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

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

Bangladesh Forest Research Institute (Bangladesh Forest Research Institute) - Bangladesh

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

This is an indigenous approach to store rain water for irrigating rice and other crops in the hillside earthen dam.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The SWC approach water reservoir is land constructed by earthen bunds. The water through down hill run-off is generally preserved in the rainy season. Excess of rain water deposited in the farm pond is drained out through the out-lets prepared in the lower portion of the bands. In preparing the bands the farmer first construct bamboo made barriers and then earthen materials are put to form the bands.

Role of stakeholders: The individual farmer with his own effort and cost prepare the farm pond for the use of irrigation.

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Bathing, Duck rearing, Fish culture)

The main objectives and target is to preserve run-off water during rainy season and to use it in the dry season.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Inadequate natural water availability during dry period.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	none
planning	none
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

By Indigenous technique.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). By Indigenous ways and means.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is totally inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not applicable

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: other (Farmer): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Nee

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Household labour

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Rice cultivation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further improving management system.)
fish culture and duck rearing. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further improving management system.)
Pineapple cultivation, establishment of orchards, increased socio-economic. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further improving management system)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Low cost irrigation facilities to crops. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Structuring the dam permanently.)
Increased soil fertility,increased productivity. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Availability of necessary inputs & technial support.)
Increased household income.
Bio-diversity improvement. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Awareness build-up through demonstration & training.)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Damaging the bands due to excessive rainfall.	Making wider bands with some consultation of experts.
Siltation/ deposition of sand particles.	Re-excavation.
Lack of capital.	Provide available credit support with minimum interest.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Damaging the earthen bands due to intensive rains.	Constructing wider bands.
Sediments deposition.	Re-excavation.
Lack of capital.	Credit support.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information