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)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)

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

Terre des Hommes (Terre des Hommes) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

22/08/2016

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

Comments:

There is no land degradation as the PSF pond embankment is surrounded with vegetable products and serves as a source of water. This technology reduces water shortage during disasters like drought or coastal flood.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Pond Sand Filter (PSF) increases flood resilience, providing an alternative source of drinking water during disaster events

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is embedded in a natural environment. Necessary materials include cement, sand, brick, rods, pipes, etc. There are multiple purposes of the technology which filters pond water and supplies drinking water for consummation and cooking. To establish/maintain this technology, we need to form and build capacities of PSF committees, which operate and maintain the PSF, excavate the pond and raise the pond embankment, fence the PSF for protection, open a bank account for smooth operations and establish links with research-based organizations and local government authorities working on improved water management technology. The principal benefit of the technology is that households have access to drinking water close to their home. In addition, it enables cultivating vegetables on the embankment of PSF which can support a balanced nutrition and can generate additional income. There is no noticeable disagreement at community level about the technology because it provides a reliable and alternative source of drinking water especially during disaster event.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2016

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

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

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

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:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• not applicable

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Height-4 feet 2 inch, Length-14 feet 5 inch, Width-7 feet with 1.5 km vertical interval structure having 0.4 decimal catchment area. The capacity of PSF is 2500 liter water. The construction materials used in rebuilding PSF include brick, sand, brick chips, cement, GI Pipe, water tap and MS Rod.

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.	Community consultation for Committee Formation	Management	Before onset of rain
2.	Fund raising initiative	Management	Before onset of rain
3.	Approval from by Union Parishad	Management	Before onset of rain
4.	Needs assessement	Management	Before onset of rain
5.	Technician selection for reconstruction	Structural	Before onset of rain
6.	Contribution from PSF committee	Management	Before onset of rain
7.	Contribution from Tdh	Management	Before onset of rain
8.	Commencement of PSF reconstruction	Structural	Before onset of rain
9.	Excavating	Structural	Before onset of rain
10.	Pond fencing	Structural	Before onset of rain
11.	Pond embankment	Structural	Before onset of rain

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	Excavation work	days	30.0	5.0	150.0	10.0
Equipment	Repairing tools	1	4.0	15.0	60.0
Equipment	Tubewell	1	1.0	29.0	29.0	10.0
Fertilizers and biocides	bleeching	1	0.5	3.0	1.5	10.0
Construction material
Construction material
Construction material	bricks	pieces	15.0	1.5	22.5	10.0
Construction material	sand	pieces/bags	80.0	0.5	40.0	10.0
Other	brickchips	pieces	10.0	1.0	10.0	10.0
Other	MS rod	pieces	30.0	1.0	30.0
Other	Cement	bag	12.0	6.0	72.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					415.0

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

The remaining costs bore by the project contribution. It's a mode of cost sharing and developing a culture of belongingness and sustainability.

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Repairing	Other measures	Before onset of rains
2.	Cleaning	Management	Before onset of rains

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	For cleaning	days	4.0	14.0	56.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	bleeching powder	bag	5.0	2.0	10.0
Construction material	sand	pieces/bags	80.0	1.0	80.0	100.0
Construction material	Brick chips	pieces	10.0	5.0	50.0
Other	Cement	bag	6.0	12.0	72.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					268.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Comparatively, construction materials costs was reflected as expensive cost.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	moderately

Comments:

PSF serves as disaster resilient Technology that can well cope with the effects of climate change.

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• more than 50%

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

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The Technology is useful for supplying drinking water at household level and can meet the nutritional needs through cultivating medicinal plants and vegetables at the pond embankment

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The Technology is conducive for ensuring supply of water for drinking, cooking and irrigation purposes if the community is motivated and understand the impact of PSF when faced with water shortage during dry season and other disaster events.

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?
Every six months, the PSF needs to be taken care of. This requires some maintenance costs that must be deposited every month for smooth operations. PSF DRR fencing is also necessary to protect PSF against animals.	Deposit monthly saving to incur the six monthly maintenance costs as well as create relationship with local research organization to improve the cost-effectiveness of the technology

7.1 Methods/ sources of information