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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

People and Resource Dynamics Project, Nepal (PARDYP)

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

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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/09/2006

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

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Structural and vegetative measures to improve the quality of drinking water contaminated due to poor sanitation and seepage

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology combines structural and vegetative measures to improve the quality of drinking water in an open spring. The quality of water was deteriorating due to poor sanitation and seepage around the spring. The spring was located near to Dhotra village at Barbot sub-settlement, Kabhrepalanchok district. About five households depended on the spring for their drinking water supplies with a further
10 using it regularly and 10-15 using it occasionally during the dry season.
The main purpose of implementing the technology was to improve the quality of drinking water in the spring by preventing it from being contaminated by surface runoff during the rainy season. This technology has long been implemented across Nepal’s midhills. In this case a development project (PARDYP) mobilised the users and provided them with technical and material support to make the improvements.
A spring user group was formed. With project help, it built a walled structure (a spring box) over the spring and check dams around the spring, and planted grasses around the spring box and trees in the catchment. These measures prevented the direct flow of surface water into the spring thus reducing contamination and turbidity. Users built a 1.8m long, 1m wide and 1.5m high spring box with a zinc sheeted roof. Check dams were built across the surrounding gullies and rills. A main 2.5m long, 0.5m wide, and 1m high check dam was constructed near the source to prevent surface runoff from entering the spring. A drainage channel was made to drain off wastewater. Vetiver grass seedlings were planted around the spring box and trees were planted in the adjoining catchment. These activities were carried out at the beginning of the rainy season.
This technology is simple and durable and the only maintenance needed is to keep the surroundings clean and to repair any damage.
The case study area receives about 1200 mm of annual precipitation of which about 80% occurs during the monsoon season (June to September). The area mostly has red soils which are highly weathered and, if not managed properly, are very susceptible to erosive processes.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Local community, with the contribution from individual community members or from external support have been implementing since generations. In this particular case project mobilized the spring users community and assisted them by providing technical and material support during programme implementing period.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• Improve water quality

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): High pressure on limited land resources due to overuse of crop, forest, and grazing lands; increased inputs of agrochemicals which will lead to the deterioration of drinking water quantity and quality

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Water quality deterioration resulting from poor sanitation

Constraints of wastelands / deserts / glaciers / swamps: private land-abondent by village elite, communal land-open grazing

3.3 Further information about land use

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 3

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 150; Longest growing period from month to month: Jun - Oct; Second longest growing period in days: 120; Second longest growing period from month to month: Nov - Feb

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures, structural measures

Type of vegetative measures: scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (uncontrolled access to grazing land), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (concentrated runoff during rainy season), education, access to knowledge and support services (lack of knowledge - water quality treatment)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (uncontrolled access to forest land), poverty / wealth (lack of captial - conservation activities)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Structural and vegetative measures applied to improvewater quality of spring

Location: Barbot Dhotra. Kabhrepalanchowk district

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover

Secondary technical functions: increase / maintain water stored in soil

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs, G : grass

Trees/ shrubs species: Michelia champaca

Grass species: Vetiveria lawsoni

Structural measure: spring box wall
Material: concrete
Height of bunds/banks/others (m): 1.5
Width of bunds/banks/others (m): 1.02
Length of bunds/banks/others (m): 1.89

Structural measure: check dams
Height of bunds/banks/others (m): 1
Width of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.5
Length of bunds/banks/others (m): 2.5

Structural measure: cut-off drain
Material: Stone
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.2
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.25
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 3

Construction material (stone): locally available

Construction material (concrete): cement, sand, brick

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Planting vetiver grass around the spring box	Vegetative	beginning of rainy season
2.	Planting tree species in the catchment	Vegetative	beginning of rainy season
3.	Building of check dams to divert stream and gully runoff water	Structural	start of the rainy season
4.	Buildingof the spring box	Structural	start of the rainy season
5.	Construction of concrete floor in front of spring box	Structural	start of the rainy season
6.	Construction of drainage channel	Structural	start of the rainy season

