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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1177, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sarada Batase Village Development Committee (Sarada Batase VDC) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1177, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sarada Batase Village Development Committee (Sarada Batase VDC) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

18/01/2014

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

The ways and means used to promote and implement to improved stove to improve human well-being and sustainable land use.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main objectives of the approach was to conserve forest and to improve human well-being
villagers facing major health risks due to smoke like eye itchiness, allergies, bronchitis.

Methods: The idea was proposed by REMRIC Nepal and was supported by Nepal Government. The approach was further enhanced by VDC and few local committes, public participation was an important part of the approach.

Stages of implementation: 1. Research : Questionnaires asked to land users and thier viewpoints noted.
2. Training : REMRIC provided trainiing to 9 people within the village
3. Financial support : Funding provided by VDC, REMRIC and other local bodies. Technician provided.

Role of stakeholders: Private contribution was not made. Organizations provided full financial funding and trained people. Involved organizations also did the research work and training people. A part from this, public participation had the significant role.

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

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Forest Production, Manure for agriculture, Improved human health, Kitchen efficiency)

The main objectives of the approach were to improve health hazards caused by the smoke trapped int he room and for forst conservation.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: 1. Lack of technical knowledge
2. Lack of cash to invest in SLM

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	Public meetings, research questionnaires
planning	interactive	Interviews, public meetings
implementation	self-mobilization	responsibility of major and minor steps, casuale labor
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Measurements/observations, interviews/questionnaires
Research	passive	Answer questionnaires, informed about SLM technology, but do not take the final decision.

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:

Initiations of approach by REMRIC and later involvement of local bodies and active involvement of VDC. However, research done actively and consulted land users about family size, thier input was considered valuable.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. The implementation was made by mutual agreement between the SLM specialists and the land users. However, the funding was solely done by SLM specialists.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Male, 25-35 years of age

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Interviews/questionnaires, setup, construct and design technology

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: VDC; Key elements: Structure, Cost; But people have ample technical knowledge, also take advice from neighbours

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Not that hard or costly to manage the technology. So, self sustaining is sufficient for continuation of technology.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: VDC, Trainees

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Once a year, REMERIC visits and monitors give suggestions.

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Land user self-maintenance

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

how many family members in each house

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

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (Nepal Government); national non-government (REMRIC); local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (VDC); local community / land user(s) (Chakreshwar, Nawa prativa, Siddhartha, Jyoti sahakari)

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):

Technician provided

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Technician was paid for construction of SLM Technology

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:

the approach was not difficult to implement. Simple concept was needed. Only cleanliness reqiured.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1. Smoke no longer trapped in the room 2. Less wood consumption 3. Utensils are not damaged (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Cleaning the stove plant trees, cooking multiple items at a time)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1. Improved kitchen efficiency 2. Better channel for smoke outlet 3. Less wood consumption 4. Manure used for agriculture which kills the pests (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Cleaning and self-maintainance Cleaning the outlet pipe from time to time cooking, boiling water cleaning and collecting the ashes)

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?
cooks faster than traditional stove however slower than modern stove

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
1. Smoke outlet system is slightly poor 2. When one spot is used for cooking the other one has to be used too	raise the outletpipe vertically Some sort of door that can be open and closed when needed.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information