Terrace Demonstration For Soil Conservation [Nepal]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Sabita Aryal
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Fabian Ottiger
Gara Sudhar (Nepali)
approaches_2480 - Nepal
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
SLM specialist:
Singtan Gangaraj
Chyamramgbesi 2 Kavre
Nepal
SLM specialist:
Khanna Sabita
Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel
Nepal
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
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
The slopy land used for farming process or just for land management by planting trees or grasses on those areas is terrace farming.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
Aims / objectives: Main aim of terrace farming is to conserve the soil, but the system not only conserve the soil,but also help in agriculture, so it also helps people to earn their living.
Methods: Terrace farming starts from the tillaging process of the sloppy area. Usually people do not plant, productive plants on those area mainly they plant fast growing grasses and plant on those sloppy and risky areas. After some years when the mud and soil of that area get settled there properly than people also start the agriculture on those land also, from which they can earn their living.
Stages of implementation: To implement the project on that area local people had provided a lot of support. The huge economic support was provided by the European Union. Specially the Bagmati watershed management project had given huge huge economic support to this area. Mainly for water management purpose but also for land management.
Role of stakeholders: No presence of such kind of stakeholder in the project but the economic support was provided by European Union to plant trees and manage soil erosion in common land but land owner has also given their support in this project by planting trees and grasses on their land by themselves.
Other important information: Terrace farming has really helped local people to manage the land of that area, but the road making process has created a lots of problem of soil erosion which is also suppose to be managed by applying same process additional with some new process.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Nepal
Region/ State/ Province:
Nepal
Further specification of location:
Kavre
Map
×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 (Agriculture)
1. Soil conservation.
2. Agriculture
3. For fodder, grasses etc.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low agricultural production is one of the main problem of this approach, because at initial period the soil is too loose so it may easily get lost from particular place. So, first trees were to be grown which supports the soil. Then only agriculture was to be performed. So, this is the main problem encountered by local peoples other problems were also faced by people but they were not big as the first one.
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- hindering
The financial support was provided by European union. So there was not much financial crisis.
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- enabling
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: As the system helps for managing the soil and prevent different environmental calamities the land user do not create any problem while the system runs.
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- hindering
Lack of technical knowledge had created lots of difficulties.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Some kind of training given by technician had removed this kind of problems.
workload, availability of manpower
- hindering
Because of personal workload, all local people could not be present on the program on time.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Proper schedule making for program according to local people favorable time might remove this problem.
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
Whoever be the land users,does not matter with sex, basically for all age group farmers, with simple living standard are aimed to be focused by stakeholders(European union).
More male participation than female because female were busy in household works. Men particularly were more because women were mostly busy in theit home, preparing meal and performing internal task of he house. No discrimination
- local government
Villagers itself were implementing.
- national government (planners, decision-makers)
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 | external support | European Union |
planning | interactive | Local people and specialist |
implementation | interactive | Specialist and local people |
monitoring/ evaluation | external support | Specialist |
Research | self-mobilization | individuals |
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:
- mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Explain:
According to the advice of SLM specialist, the land users utilized their land in a systematic way.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Mainly soil conservation programs are lunched by local people in which the SLM specialist also help them providing various techniques, equipments and guidelines.
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
Form of training:
- farmer-to-farmer
- demonstration areas
- public meetings
Subjects covered:
The training was given to the land users so that they also can adopt those techniques of training for conservation of their soil from erosion and other wastage.
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Yes
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:
Name of method used for advisory service: Meeting, field visit; Local people get gather and discuss.
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The requirement was provided by the international supports for the project.
4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)
Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
- yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
- local
Specify type of support:
- capacity building/ training
- equipment
Give further details:
European Union provided the equipments and training for local people
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Yes
Comments:
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: erosion rate was estimated
4.5 Research
Was research part of the Approach?
Yes
Specify topics:
- economics / marketing
Give further details and indicate who did the research:
The research was part of approach because research was done on local area within a society by student of KU which help to give further information of technology and approach to local people.
Research was carried out on-farm
5. Financing and external material support
5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (European Union): 95.0%; government (No support): 4.0%; international non-government (No support): 1.0%; national non-government (No support); private sector (No support); local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (from VDC); local community / land user(s) (Local people)
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
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
machinery | partly financed | |
tools | partly financed | |
- infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
roads | partly financed | |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- food-for-work
Comments:
Mostly the financial support was provided by the European union.
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
Land management was done properly mainly from application of countering process.
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
By utilizing the terrace land for agriculture, economically backward people were helped.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future. No, I don't think any problem would be created in coming future if this runs smoothly
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Almost all of the land users adopted the approach.
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
By growing different crops on terrace land, production was increased in some extent which also helped the local people to supports the living.
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
By increasing the agricultural production and utilizing terrace land.
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- increased production
- increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
- environmental consciousness
- well-being and livelihoods improvement
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:
They can continue the task without any supports because initial support and finance from European Union was gained to established the project.
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
It has controlled soil erosion (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Can be sustain by controlling deforestation, firing in jungle, controlling over extracting of medical herbs and so on.) |
Provide woods and other domestic products |
Provide fodder grass etc. |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Helps land management (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By handling the process from generation to generation) |
Increase productivity by controlling soil loss (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Awareness should be given to local people) |
Prevent natural calamities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By plaining more plants soil erosion can be controlled) |
Preserve water source (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Afforestation program helps to preserve water source) |
Prevent land mass and control gullies formation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Planting trees also helps to prevent land from gullies formation.) |
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? |
---|---|
None |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Lack of technical knowledge | By providing training and skills |
Production is less at initial phase | By adopting process continuously can increase as time passes, the plan controlled the soil loss and add nutrition to the land. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules