatial strategies
Avoid areas which are high risk to natural
disasters such as flood, landslides and storm
surges.
Refer to the crop suitability of lands for agriculture

development (see output 13)
Spatial strategy map for agriculture and agro-
industry development and infrastructure support
facilities.
What to mainstream: SLM 2) proposed policies to resolve land use conflicts

concerns and to rationalize land use allocation among
different land uses
Data inputs needed and sources Common land use conflicts reported by LGU
MAO, MENRO and MPDO in the locality such as
agriculture vs. Urban development; forestry vs
upland agriculture; and forestry vs mining.
See output 11 on land conversion.
Propose land use allocation based on CLUP.
See output 13 for maps on high potential for crop

production and those with serious limitations due
to land degradation and high exposure to natural
hazards.
How to mainstream: methods for Create LGU land use committee to deliberate and
data analysis and results and decide on land use conflicts in consultation with
findings for mainstreaming stakeholders and concerned agencies such as
DA, BSWM, DAR and DENR-FMB.
LGU sb to pass resolutions resolving conflicting

and competing land uses based on existing
applicable laws and regulations.
Land use allocation for agriculture included in
CLUP and zoning ordinance
Policies and protocols in rationalizing land use
allocation and in resolving land use conflicts and
competitions.
Agriculture land use allocation based on crop

suitability and considering exposure and
vulnerability to natural hazards and climate
change and land degradation.
Table 3.7. Mainstream SLM in proposed or desired development

thrust and spatial strategies

Lesson 7. Mainstream SLM in proposed land use
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in the proposed
land use.

Proposed land use plan
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM 1) proposed revisions in the land use plan to protect
concerns prime agricultural lands, agriculture heritage lands
and centers of agro-biodiversity and to improve and
sustain agriculture production for food security
and/or food self-sufficiency
Data inputs needed and CLUP – proposed land use plan
sources
See output 5 on location and extent of prime
agricultural lands; and output 19 on proposed
agricultural land use allocation
Data/maps on agricultural heritage and centers of

agrobiodiversity from BSWM, MARO, MAO, ILM/SLM
plan.
How to mainstream: methods Integrate in the proposed land use map the
for data analysis and results agricultural lands for protection (irrigated and
and findings for irrigable lands with firm funding commitment),
mainstreaming agriculture heritage and centers of agro-
biodiversity, if existing in the municipality or city.
Integrate in the land use plan, the agricultural areas

for crop development support – SLM and
infrastructure support facilities (see output 18 and
19)
Proposed revisions in the CLUP’s proposed land use
map and plan, particularly agriculture land use
allocation.
What to mainstream: SLM 2) extent and location of suitable areas for high value
concerns commercial crops and fruit trees for local and foreign
investment
Data inputs needed and List of candidate high value commercial crops and
sources fruit trees from DA.
List of some high-value and commercial crops:
Abaca, ampalaya, asparagus, banana, cabbage,
carrot, cassava, coconut, coffee, commercial trees,
cotton, garlic, ginger, mango, mongo, onion, papaya,
peanut, pineapple, sugarcane, sweet potato,
tobacco, tomato, water melon, white potato,
sugarcane, and cacao.
How to mainstream: methods Match agro-edaphic and agro-climatic
for data analysis and results characteristics of agriculture lands with the soil and
climate requirements of high value commercial

Proposed land use plan
step/plan chapter
and findings for crops or refer to crop suitability maps of BSWM and
mainstreaming DA-AMIA
Map agriculture areas suitable for high value

commercial crops and fruit trees considering their
land degradation status and the land degradation
impacts of high value crops and fruit trees.
Map and statistical data on the extent and location
of agriculture lands highly suitable to high value
commercial crops and fruit trees.
Table 3.8. Mainstream SLM in proposed land use
Lesson 8. Mainstream SLM in formulation of zoning
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in formulation
of zoning.

Formulation of zoning
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM Category for protected agricultural lands which
concerns include prime agricultural lands, agriculture
heritage and agro-biodiversity centers in the
City/Municipal zoning
Data inputs needed and Zoning of land from CLUP (agriculture lands for
sources production, agriculture lands for protection)
Map of agriculture heritage and agro-biodiversity

centers from BSWM and DENR-FMB
See output 5 on location and extent of prime
agricultural lands based from carl and npaad.
Map of prime agricultural lands from CLUP, MARO,

ILMF/SLM plan or validated npaad.
How to mainstream: methods Overlay the map on prime agriculture areas with the
for data analysis and results zoning map of the municipality
and findings for
mainstreaming Zone as agriculture protected areas those areas
classified as prime agricultural lands, agriculture
heritage and agrobiodiversity centers (if existing in
the municipality or city)
Conduct stakeholders’ consultations on the

inclusion in zoning a category for protected prime
agricultural lands in accordance with existing laws
and regulations.

submit proposed zoning of prime agriculture lands
for review and approval of sangguniang bayan and
HLURB
A popular example of an agriculture heritage area
is the ifugao rice terraces. Two types of potential
nationally important agriculture heritage (niah) sites
were identified: ip-based agro-forestry and high-
value crops with traditional practices (e.g., ube,
lanzones, abaca, coconut and pina).
Features of niah:
Traditional high value crop systems
Natural, high quality, high priced agri-products

supported by strong traditions, celebrated yearly by
festivals etc.
Examples:
Ube (yam) production system in karst landscapes of

southern bohol
Lanzones production system in the volcanic island

of camiguin
Abaca production system in lake sebu
Coconut based multi-story cropping in cavite
Pina production system in capiz

Expanded zoning map on agriculture protected
areas to include prime agriculture lands, agriculture
heritage and agro-biodiversity centers.
Table 3.9. Mainstream SLM in formulation of zoning

Lesson 9. Mainstream SLM in implementation of SLM enhanced
CLUP
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in the
implementation of SLM enhanced CLUP.

Implementation of SLM enhanced CLUP
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM 1) programs and projects to support SLM and improve
concerns agriculture production and income of small farmers
Data inputs needed and See outputs 9, 13, 19, 20, 21 on existing LGU efforts on
sources SLM; data and maps on lands suitable to various crops;
and proposed agricultural land use allocation.
Refer to LGU ILMF/SLM plan (if any)
How to mainstream: Formulate programs and projects on SLM to address
methods for data analysis land degradation issues and problems
mainstreaming Identify SLM technology packages adapted to target
areas
Prepare proposed investment plan for SLM program

implementation
Conduct consultation on proposed SLM programs and

projects and submit to sb for approval of funding
support
Programs and projects on SLM to address land
degradation problems; and infrastructure support
facilities to improve agriculture production and income
of small farmers
What to mainstream: SLM 2) institutional capacity building program for SLM

concerns planning and technology package implementation
Data inputs needed and See outputs 14 and 16 on institutional capacity and
sources staff competence assessment on SLM.
Refer to ILMF/SLM plan (if any)

How to mainstream: Formulation staff competence building program on
methods for data analysis SLM planning, technology package implementation
and results and findings for and m&e
mainstreaming
Preparation of budget support for capacity building
program
Institutional capacity development and staff
competence building programs including funding
requirements

Implementation of SLM enhanced CLUP
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM 3) funds to be mobilized for SLM programs and projects
concerns
Data inputs needed and Data on LGUs income and expenditures
sources
Financing windows for SLM projects
Ngas’ available support funds for SLM
Refer to outputs 23 and 24

How to mainstream: Determine capacity of LGU to fund SLM program;
methods for data analysis identify possible sources of funds from LGU’s budget
mainstreaming Prepare and submit SLM funding proposals to
international donor organizations
Harness funds of ngas supporting SLM programs of

LGUs
Proposed investment plan for SLM and potential
sources of funds
Table 3.10. Mainstream SLM in implementation of SLM enhanced CLUP

Lesson 10. Mainstream SLM in monitoring, reviewing and
evaluating the CLUP
The following table provides a step by step guide to mainstreaming SLM in CLUP m&e.

Monitoring, reviewing and evaluating the CLUP
step/plan chapter
What to mainstream: SLM 1) SLM indicators established for monitoring and
concerns evaluating the impacts of SLM measures, programs
and projects, institutional capacity and compliance
to zoning ordinance and land use allocation and
regulations
Data inputs needed and SLM indicators from ILMF/SLM plan or from BSWM
sources - LADA’s ldis.
How to mainstream: methods Conduct consultation with MAO and m&e team on
for data analysis and results the inclusion of SLM indicators in the CLUP’s m&e.
and findings for
mainstreaming Include SLM indicators in the implementation of
the m&e by the LGU.
Gather baseline data for SLM indicators.

Proposed list of indicators for measuring SLM
performance
Extent and annual rate of land conversion of
agricultural lands in general and prime lands in
particular (hectare/year)
Extent of severe erosion (% of total area of

agricultural lands classified as severely eroded)
Annual trends in crop yield per hectare per

cropping (mt/ha/cropping)
Soil carbon (%) measurement and mapping
Npk measurement
Percent of total area of farmlands without soil

conservation practices
Percent of total area of farmlands without soil

fertility management
Average annual production volume (mt/year) and

net income of farmers (pesos/farmer/year)
Poverty incidence of farming families (% under

poverty line)
Percent change in forest cover (% change in total

forest cover)

Monitoring, reviewing and evaluating the CLUP
step/plan chapter
Extent and annual rate of conversion of forest

lands into agriculture and urban uses
(hectares/year of forest land converted to other
land uses)
Livestock density vs carrying capacity of

grasslands and pasture (head/hectare compared
with 1head/hectare for native grassland and 1.5
head/hectare for pasture lands.
Extent of compacted soils (% of total area of

grazing land)

SLM indicators to be included in the m&e of CLUP.
M&e template for reporting on the performance of

SLM interventions
What to mainstream: SLM 2) location and extent of land degradation and the
concerns progress in arresting various forms of land
degradation problems and illegal conversion of
agricultural lands.
Data inputs needed and Status of land degradation from BSWM, CLUP,
sources ILMF/SLM plan
See outputs 5, 10 and 11
How to mainstream: methods Chart changes in status of land degradation and
for data analysis and results land use conversion using baseline and recent
and findings for measurements applying GIS-assisted mapping
mainstreaming using remote sensing data
Record progress, if any, in arresting land

degradation and land conversion
Monitoring system for tracking down changes in
the extent and location of land degradation,
agriculture land uses, and agriculture land
conversion.
Table 3.11. Mainstream SLM in monitoring, reviewing and

Evaluating the CLUP

Annex
COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM GUIDE

MODULE 1
Introduction
1.1. Background
Sustainable Land Management Practices to Address Land Degradation and Mitigate

