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)

Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development (LI-BIRD) - Nepal

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

01/03/2013

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Hedgerow technology can be introduced through the joint participation of farmers, scientists, and related stakeholders. The whole community works together at all stages, including designing, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and scaling up.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Communities can establish better hedgerows by supplementing the traditional knowledge that they have employed for generations with scientific knowledge through a participatory process where both groups are involved in every step of planning, designing, and implementation. This approach recognizes the validity of the local knowledge that farmers have about their land and supplements it with scientific techniques to facilitate the implementation of methods which will yield better results sooner.

Methods: Hedgerow technology can be implemented by forming farmers' groups and using a participatory approach. This technology has the potential to be scaled up and applied on a broader scale. The steps for sharing labour and know-how to establish hedgerows can be summarized as follows:
• Capacity is strengthened through discussions with technical persons.
• Farmers, technical persons, and related stakeholders work together to come up with plans that make the best use of both the farmers’ indigenous knowledge on how to form hedgerows and their understanding of the landscape, and scientific knowledge, for designing and planning.
• The hedgerows are established by the farmers as per the consensual plan.
• Some farmers are designated to periodically inspect the hedgerows and to perform maintenance as needed.
• The technology is scaled up by farmers who disseminate the learning to other farmers through extension and knowledge sharing at different fora.

Stages of implementation: Farmers, technical persons, and related stakeholders were all involved at every stage. In addition, LI-BIRD, local community-based organizations, and other related stakeholders such as the district forest office and the district agriculture office were on hand to support the farmers' group by offering technical and financial resources. The farmers' groups had a vested interest in this approach and demonstrated their commitment by: generating funds from a savings and credit scheme and conducting income generating activities. They also worked to establish effective linkages and to coordinate with related stakeholders to obtain resources which would ensure that the group would be self-reliant in the long run. The involvement of a wide range of participants will ensure that the technology is not only effective but that it is also sustainable. Moreover, when neighbouring communities see how successful this approach can be, it is hoped that they also will adopt the technology.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

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 (Income generation)

The objective of this approach was to introduce the technology through participatory planning, designing, and implementation by integrating farmers’ knowledge and experiences in the process.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: This approach addressed a few of the major problems in the area. The outstanding problems were:
• poor technical knowledge,
• lack of group efforts,
• lack of cash for investment,
• poor access to service providers,
• inadequate use made of farmers' traditional knowledge,
• inadequate knowledge resources, and
• poverty and poor social cohesiveness.

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	passive	At the beginning, the land users were mostly passive because they lacked information on sloping land management.
planning	interactive	Land users were actively involved in the planning stage and they incorporated feedback from other stakeholders to finalize the action plan. During this phase they also prepared the land and the materials, and recruited the resource person needed to implement the technology
implementation	self-mobilization	Land users were involved in the implementation phase mobilizing their group members and shared the new technical knowledge that they had acquired.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Land users and other stakeholders remained actively involved throughout the different stages of monitoring and evaluation.
Research	external support	Land users were actively involved in research work to test and validate the approach.

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Both farmers and specialist were involved in on-farm visits to assess the condition of the land; farmers attended seminars to acquire new knowledge and they also used this opportunity to share their own knowledge. Farmers and specialists together selected the technology.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• Local Resource Person

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

This approach provided training on hedgerow technology and group mobilization to enhance the capacity of land users, field staff, and local resource persons. Site visits to the demonstration areas were also organized for the land users.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Group Mobilization Method; Key elements: networking and coordination of farmers' groups with district level line agencies such as the district forest office, the district agriculture office, the district livestock office, and other relevant stakeholders for learning and sharing of information.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Trainings and sessions on capacity building were provided to the land users

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: The land users and project staff made regular observations of sediment deposition rates after the intervention.

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: The land users and project staff made regular observations on the formation of terraces and control of erosion.

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: The land users and project staff regularly observed sociocultural impacts

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: The land users and project staff regularly observed the extent to which the income of the land users changed.

area treated aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through measurements; indicators: The land users and government staff monitored the coverage of the technology.

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations were made by the land users and project staff on how many land users were adopting the technology.

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: The land users and project staff regularly observed how well the group functioned together and how well they linked with stakeholders

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring brought few changes; farmers used the information gathered during monitoring of on-farm demonstration to help them select the species they preferred but the technology remained the same.

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

On-farm technical research was a part of the approach applied by land users, specialists, and relevant stakeholders who were involved in hedgerow technology trials.

Research was carried out on-farm

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: national non-government: 20.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc): 10.0%; local community / land user(s): 70.0%

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):

LI-BIRD provided some support.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Individual land users were enthusiastic to implement the approach and to take it further. Land users who are shifting cultivators, and who typically have no land ownership, are slower to embrace the approach.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Sustained capacity building (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to build strong links and coordinate with government line agencies)
Improved access to services providers helped to enhance their capacity to cope with adverse conditions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to build and maintain contact with government line agencies)
Local institutions were strengthened (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Established formal institutions and help to sustain them)
Land users actively participated and took ownership (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue capacity building and training. At present the government is initiating programmes with leasehold forest groups in Gorkha and Tanahu Districts that encourages the establishment hedgerows è Work to mainstream the approach within government programmes)
Collaboration helped land users to sustain their efforts (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to build a sense of community between land users)

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?
Difficult to develop common understanding	Organized regular learning and sharing to develop common understanding
Farmers have only a limited understanding of the skills needed	Continue to strengthen farmers' groups and continue to mobilize through sharing and learning
The approach is resource intensive.	Promote savings and credit schemes with farmers' groups. Mobilize farmers' groups so that they can petition other groups and line agencies for resources.
Time consuming	Work with land users to improve their time management and their ability to plan future activities and delegate responsibilities
Few farmers participated during the initial stages	Conduct awareness raising activities and promote activities that give some tangible benefits in the short term.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Building on partnership approaches in participatory identification of integrated agricultural technological packages suitable for sloping land areas (unpublished), Regmi, BR; Aryal, KP; Shrestha, PK; Tamang, BB (2003)

Available from where? Costs?

LI-BIRD