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Building spring box and planting trees	Persons/day	69.0	1.6	110.4	80.0
Plant material	Grass seedlings	unit	1.0	4.0	4.0
Construction material	Cement	unit	1.0	44.0	44.0
Construction material	Gravel / sand	unit	1.0	55.0	55.0	100.0
Construction material	Bricks	unit	1.0	188.0	188.0
Construction material	Empty sacks	unit	1.0	5.0	5.0
Construction material	Tinc sheet	unit	1.0	16.0	16.0
Construction material	Steel wire	unit	1.0	1.0	1.0
Construction material	Transportation	unit	1.0	10.0	10.0	15.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					433.4

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

PARDYP and District Development Committee

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	replacement/ gap filling with new tree seedings	Vegetative	/as required
2.	maintaining height of the planted grass	Vegetative	/as required
3.	Cleaning spring box surroundings	Structural	as per need
4.	Maintenance of wall/ floor against damage	Structural	as per need
5.	Maintenance of check dam against damage	Structural	as per need

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Maintaining springbox	Persons/day	2.0	1.6	3.2	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					3.2

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: hoe,spade, shovel, nails, hammer, pliers, trowel, steel pan bucket, and jug

The cost is only for unit technology, it can not be extrapolated to hector basis, as in 2006.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Material cost was comparatively high followed by labor cost. For this technology several actors contributed. The land users contributed 61 percent, District Development Committee contributed 26 percent and PARDYP contributed 13 percent, and the department of forest and PARDYP regional coordinator contributed by providing planting materials( vetiver).

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 900 m a.s.l.

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil depth on average: Variable

Soil texture: Red soils with high clay content

Soil fertility is very low

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is very low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quality (untreated): More contamination during monsoon season (June- September), source: mainly natural springs

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Population density: 200-500 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

15% of the land users are average wealthy and own 35% of the land.
85% of the land users are poor and own 65% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: In most farm households, off-farm income plays at least a minor and increasingly a major role. Occasional opportunities for off-farm income present themselves in the form of daily
labour wages. Some households’ members receive regular salaries, whilst an increasing number of Nepalis are
working in India, the Middle East, Malaysia, and elsewhere and sending remittance incomes home.

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Clean water is available immediately after only a little investment. Government and PARDYP support meant that the short-term benefit was positive. Without this support the short-term costs would equal the benefi ts.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• more than 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

15 households in an area of 10 ha

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

15 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: survey results

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Local people with inadequate access to drinking water or whose source is contaminated are
likely to adopt the technology after raising the funds themselves.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increased availability of drinking water has reduced women’s workload during the dry season. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Improve the technology by building a closed storage tank.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Water turbidity decreased from 23 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) in August 2004 to 7 NTU in August 2005. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Encourage spring users to plant more multiple grasses and tree species around the catchment area
Faecal contamination decreased from 500 coliform formation units (CFU)/100 ml in August 2004 to 200 CFU/100 ml in August 2005. Similarly, the levels of ammonia (NH3) and nitrate (NO3 in the spring water have decreased (NH3 from 0.5 to 0 mg/l; and NO3 from 0.7 to 0.5 mg/l). Total hardness of spring water remained the same at 30 mg/l. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Regular maintenance, especially cleaning the surrounding area is needed; also need a clean pot for extracting the water.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Coliform bacteria are still a problem	Treat the water using SODIS, boiling, fi lters, chlorination or other methods before drinking.
The water available during the pre-monsoon season is insufficient for the15 households, leading to conflicts; the water source can be contaminated from unclean water fetching pots.	The water in the spring box should be siphoned into a storage tank fi tted with an overfl ow mechanism,cleaning outlet, lockable cover, and taps. This would protect the water source from contamination from open access and improve the quality and availability of water. The amount available could be increased by tapping other spring sources.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ICIMOD (2007) Good Practices in Watershed Management: Lessons Learned in the Mid Hills of Nepal. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

Available from where? Costs?

ICIMOD