Effects of Drought is a two-year project currently being conducted by the Department of
Agriculture Bureau of Soils and Water Management (DA-BSWM). It is financed by the
Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). The project is premised upon the alarming rate and scale of extreme weather
patterns that necessitate: a second look at existing sustainable land management (SLM)
practices; and the introduction of innovative features that would accommodate farmer
participation in land degradation monitoring. These innovations should be incorporated
in a set of guidelines on SLM and comprehensive land use planning (CLUP).
Given the above circumstances, the project is cognizant of the need for a reassessment
of capacity development needs, review of current SLM modules, and identification of
competency gaps in delivering SLM technologies to farmers. Training programs based
on the new SLM guidelines would greatly benefit the delivery of SLM technology to a
larger number of farmers in the country.
1.2. Rationale for Competency Development
Revisiting sustainable land management technology in degraded and drought vulnerable

areas in the Philippines would lead to an updated revitalized SLM framework. Apart from
conventional SLM science, the new SLM framework should incorporate the following
considerations: climate change adaptation; the economic realities faced by the farm
family that determine its relationship with the land; and recognition of the farmer’s
traditional and local knowledge. In other words, the responsible and adaptive nature of
sustainability should be highlighted. Hence, these additional elements constitute what is
tentatively being referred to as Responsible Agriculture, in general, and Adaptive Land
Management or ALM, in particular. The new framework is an integration of ALM into
conventional SLM. Along with the Integrated Land Management Framework or ILMF, they
represent a more holistic and inclusive approach to land productivity that requires a new
set of competencies that are presented in this capacity development program.
1.3. Objectives
The objectives of the competency development program are:

• To identify an updated set of competencies required by land productivity
professionals, agency partners, farmers and other stakeholders.
• to determine competency gaps based on new capacity development needs and

the frameworks;
• to develop training courses that would fill in these competency gaps; and
• to design the delivery of these training courses.

MODULE 2
Framework for Land Management & Capacity

Development
1.4. Land Management Framework
Adaptive Land Management or ALM is an approach to managing agricultural land

resources that enhances the farmer’s ability to maintain land productivity by adapting to
his environmental, economic and social circumstances with the welfare of his family
foremost in mind. In ALM, sustainability is measured by the farm family’s ability to adapt
(Concepcion, 2017). ALM is pragmatic, it is guided by a sense of responsibility towards
land as an intergenerational resource.
ALM is transformative since it defines the dynamic relationship of the farm family to their
land. Ordinarily, SLM focuses exclusively on the science of land, water and air. ALM, on
the other hand, incorporates traditional knowledge and practices for combating land
degradation. While SLM highlights land management technologies, ALM emphasizes
land management processes and its temporal and spatial dimensions.
Adopting the long-term perspective of responsible agriculture, ALM recognizes that land
management considerations are not confined merely to the production of raw material.
Compared to conventional SLM, ALM includes the management of externalities such as
off-farm and non-farm economic opportunities. It is not exclusively concerned with land
degradation and rehabilitation but considers the functional relationships of land
degradation/rehabilitation, crop yield and income that makes the farmer adopt the three-
tiered strategy of plot-field-landscape.
ALM considers seasonal variations in land degradation. It considers natural land

degradation as landscape specific benchmarks. Concepcion (2017) states:
An important consideration is that LDI - SLM monitoring is best

achieved at the farmer's level where the farmers themselves are
participating directly in monitoring and recording of seasonal
event land degradation. Farmland degradation process is
observed in real time. So are the effects of climate events. SLM is
best established if there are accurate records of seasonal land
degradation for specific land use types and specific farming
systems.
Concepcion (2017) laments that current land degradation models are designed to
address desertification of arid and semi-arid lands in the African continent.
The following is a prototypology of conventional SLM and ALM:
CONVENTIONAL SLM ADAPTIVE LAND MANAGEMENT

Goal Check land degradation Maintaining long-term land
Rehabilitate degraded productivity for the farm family
land
Approach Sustainable agriculture Responsible agriculture

CONVENTIONAL SLM ADAPTIVE LAND MANAGEMENT
Basis Science of land, water Functional relationship between
and air land degradation, crop yield and
income
Interventions Research-based Technologies contextualized within
technologies farm family circumstances;
adaptation strategies
Dissemination Government extension Localized sharing of traditional
agencies knowledge
Economics Farm Off-farm and Non-farm
Parameters Natural and human Environmental, economic, social
induced degradation factors that determine degradation
Dimensions Physical Temporal, Spatial
Success Indicator Increased/ sustained Ability of the farm family to adapt
fertility of soil
Land degradation Linear process Both seasonal and historical
Monitoring Data Physico-chemical Geospatial, physical and
properties bioindicators
Index Used Land Degradation Index Adaptive Land Degradation Index
(LDI)
Main Monitoring Technicians Community Monitors
Actors Researchers Technicians Analyze
TABLE 1.1. SLM-ALM Typology
This document presents a competency development program for a levelled up version

of sustainable land management which we are calling SLM2. SLM2 is the integration of
conventional SLM and ALM. It is consistent with global SLM criteria while adopting other
elements brought about by climate change, indigenous knowledge and farm family
consideration. Being both scientific and adaptive in nature, SLM2 is also consistent with
a new paradigm of the delivery of basic services, including extension services, known as
the science of delivery (SOD).
1.5. Delivery System

