Approaches

Chyamrangbesi - A smoke free zone by using improved cooling stove [Nepal]

Chyamrangbesi- Dhuwa Muta Chhetra

approaches_2592 - Nepal

Completeness: 86%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1177, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sarada Batase Village Development Committee (Sarada Batase VDC) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1177, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sarada Batase Village Development Committee (Sarada Batase VDC) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

18/01/2014

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

Khuwa making by the use of Improved stove
technologies

Khuwa making by the use of Improved stove [Nepal]

The technology used is improved stove. An improved stove is a device that is designed to consume less fuel and save cooking time,convenient in cooking process and creates smokeless environment or reduction in volume of smoke against the traditional stove.

  • Compiler: Sabita Aryal

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The ways and means used to promote and implement to improved stove to improve human well-being and sustainable land use.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main objectives of the approach was to conserve forest and to improve human well-being
villagers facing major health risks due to smoke like eye itchiness, allergies, bronchitis.

Methods: The idea was proposed by REMRIC Nepal and was supported by Nepal Government. The approach was further enhanced by VDC and few local committes, public participation was an important part of the approach.

Stages of implementation: 1. Research : Questionnaires asked to land users and thier viewpoints noted.
2. Training : REMRIC provided trainiing to 9 people within the village
3. Financial support : Funding provided by VDC, REMRIC and other local bodies. Technician provided.

Role of stakeholders: Private contribution was not made. Organizations provided full financial funding and trained people. Involved organizations also did the research work and training people. A part from this, public participation had the significant role.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Nepal

Further specification of location:

Kavrepalanchok

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2069

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2069

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Forest Production, Manure for agriculture, Improved human health, Kitchen efficiency)

The main objectives of the approach were to improve health hazards caused by the smoke trapped int he room and for forst conservation.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: 1. Lack of technical knowledge
2. Lack of cash to invest in SLM

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Land user not ready to invest in experimental technology.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Local bodies, organization, VDC funded the whole project.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Dur to lack of technical knowledge and information

Treatment through the SLM Approach: REMRIC tarined 9 people; each from one ward

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

Soil, brick, rods needed to carry from sometimes far distant areas.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Land users volunteered to carry items themselves

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Jyotisahakari, Nawa prativa, Chakreshwor, Siddhartha

Community involvement. As physical activities are more involved, men are majorly involved. 33% only women involved

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

REMRIC

  • local government

Chyamrangbesi VDC

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Nepal government

  • international organization
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 interactive Public meetings, research questionnaires
planning interactive Interviews, public meetings
implementation self-mobilization responsibility of major and minor steps, casuale labor
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Measurements/observations, interviews/questionnaires
Research passive Answer questionnaires, informed about SLM technology, but do not take the final decision.

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:

Initiations of approach by REMRIC and later involvement of local bodies and active involvement of VDC. However, research done actively and consulted land users about family size, thier input was considered valuable.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. The implementation was made by mutual agreement between the SLM specialists and the land users. However, the funding was solely done by SLM specialists.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Male, 25-35 years of age

Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

Interviews/questionnaires, setup, construct and design technology

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: VDC; Key elements: Structure, Cost; But people have ample technical knowledge, also take advice from neighbours

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Not that hard or costly to manage the technology. So, self sustaining is sufficient for continuation of technology.

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?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: VDC, Trainees

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Once a year, REMERIC visits and monitors give suggestions.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Land user self-maintenance

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

how many family members in each house

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

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: government (Nepal Government); national non-government (REMRIC); local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (VDC); local community / land user(s) (Chakreshwar, Nawa prativa, Siddhartha, Jyoti sahakari)

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Technician provided

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • none
 
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

Technician was paid for construction of SLM Technology

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Less wood consumption so forest conservation. also, the ashes used as manure for agriculture.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Improved health due to less smoke. Reduce in eye and throat problems.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Less wood required and improved health status

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks

Involvement of big project

  • environmental consciousness

Less smoke

  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

Kitchen efficiency

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:

the approach was not difficult to implement. Simple concept was needed. Only cleanliness reqiured.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1. Smoke no longer trapped in the room
2. Less wood consumption
3. Utensils are not damaged (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Cleaning the stove
plant trees, cooking multiple items at a time)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1. Improved kitchen efficiency
2. Better channel for smoke outlet
3. Less wood consumption
4. Manure used for agriculture which kills the pests (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Cleaning and self-maintainance
Cleaning the outlet pipe from time to time
cooking, boiling water
cleaning and collecting the ashes)

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?
cooks faster than traditional stove however slower than modern stove
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
1. Smoke outlet system is slightly poor
2. When one spot is used for cooking the other one has to be used too
raise the outletpipe vertically
Some sort of door that can be open and closed when needed.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules