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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 496, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Kathmandu University (KU) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'}

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:

Yes

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Groundwater recharge by rainwater for domestic purpose in Lalitpur,Nepal

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities

Recharge of the ground water
providing water for domestic use like drinking,cleaning etc
long term supplement of water
livelihood improvement

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: conflict over resource use
lack of technical knowledge
lack of cash to invest in SLM

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	self-mobilization	local people felt the deficiency of water; they need to solve the problem so formed a committee to investigate and solve the problem
planning	self-mobilization	resident engineers and local people cooperated to solve problem
implementation	self-mobilization	The implementation was according to the planning
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	monitoring of water level and quality were done on weekly basis
Research	none

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:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

problems were registered;investigation was done by the local community;decision was made by the local people

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). local people along with the help of some specialist,engineers from the same locality

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

• local people

Form of training:

• learning by doing

Subjects covered:

ground water recharge
sustainable use of water

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: committee in every locality; Key elements: agenda formation, meetings and discussions, final decision making

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; its a national issue

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Water user

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Water user

technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Water user

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Water user

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Water user

area treated aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Water user

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Water user

management of Approach aspects were monitored by None through observations; indicators

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: a hand pump was replaced by a recharge well
water is being collected with a motor,stored in tanks and distributed daily

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: water resisting plants were planted instead of demanding plants around recharge area

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• economics / marketing
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

local people with technical knowledge

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government: 10.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 10.0%; local community / land user(s): 80.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• construction

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:

as approach is local initiative with local knowledge

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
local participation sufficiency of water resources increase quality of life (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: regular monitoring and evaluation Active participation of committee)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
local people are themselves responsible self motivation and local participation is high (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: increase in awareness regular maintenance active participation of the committee )

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?
recharge can degrade the aquifer unless quality control of the injected water is adequate	treatment of water using filters and locally available materials like charcoal,gravels,chips

7.1 Methods/ sources of information