The concept of delivery systems is not exclusive to the agricultural sector. The term is
used freely in other areas from military science to knowledge management, from
education to healthcare. In fact, the most common definition of delivery systems comes
from the Medical Encyclopedia (2011). This definition, a means or procedure for providing
a product or service to the public, is what we shall adopt in this competency development
program.
President Jim Yong Kim of the World Bank believes that a deep understanding of delivery
is essential in development work and has proposed a science of delivery. According to
this view, demand-driven technologies and services are not enough to bring about a
desired result. There must also be effective delivery to be useful at the local levels where
development results are produced. Kim believes that inconsistencies in development
results may be attributable to lapses in delivery.
He gives four features of the emerging science of delivery (Kim, 2014):

Capturing and Sharing Local Experiences. First, SOD should support frontline
implementation by collecting local experience and feeding that knowledge back into
practice. Delivery should include capturing and collating traditional knowledge and
sharing these for mainstreaming. The project should encourage the capture, sharing and
reuse of traditional and local knowledge on detecting land degradation and rehabilitating
the soil.
Training on Delivery. Second, SOD should teach delivery skills based on the experience
of the most successful practitioners. The project should encourage the technician to
farmer, farmer to farmer, farmer to technician approach to capacity development. These
approaches will be used in the project’s training program. Furthermore, it will be
proposed that ALM be incorporated into ATI’s Climate Smart Agricultural Field Schools.
Applied Research. Third, SOD should incorporate prospective research to spur

innovation and evaluate new interventions. The training program will be documented.
Best practice, lessons learned and insights will be captured and included in the training
manuals. The training program will also be evaluated. Its results will be shared as another
deliverable by the consultant.
Theoretical and Analytic Frameworks. Fourth, SOD should develop theoretical and
analytical frameworks that can help explain and adapt successful approaches to solving
delivery problems. This deliverable presents the theoretical and analytical frameworks
for capacity development adopted by the project.
The following matrix illustrates how SOD’s four features are applied in the project’s
capacity development and training component:
SOD FEATURE CAPDEV RESPONSE FOUND IN

Capture/Share Local Competencies on Competency Gaps
Knowledge indigenous, traditional and Identification
local knowledge are
included in the training
curricula
Training on Delivery Project trainees will include TOT Training Manual
farmers and community
leaders as well as
technicians from stakeholder
agencies such as the LGU,
BSWM, ATI, FMB, HLURB
Applied Research Lessons learned and best TOT Training Manual
practice will be incorporated Training Reports
in the training curricula. The
training program will be
documented and evaluated
in the training reports.
Frameworks Frameworks were included Competency Gaps
in this section as the basis for Identification
the identification of
competencies
TABLE 1.2. SOD in SLM Capacity Development

1.6. Capacity Development Framework
Lastly, the consultant is employing UNDP’s five-step capacity development approach in

the conduct of this assignment. He has: engaged stakeholders; assessed capacity needs
and assets; formulated a capacity development response; and will be implementing and
evaluating the response.
These steps roughly correspond with the major components towards achieving the SLM
project’s capacity development objectives: the review of existing SLM modules; the
identification of competency gaps in the delivery of SLM technology to farmers; a
competency development program; the development of a SLM training manual; and the
Training of Trainor’s to be conducted for various stakeholders on SLM technologies and
the use of the manual.
Found below is the matrix presenting the links between the capacity development
approach, the major components and the deliverables of the assignment.
CAPDEV
COMPONENT DELIVERABLES
APPROACH
Engage Meet stakeholders. Submission/acceptance of
stakeholders Review existing SLM identification and assessment of
modules competency gaps on SLM
Assess capacity Identification of technology application and
needs and assets competency gaps in the mainstreaming for targeted LGUs
delivery of SLM
technology to farmers
Formulate a Competency development Submission/acceptance of
capacity program guide competency development
development program guide
response SLM training manual Submission/acceptance of the
SLM training manual
Implement the Submission/acceptance of TOT

response Training of Trainors accomplishment & evaluation
reports:
Evaluate the 1. For LGUs, ATI, DA-BSWM,
response DENR
2. For DILG and HLURB

MODULE 3
Competencies
As seen in the Table 1 (SLM-ALM Typology), the measure used in SLM is the Land
Degradation Index or LDI. The ALM measure is the Adaptive Land Degradation Index or
ALDI. The procedure for arriving at the ALDI is location and season specific. The
integration of LDI and ALDI through the sequenced factoring-in of data results in a
Composite Land Degradation Index or CLDI. Thus, the index of choice for SLM2 is CLDI.
Since the procedure for arriving at the ALDI is location and season specific, the values
for CLDI factors become location and season specific as well. Project stakeholders should
develop their capacities in implementing the Composite LDI Monitoring System. CLDI is
the integration of the French Global Model for Streamlined Land Degradation and
Sustainable Land Management (including its component for LD assessment and
mapping) and ALDI.
1.7. SLM2 and CLDI Competency Areas

French Global Model. All the technical criteria for LD classification, mapping and
monitoring found in the French Global Model is employed in SLM2 and CLDI to ensure
global connectivity, transferability and communication of results to the global SLM
community of practice. Additionally, ALDI criteria will be adopted specifically in Field LD
mapping and LDI - SLM Formulation for farmer-based Monitoring.
Adaptive LDI. Adaptive land management is not only an innovation of the GEF-UNDP
Sustainable Land Management Practices to Address Land Degradation and Mitigate
Effects of Drought Project but a concrete and original contribution to the SLM body of
knowledge. It was conceptualized and coined by the Project CTA, Dr. Rogelio
Concepcion, as a means of making SLM more relevant to and more appreciated by the
farm family. To operationalize it from the capacity development perspective, this section
constructs the competencies required for ALM interventions per stakeholder group. As
described by Conception, competencies under Adaptive LDI may clustered under the
following modules:
• Measuring Climate Based Seasonal Farmland Degradation. Project partners should

be able to:
o Recognize that in one observation site, land degradation indicators changes

from dry season to wet season
o Acknowledge that dry season event as "invisible land degradation (e.g. pH,
soil carbon, N, P and K nutrient losses or nutrient toxicity which requires right
laboratory facilities)
o Conduct soil, water and plant biodiversity sampling
o Identify and record invasive and new weeds and pests
o Collect crop yield and net family income data and relate these with land
degradation.

