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)

Kathmandu University (KU) - Nepal

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

Sarada Batase Village Development Committee (Sarada Batase VDC) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The gully protection activities were initiationed and maintained by local people by using local materials based on their indigenous knowledge which supports to achieve more sustainable soil and water management.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The aim of the approach is to reduce gully formation, protect the fertile agricultural land and minimise the effect of slipping down of the village.

Methods: Individual farm ownner along the side of the gully take the first responsibility of the maintannce. The Jagidol village community and the Newari Guthi of the region, and all Hindus who worship for the Nagdevata and Shiva devata along the stream bank take extra care and consiousness on gully protection. It is a collective efforts through social networks.

Stages of implementation: Ever on going. Basically individual initiation. If the problem is bigger in Community gathering and discussion takes place for planning of necessary activities. Material will be collected locally. Hands of implementation is called from the local area. This approach has been continued for over 200 years.

Role of stakeholders: The land wonner along the stream bank have major role, if the situation becomes terrific then only other give hands. Men are more active for the land protection during crisis such as flood, but in regular upkeeping and maintainance women are more active.

Other important information: Gully is much more in control in the upper region where the bioengeenering approache is applied; there it is more stable and mature. In the lower belt of the gullies it still is under the need of regular maintanace.

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 other activities than SLM (Activities of religious, cultural and biological importance)

To protect agains gully formation. To protect under the soil loss. To protect the land from flood. Protection of source of water for dry season. To prevent landslides. To prevent the slidding of the hill towards the gully. To improve the well being of the farm and farmer.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of institutional development. The group is not registered anywhere in a conservation team or organisation. Thus getting no technical and financial support from government or non-governmental organisations. The research done by the community is not documented, it is trasmitted by mouth to mouth. To manage the gully labour shortage in the village is a rwal constraint.

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	The villagers realised that they needed to protect the land to increase the amount of available farming land and to protect their village from landslides.
planning	self-mobilization	The villagers plan various counter measures during the dry season, so that when the monsoon come their land would be protected
implementation	self-mobilization	The land users implemented the protective measures using local materials .
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	The build protective measure are maintained and repaired from time to time.
Research	none	no documentaion is made besides our study

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 have been implementing these technologies since many years. They have developed their own methods and selection of technology and material by trial and error. They have used intuitive reasoning for excellence.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). by observing the best resulting methods and material. By learning from the nearby places where the technology is selected under the guidance of conservation specialists.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

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 observations; indicators: No formal reporting was ever made, but evolution of the approach were continually observerd.

technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: No formal reporting was ever made, but evolution of the approach were continually observerd.

Continuity of the approach aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: No formal reporting was ever made, but evolution of the appraoch were continually observerd.

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The insecurity factor of the land user is combined with religious aspects such as the development of temple

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: New and recent material and technology is emerging in the lower area were the practice is relatively young

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: local community / land user(s) (There has been no external aid): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Full costs to land users

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:

The approach needs subsidies or external support to sustain it due to shortage of local labor volunteers. With funding support the village can purchase better materials to create longer lasting structures.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Remarks and suggestion of nearby land users and community persons are taken into serious consideration (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Learning of society to respect and regard others suggestion. Morale value)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Community network and individual farm ownership, self farming by land owner, most of the landowner reside at the same hill (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Discourage migration of farming community to nearby city)

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?
Migration of farmer for better job. Commencement of new owner. Comming of a brick making factory instead of farming.	Government should give more rules for cultivable land.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
No proper and formal planning. No connection with authority and funding organisations	Formalisation of the group for conservation practices

7.1 Methods/ sources of information