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)

Kathmandu University (KU) - Nepal

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

Sarada Batase Village Development Committee (Sarada Batase VDC) - Nepal

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

09/01/2015

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

This SLM is a method of producing quality fertilizer from composted animal manure,decaying leaves and plastics.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: 1 Produce high quality fertilizer(rich in nutrient)
2 Reduce costs and labour,space and maintainane costs.
3 It provides few odour and attracts few pests.

Methods: Firstly,a pit is dug then the organic waste(animal waste , fodder, etc.....)is kept in it.The pit is covered with sipaulin plastic and the waste is left for 2 to 3 months.Due to the properties (Resistance to water , UV stabilisation ,heat seal,flesibility etc) the waste absorbs moisture and allow air to circulate ,Heat is uniformely distributed and then produces a high quality fertilizer.

Stages of implementation: Department of agriculture first distributed siipaulin plastic to a local technician and provide training and knowledge about methods,and Gradually other people of village are also taught its methods,this SLM method is appalied by near by village.

Other important information: Properties of sipaulin plastic are;
---UV stabilization
---Uiform temperature maintainance
---it is very strong.

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 other activities than SLM (Quality fretilizer production)

--To provide high quality manure without the loss of nutrients.
--Reduce the use of other very harmful fertilizer and pesticides.


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: --Low Agricultural production
--Lack of Technical knowledge
--Lack of cash

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	interactive	Ishwor thapa(a local technician)first launched the idea over village.
planning	external support	Department of Agriculture is planning this.
implementation	self-mobilization	People who are involved in farming (specially monoculture) and the people who wish for a better production at lower cost.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	Monitaring is passive since the SLM is recently being avainable in the village.
Research	passive	Since the process is applied by the people at individual level,people are only concerned about productivity.

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:

Plastics were distributed and one of the farmer was given training so that he can train all the villagers and make them known to the use of plastic instead of wasting it as non degradable material

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Local technician was trained and was given the job to train other people in the village.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• courses

Subjects covered:

Ishwor thapa one of the local farmer as well as technician was given the training and was given the knowledge and use of SLM.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Since the result are quite satisfactory the advisory service is quite adequaet.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial

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

technical aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by government through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations

area treated aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored by government through measurements

management of Approach aspects were monitored by None through observations

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Regular monitoring help in the result evaluation.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

• Productivity and quqlity of product was measured.

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

This research was done by Agricultural specialist od department of agriculture.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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: government (Department of agriculture ): 50.0%; local community / land user(s) (Farmers): 50.0%

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):

Government aid

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

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

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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:

Since the technology can be easily adopted after a training it is simple and easy to continue the approach activity without any support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
--The land users have taken this as a boon for orange farming. --It have reduced the use of artificial fertilizer. --The orange production and quality was found improved. --Not only animal wastes but also the fodders and kitchen wastes has been utilized. --socio-ecnomic development.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view

- It can help farmers t manage animal waste nto quality fertilizer. - It is cheap and also easily affordable. - Monoculture farmers can easily access this method. - Dont need any vast and complex knowledge for implementation. - inprove economy by increasing production. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: - It can be enhanced by making aware about the use of organic fertilizer and reduce the use of harmful fertilizer. - Government should research on such SLM with continuous monitoring.)

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?
-- People may take it time consuming. -- They are more interested inartificial pesticides.	--people must get aware of impacts of harmful pesticides,

7.1 Methods/ sources of information