• Assessment and Management of Micro-Watershed Ridge to Establish Carbon
and Nutrient Movements in the landscape. Under this cluster, project partners
should be able to:
o Collect forest litter retention in farm plots to assess soil carbon stock
development for soil productivity and ecosystem biodiversity
o Compute for gain/loss of nutrients, humus, top soil, biological
components, and generally "invisible" forms of land degradation where
temperature is an active trigger of chemical and biological changes as
land responses severe temperature and dryness.
o Assess on-site-off-site impacts, during wet season where water serves
as an active trigger for land degradation
• Rendering, Analyzing and Interpreting Picture-based, Climate Event Farm Land

Degradation Assessment Maps. Project partners should be able to:
o Provide evidence-based land degradation assessment and mapping

through color variations on land surfaces as indicators of soil moisture
and soil depth.
o Explain that greener surfaces indicate more moisture, nutrients,
carbon, and relatively deep enough to give wider and larger feeding
zones for plants.
o Employ color variations as guides for systematic transect sampling for
assessing soil carbon sequestration and mapping "best land use
boundaries to mitigate land degradation"
o Detect ridge and upper side slopes for restoration or return for former
forest use as patches of green and brown or discontinuous matrix, on
the colored photograph.
o Detect the mid-slope where active losses and gains of transported soil
and moisture have acquired as a mosaic of green and brownish green
colors on the photograph.
o Detect foot slopes which acquire more sediments and have slight
correction on its slope as green and continuous green matrix, where
the farmer may continue with his ways of farming with some added soil
and water conservation measures
o Detect waterways, forming like corridors with linear erosion at the
middle and patches of green
o Detect the water corridor which acts as the reservoir of the micro-
watershed
o Map and draw farmland degradation types, degree and extent on the
picture of the micro-watershed.
• Maps. Project partners should be able to compile, render, analyze and interpret
Soil Erosion Hazard Maps, SAFDZ, Land Degradation Maps and Crop-Climate
Maps.
• Economic Data. Project partners should be able to gather historical data and
ten-year trends of farm family income, yields, change or added crops and farm
practices for weed control and attendant land degradation.

1.8. Competency Gaps
Methodology. Assuming that the French Global Model for Streamlined Land Degradation
and Sustainable Land Management has an established protocol and curriculum, it will no
longer be included in the design and development phase for capacity development. It is
further assumed that training on the French Model would be more appropriate for
technicians and staff from the project’s agency partners and not for the community.
Competency gaps were determined through participant observation during the field visit,
key informant interviews and focus group discussions among members of the Tadoc
Farmers’ Association in Abuyog, Leyte. The consultant likewise worked under the
assumption that the competencies for SLM2 and CLDI are newly identified, formative and
are thus prescriptive. Had SLM2 and CLDI competencies been firmly established and
generally accepted, then formal training needs analyses (TNAs) would have been
conducted. To arrive at this level of acceptance requires field testing using prescriptive
competencies.
Findings. SML2 and the Composite Land Degradation Index Monitoring System CLDIMS)
are to be implemented by project partner agencies and farmer beneficiaries. In the case
of SLM2, in general, and CLDIMS, in particular, both the community (inclusive of farmer
leaders, farmers and farm family members) and partner stakeholder agencies (LGU,
BSWM, ATI, FMB, etc.) should serve as trainees. However, their competencies differ and
so will their training curricula. Found below, are disaggregated competency gaps
identified for the community and the stakeholder agencies presented in matrix form. The
competency gaps for each stakeholder are identified with check marks in their respective
columns:
AGENCY
COMPETENCIES COMMUNITY
PARTNERS
1. Measuring Climate Based Seasonal Farmland
✔ ✔
Degradation
1.1. Recognize that land degradation indicators
✔ ✔
change from dry to wet season
1.2. Acknowledge that dry season event as
✔ ✔
"invisible land degradation
1.3. Conduct soil, water and plant biodiversity
✔ ✔
sampling
1.4. Identify and record invasive and new weeds
✔ ✔
and pests
1.5. Collect crop yield and net family income
- ✔
data and relate these with land degradation.
2. Assessment and Management of Micro-
watershed Ridge to Establish Carbon and Nutrient ✔ ✔
Movements in the landscape.
2.1. Assess soil carbon stock development for
✔ ✔
soil productivity & ecosystem biodiversity
2.2. Compute for gain/loss of nutrients, humus,
- ✔
top soil, biological components
2.3. Assess on-site-off-site impacts, during wet
✔ ✔
season

