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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1107, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development (LI-BIRD) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1107, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development (LI-BIRD) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Members of a community can work together to help prevent soil erosion and increase productivity by working collectively to establish contour bunds.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Over generations, the ethnic minorities of Nepal, who practice fireless shifting cultivation, known as 'gujultyaune', have successfully used contour bunding to control soil erosion, promote water retention, and increase crop production. Contour bunding is a proven sustainable land management practice in areas where the soil productivity of marginal, sloping, and hilly lands is very low. While it is both low cost and simple to implement, it does have the drawback that establishing contour bunds is very labour intensive. When members of a community work together to establish contour bunds the whole village can benefit.

Methods: By working collectively, a community can establish contour bunds that will benefit everyone and not individual farmers alone. The first step is to plan a course of action and to select the sites. Members of the community, who are thoroughly familiar with the landscape that the community inhabits, get together to discuss where the contour bunding will be most successful and benefit the greatest number of farmers. This planning phase is best carried out during the dry season before the rains begin. Once the sites are selected, everyone participates in the slashing of materials on the shifting cultivation lands. After the slashed materials have been allowed to dry for some weeks, the community assembles to gather these into rows that will form the bunds. Every member of the community participates according to their ability.

Stages of implementation: The steps for sharing labour to establish contour bunds in a community which practises shifting cultivation can be summarized as follows:
• The community meets to finalize a plan of action.
• Everyone participates in the slashing of shifting cultivation plots.
• The slashed materials are collected and allowed to dry.
• The slashed materials are formed into rows that will constitute the bunds.
• Everyone participates and eventually, the land between the bunds is prepared for the cultivation of crops.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (increasing crop production)

To increase crop yields and help to prevent soil erosion in communities that practise shifting cultivation by getting the whole community to participate in establishing contour bunds.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main stumbling blocks to this approach are a gap in the sharing of traditional knowledge, lack of the money needed for investment, community conflicts over allocation of resources, and overall 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	self-mobilization	Demand created by the community
planning	interactive	Through discussions the whole community is involved in deciding what sites are to be contoured and how the bunding technology is to be implemented.
implementation	self-mobilization	The whole community is involved in planning the sites, slashing the biomass, and forming the contour bunds.
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

The land users themselves decide on the technology during participatory discussions held in the community. This is a bottom-up approach

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). The land users themselves possess traditional knowledge on how the technology should be implemented. Since some farmers have a better grasp of the technology than others, the different methods are discussed and the community as a whole decides what method is to be used.

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

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

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 regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Land users regularly monitor the organic matter and moisture content of the soil and establish plants in bunds

technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Land users regularly monitor terrace formation and soil erosion

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: The community observes and comments on the degree to which contour bunding is implemented

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Land users note crop production and how it affects their cash income

area treated aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Land users regularly monitor small patches used in shifting cultivation

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: The whole community participates in observing how many people are involved

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: The whole community participates

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Gradually, farmers in other communities are also adopting the same approach

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: national non-government (LI-BIRD): 20.0%; local community / land user(s): 80.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

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:

This is a community-based approach; each community formulates its own rules and regulations.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Effectiveness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Improve the approach by continuing to work together to design, plan, and implement.)
Increases social cohesiveness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to work collaboratively)
Decreased workload (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Over time, the group decisions that work best no longer need to be revisited and less time is spent in discussions.)
Quick implementation of sloping land management measures (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: As the group learns to work together they can taking advantage of their synergy to quickly implement new measures.)
Empowerment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Encourage the community with technical backstopping)

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?
Some members contribute more than others	Each member of the group needs to be made aware of how they can contribute.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Indigenous knowledge of farmers in the shifting cultivation areas of Western Nepal, Regmi, BR; Aryal, KP; Subedi, A; Shrestha, PK; Tamang, BB (2001)