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)

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) - Nepal

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Participatory action research with multiple stakeholders for the demonstration and extension of improved rainfed hill terraces in Nepal

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The traditional farming practices employed on steep sloping land in Kubinde village in Nepal's midhills led to soil and water erosion and low crop and fodder yields. The People and Resource Dynamics in Mountain Watersheds of the Hindu Kush- Himalayas Project (PARDYP) started work in 2001, with a small group of farmers from this village (who were also members of the local forest user group) and the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management to identify and test an integrated approach for addressing these constraints. The approach taken was an improved hill terrace for rainfed conditions consisting of structural and vegetative measures. The aim was to demonstrate and test the technologies' potential for overcoming constraints related to farming sloping agricultural land. The specific objectives were, in association with the local farmers, to design a technology that solved soi erosion problems on sloping agricultural lands whilst at the same time increasing the land's nutrient conservation and production capacity. The local line agency office of the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management was involved in developing the technology to make use of their experiences and to come up with a validated technology that the department could use in its own programmes.
Before implementing the terrace improvement work in Kubinde village, a terrace improvement committee was formed made up of local farmers. The awareness activities began in January 2001. Committee members were trained on subwatershed management and were taken to the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development’s (ICIMOD) Demonstration and Training Centre at Godavari and another ICIMOD site to show them potential soil and water conservation technologies including improved terraces. After the technologies were implemented, a number of farmer exchange, interaction and monitoring programmes were held to assess the technology and to promote it. Indicators were developed for monitoring the activity.
About half of the costs were covered by the participating farmers and the rest by PARDYP. The other incentives were training and extension, allowances for participants, national expert honoraria, and training material such as audio-visual facilities. These were all provided by PARDYP with the help of the line agency.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Local farmers collectively solving problems by identifying and using the most appropriate local solutions. Local farmers designing, testing, and disseminating alternative technologies adapted to local conditions. Strengthening joint learning by farmers and development actors
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Weak institutional collaboration for addressing 1) poor soil fertility and land productivity; 2) soil and nutrient loss and excessive water runoff from sloping agricultural land; and 3) fodder scarcity. Lack of on-farm research for developing technologies that attend to farmers' needs.

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	passive	Group discussion; organised with local forest user group; selection of members for training and tours (12 men and 11 women); formation of terrace improvement committee.
planning	interactive	group discussion; survey , site selection , fodder / grass species selection
implementation	self-mobilization	Terracing activities: measurement, soil excavation, and retaining wall construction
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Done in a participatory way involving individual farmers, project staff, and Department of Soil Conservation staff
Research	passive	Assessing performance of planted grasses and advantages and disadvantages of technology

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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

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

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

The package was initially offered by researchers and later modified and implemented by land users.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The landusers are more familiar with their land's capacity and charcteristics.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• extensionists/trainers, teachers, school children/students, politicians/decision makers, Health volu

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• courses

Form of training:

• Audio vidual learning

Subjects covered:

Importance of Soil and Water conservation in local level, concept of sub watershed management, activities in other parts of a country regarding SLM, etc.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Demnstration/extension of improved terrace technology;
Key elements: Participatory Action Research, Trainigs and Farmer to Farmer visits, Particpatory monitoring and evaluation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents, government's existing extension system; Extension staff: project employees, govt. staff and farmers. 2) Target groups for extension: land users, technicians/SLM specialists; Activities: Farmer to farmer exchange, demonstration, trainings; Invited to trainigs, field visits
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Various extension service agencies have secured funding for SLM programmes.

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 through observations; indicators: plant heigth, biomass production, usefulness of grass/fodder species
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: views about technology
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: species selection, change of agricultural practices
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: changes in crop yields and patterns and the value of the land
area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: survey, on-site verifications
land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: survey, number of land users applying for SWC
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations; indicators: maintenance of terraces and hedgerows
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: New ideas have been generated but strategies to implement them are yet to be in place.
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: New varieties of grass, fruit and fodder species have been introduced

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• sociology
• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Sociology: Looking at scaling up process; Ecology: Looking at the impacts of the technology at subwatershed level; Technology: development process.
Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: national non-government (SDC, IDRC, ICIMOD): 65.0%; local community / land user(s) (Terrace improvement committee): 35.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Ja

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

About 50% of total labour costs were met by land users.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

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

• yes

If yes, describe how:

More than 60% of the total improved terraces in Kubinde village were built by the land users themselves. Widespread rapid adoption did not happen in other villages due to financial and labour limitations. Land users of Kubinde village continue to maintain the improved terraces.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Technical knowledge and confidence increased from the training and field visits, interactions, and experience sharing (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Such activities should be continued by incorporating other new ideas)
The approach led to the development of a team spirit among farmers (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: As above)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach is based on building the capacity of farmers (both men and women) by involving multiple stakeholders in the development and adoption of the technology. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Approach should be to strengthen land users' involvement in SWC activities)

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Due to the conflict, which was on-going at the time, follow-up after a year of implementing technology was not possible and the monitoring was not done. This resulted in the adoption of the technology by other farmers not being carried out properly with, for example, farmers not maintaining the hedgerows as recommended. Also, the new terraces were not as good as they should have been.	The technical experts need to visit the sites and identify gaps and encourage farmers to 'fill them'. For example, the benefit of hedgerow management needs to be demonstrated.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mathema, P. (2003) Watershed Management in South Asia. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management

Available from where? Costs?

Department of soil conservation, Nepal