AGENCY
COMPETENCIES COMMUNITY
PARTNERS
3. Rendering, Analyzing and Interpreting Picture-
based, Climate Event Farmland Degradation - ✔
Assessment Maps
3.1. Assess land degradation assessment
- ✔
through color variations
3.2. Explain relationship of color w/moisture,
- ✔
nutrients, carbon, depth
3.3. Employ color variations as guides for
- ✔
systematic transect sampling
3.4. Detect ridge & upper side slopes for
- ✔
restoration on photographs.
3.5. Detect the mid-slope on the photograph. - ✔
3.6. Detect foot slopes on color photographs - ✔
3.7. Detect waterways on color photographs - ✔
3.8. Detect the water corridor on photos - ✔
3.9. Map & draw degradation types, degree &
- ✔
extent on photos
4. Rendering, analysis & interpretation of Soil
Erosion Map, SAFDZ, Land Degradation Maps and - ✔
Crop-Climate Maps
5. Gathering of historical data and 10 year trends of
- ✔
farm family income, yields, etc.
TABLE 1.4. Competency Gaps

MODULE 4
Training Courses
Given the identified competency gaps, this competency development program proposes
four training curricula: a training course for agency partners/ stakeholders; a training
course on SLM2; a training course for ILMF and its integration into the CLUP; and a
training course for trainors. Parts Two and Three of this volume provides the manual for
the training of trainors course.
The course outlines of the above training courses are given below:
1. Training Course on Composite Land Degradation Index Monitoring

System for Agency Partners/Stakeholders
1.1. Frameworks and Approaches
1.1.1. Soil Erosion, Land Degradation, Desertification Nexus
1.1.2. Framework for Iterative Cycles of Spatial and Temporal Tipping Points of
Maladaptation and ENR Degradation
1.1.3. Key for Assessing the Extent of Various degradation subtypes
1.1.4. Successive Phases of the LD Assessment Method
1.2. Measuring Climate Based Seasonal Farmland Degradation

1.2.1. Seasonal changes in land degradation indicators
1.2.2. Dry season invisible land degradation
1.2.3. Soil, water and plant biodiversity sampling
1.2.4. Biodindicators: Invasive and new weeds and pests
1.2.5. Crop yield and net family income data and LDI
1.3. Assessment and Management of Micro-Watershed Ridge to Establish Carbon

and Nutrient Movements in the landscape
1.3.1. Soil carbon stock, productivity and biodiversity
1.3.2. Gain/loss of nutrients, humus, top soil, biological components
1.3.3. On-site-off-site impacts, during wet season
1.4. Rendering, Analyzing and Interpreting Picture-based, Climate Event Farm Land
Degradation Assessment Maps
1.4.1. Land degradation assessment through color variations
1.4.2. Color and soil moisture, nutrients, carbon, depth
1.4.3. Color variations as guides for systematic transect sampling
1.4.4. Color patterns and ridge/upper side slopes
1.4.5. Color patterns and mid-slopes
1.4.6. Color patterns and foot slopes
1.4.7. Color patterns and waterways
1.4.8. Color patterns and water corridors
1.4.9. Mapping & drawing degradation types on photos
1.5. Rendering, analysis & interpretation of Soil Erosion Map, SAFDZ, Land
Degradation Maps and Crop-Climate Maps
1.6. Gathering of historical data and 10-year trends of farm family income, yields

2. Training Course on Adaptive Land Degradation Index Monitoring for The
Community
2.1. Measuring Climate Based Seasonal Farmland Degradation
2.1.1. Seasonal changes in land degradation indicators
2.1.2. Dry season invisible land degradation
2.1.3. Soil, water and plant biodiversity sampling
2.1.4. Biodindicators: Invasive and new weeds and pests
2.1.5. Crop yield and net family income data and LDI
2.2. Assessment and Management of Micro-Watershed Ridge to Establish Carbon

and Nutrient Movements in the landscape
2.2.1. Soil carbon stock, productivity and biodiversity
2.2.2. Gain/loss of nutrients, humus, top soil, biological components
2.2.3. On-site-off-site impacts, during wet season
3. Training Course on Adopting the ILMF and Mainstreaming SLM in the

CLUP
3.1. Integrated Land Management Framework
3.2. ILMF Plan Preparation

3.2.1. Objectives setting, scope & limitations of land resources management
study
3.2.2. Assessing the status of land resources’ use
3.2.3. Defining land resources management issues challenges
3.2.4. Preparing land resources development and management plan
3.2.5. Mainstreaming land resources management plan in CLUP
3.2.6. Monitoring and evaluation of Performance of ILM Programs and Projects
3.3. Rationale Behind Mainstreaming SLM
3.4. Components of SLM Mainstreaming

3.4.1. Mainstream SLM in Vision and Mission Setting
3.4.2. Mainstream SLM in Ecological Profile and Situation Analysis
3.4.3. Mainstream SLM in Analysis of Issues and Challenges
3.4.4. Mainstream SLM in Goals, Objectives and Target Setting
3.4.5. Mainstream SLM in Proposed or Desired Development Thrust and Spatial
Strategies
3.4.6. Mainstream SLM in Proposed Land Use
3.4.7. Mainstream SLM in Formulation of Zoning
3.4.8. Mainstream SLM in Implementation of SLM Enhanced CLUP
3.4.9. Mainstream SLM in Monitoring, Reviewing and Evaluating The CLUP
4. Training of Trainors
4.1. For SLM Trainors
4.1.1. Soil Erosion and Degradation
4.1.1.1. Key factors of Soil Erosion and Degradation
4.1.1.2. Forms of Water Erosion
4.1.1.3. Natural and Human Induced Soil Erosion
4.1.1.4. Effects of Soil Erosion
4.1.1.5. Effects of Water Erosion

4.1.1.6. Soil Conservation Practices
4.1.2. Soil Carbon, Backbone of Soil Health & Fertility
4.1.2.1. The Nature of Soil
4.1.2.2. Soil Health and the Sustainable Development Goals
4.1.3. LD & CLDI Monitoring System Guideline
4.1.3.1. Challenges and Issues
4.1.3.2. Basic Framework and Principles
4.1.3.3. Land and Soil, Two Overlapping Concepts
4.1.3.4. Definition of Land Degradation
4.1.3.5. The Human Face of Land Degradation
4.1.3.6. The Farmer LD-CLDI Approach
4.1.3.7. The Transformative Process Framework
4.1.3.8. Typology of Issues
4.1.3.9. Causes of Land Degradation
4.1.3.10. Responsible Faring for Adaptive Best LD Practices
4.1.3.11. Seasonal Land Degradation
4.2. For ILMF and SLM Mainstreaming

4.2.1. Integrated Land Management Framework
4.2.1.1. Rationale for ILMF
4.2.1.2. Benefits of ILMF
4.2.1.3. Objectives of ILMF
4.2.1.4. The Need for Training
4.2.2. ILMF Plan Preparation
4.2.2.1. Objectives Setting, Scope & Limitations
4.2.2.2. Assessing the Status of Land Resources’ Use
4.2.2.3. Defining Land Resources Management Issues Challenges
4.2.2.4. Preparing Land Resources Devt and Management Plan
4.2.2.5. Mainstreaming Land Resources Management in CLUP
4.2.2.6. M&E of Performance of ILM Programs and Projects
4.2.3. Why Mainstreaming
4.2.3.1. Rationale Behind Mainstreaming SLM
4.2.3.2. Objectives of mainstreaming
4.2.4. Components of SLM Mainstreaming
4.2.4.1. Mainstream SLM in Vision and Mission Setting
4.2.4.2. Mainstream SLM in Ecological Profile & Situation Analysis
4.2.4.3. Mainstream SLM in Analysis of Issues and Challenges
4.2.4.4. Mainstream SLM in Goals, Objectives and Target Setting
4.2.4.5. Mainstream SLM in Proposed Development Thrust
4.2.4.6. Mainstream SLM in Proposed Land Use
4.2.4.7. Mainstream SLM in Formulation of Zoning
4.2.4.8. Mainstream SLM in Implementation of Enhanced CLUP
4.2.4.9. Mainstream SLM in CLUP M&E
As stated earlier, Part Two and Part Three of this document gives an indicative Training
of Trainors Manual for those serving as trainers/facilitators/resource persons the first
three courses enumerated above. Being modular in nature, the individual modules and
lessons may also be used in the partners/stakeholders course, the SLM-ALM course and
the ILMF course.

MODULE 5
Program Delivery
The above training program will have four modes of delivery:
1.9. Training Programs of the Bureau of Soils and Water Management
Existing training programs conducted by the Bureau may incorporate selected

modules from the training courses enumerated for technicians and researchers at the
national and local levels. Alternatively, the training courses may be delivered in whole
by BSWM. Furthermore, other DA bureaus may opt to offer selected modules or
integrate them into existing ones.
1.10. Training Programs of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Similarly, DENR offices such as the Biodiversity Management Bureau and the Forest
Management Bureau may offer these courses or in whole or in part, for its foresters
and partners, independently. Hence the need for training manuals.
1.11. Training Programs of the Department of Interior and Local Government
DILG may opt to offer these courses, partly o wholly, for LGU staff and community
leaders
1.12. ELearning Programs
Finally, there is an option to offer these courses online as free massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCS) via the University of the Philippine Open University. The online
courses may be developed using the training modules in Parts Two and Three.

PROJECT CORE TEAM

Technical Experts on Geomatics and Soil Information Technology
and Agriculture Land Management and Evaluation Division
Mr. Pablo Montalla

Mr. Bernardo Pascua
Mr. Irvin Samalca
Project Management Office
Gina P. Nilo, PhD

Mariell A. Evasco
Project Manager
Jastene Joy G. Simon

Project Assistant
Vince Albert P. Ching

Field Coordinator, Bukidnon
Tracy Gail S. Salazar

Field Coordinator, Bukidnon
Dulce Tweetie V. Jorda

Field Coordinator, Leyte
Marietta S. Oamil
Administrative and Finance Officer
Arvie F. Loberiano
Administrative Assistant
Juvy L. Esperanza
Communications Officer and Graphic Artist

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This publication has been completed under the Project Implementation of Sustainable
Land Management Practices to Address Land Degradation and Mitigate Effects of
Drought in the two (2) pilot city/municipality in the Philippines funded by the Global
Environment Facility through the United Nations Development Programme in
collaboration with the Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Soils and Water
Management as the executing agency and Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board as
responsible partner.
The Project would like to give special thanks to the SLM Specialist of the Project - Dr.
Rogelio N. Concepcion and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Specialist – Dr. Candido A.
Cabrido, Jr. for the content and to the Capacity Development and Training Specialist Dr.
Alexander G. Flor for manualizing the Manual on the Preparation of the ILMF Plan and
Mainstreaming SLM in the CLUP.
LGU-M ALAYBALAY CI TY, BUKI DNON
CITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE (CPDO)
ENGR. ADRIAN GAMBOA, City Planning and Development Coordinator

MARIA ROSARIO SALDUA, Planning Officer IV
GINNO FLORENCIO BALBA, Project Evaluation Officer I
CITY AGRICULTURE OFFICE (CAO)
REMEDIOS SARZUELO, City Agriculturist

MARGIE BULWAG, Assistant Agriculturist
LUCELL CARPENTERO, Agriculturist II
CITY ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE (CENRO)
MARIA ANITA FERNANDEZ, City Environment and Natural Resources Officer

ROXANNE GAMO, Environment Management Specialist II
MARITES LANGAM, Community Development Assistant I
LGU-ABUYOG, LEYTE
MUNICIPAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE (MPDO)
RODULFO CABIAS, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator

ELEANOR CHRISTINE BELTRAN, Project Development Officer I
MAE JOYCE REAS, Engineer I
JULIETA CHAVEZ, Administrative Aide III
MUNICIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICE (MAO)
GERARDO BAUYA, Municipal Agriculturist

MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE (MENRO)
ROMEO ENCLUNA, Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer

ARLITA ESTREAMOS, Administrative Aide III
REA CENO, Administrative Aide I
The Project Board M em bers w ho provided the policies and

directions in the im plem entation of the project:
RES. REP. TITON N. MITRA

United Nations Development Programme USEC. MARIVEL C. SACENDONCILLO
Department of Interior and Local Government
USEC. ROLANDO G. TUNGPALAN
National Economic and Development Authority ATTY. MICHAEL MAMUKID
National Commissions on Indigenous Peoples
OIC-DIR. SONIA M. SALGUERO
Bureau of Soils and Water Management DIR. JEROME MONTEMAYOR
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
DIR. NORA L. DIAZ
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board HON. MARIA FE V. BRONDIAL
League of Municipalities of Philippines
DIR. LOURDER C. WAGAN
Forest Management Bureau, DENR PROF. ROBERTO G. VISCO
College of Forestry and Natural Resources, UPLB
ATTY. KARLO S. BELLO
Department of Agrarian Reform
The follow ing institutions w ere consulted in the preparation of these

guidelines:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Forest Management Bureau
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
Department of Agriculture – Special Projects Coordination and Management Assistance Division
Department of Agriculture – Regional Field Office VIII
Department of Agriculture – Regional Field Office X
Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Training Institute
Department of Agrarian Reform
Department of Interior and Local Government
National Economic and Development Authority
National Commissions on Indigenous Peoples
United Nations Development Programme
International Institute for Rural Reconstruction
Northern Mindanao Integrated Agricultural Research Center
Eastern Visayas Integrated Agricultural Research Center
University of the Philippines Los Baños
Central Mindanao University
Visayas State University
Provincial Agricultural Office – Region X
Office of the Provincial Agriculturist – Region VIII
Local Government of the City of Malaybalay in the Province of Bukidnon
Local Government of the Municipality of Abuyog in the Province Leyte

Manual on the Preparation of
the Integrated Land
Management Framework
Plan and Mainstreaming
SLM in the CLUP

Manual On The Preparation of ILMF Plan and Mainstreaming SLM in The CLUP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual On The Preparation of ILMF Plan and Mainstreaming SLM in The CLUP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual on the Preparation of the Integrated Land Management Framework Plan and

Mainstreaming SLM in the CLUP

Implementation of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Practices to Address Land

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or

Published by the Bureau of Soils and Water Management

For inquiries, please contact:

Bureau of Soils and Water Management

Photos: SLM Project Management Office

On behalf of the Department of Agriculture and DA-

Land degradation is a serious environmental concern

Maraming salamat, at Mabuhay!

WILLIAM D. DAR, Ph.D.

The concept of Adaptive Land Management is an adjustment in agricultural land

This manual will be used specifically by trainors/facilitators/resource persons from DA

GINA P. NILO, PhD

MODULE 1. Integrated Land Management Framework 1

Annex: Competency Development Program Guide 45

This knowledge product is an indicative Training of Trainors Manual compiled by the

1. An approach to managing agricultural land resources that enhances the

1. To articulate on the rationale for ILMF;

Training methods and materials:

1. What is the rationale behind the integrated land management framework?

1 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

• Weak coordination in program implementation on land resources management

• Limited knowledge on SLM best practices and technology packages

• Lack of demonstration projects to showcase various types of effective soil and

DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project 2

Lesson 2. Benefits of ILMF

• SLM is systematically integrated in local development planning and

Lesson 3. Objectives of ILMF

The objective of the ILMF study is to develop a framework on integrated land

3 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

Lesson 4. Rationale for training

DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project 4

Training methods and materials:

5 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

Figure 3.1. Integrated land management framework planning process

6 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

Lesson 3. Assessing the status of land resource use

• Agricultural lands’ physical and economic profile: agro-edaphic and agro-climatic

• Landscape approach in integrated agricultural planning was adopted in this study.

• Agricultural land resources accounting and valuation. Through this method of

7 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

Lesson 4. Defining land resources management issues challenges

Hazard exposure assessment method. Hazard exposure assessment (hea) method

The simplified version involved three main steps:

DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project 8

• Summary of assessment – agricultural lands exposed to high level of susceptibility

Sensitivity reflects the responsiveness or susceptibilities of a system to climatic

9 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

The va framework employed in this study is diagrammatically presented below.

Figure 3.2. Vulnerability assessment framework

The summary of steps in the va index method adopted is as follows:

DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project 10

Exposure indicators: extent of agricultural lands affected; number of farmers affected;

11 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

Vulnerability index mapping. All determinants of vulnerability heavily require GIS

DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project 12

Under va index mapping, each indicator characterizing a given cc impact or hazard to a

Lesson 5. Preparing land resources development and management

1. Issues and challenges based on assessment findings

13 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project

14 DA-BSWM - UNDP - GEF 5 ‖ Sustainable Land Management Project