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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Prospects and challenges of water use systems as climate adaptive option for sustainable water management in Himalayan Region {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 496, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Kathmandu University (KU) - Nepal', 'template': 'raw'}

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

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

Comments:

This is a Single Use Water System implemented in order to preserve the water sources through their sustainable use.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Water from source is collected in a reservoir tank ( RVT) of volume 13000 Ltr and then distributed to each household for Single Use. Traditionally, the system was constructed to serve a single purpose-drinking (hence the name "Single Use" water system). However, due to increasing demand and need to meet multiple uses, the water users are using the same water for different purposes like drinking, irrigation and other domestic uses.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

A Single Use Water System (SUWS) is the one in which the supplied water serves a single purpose. Traditionally, the system was constructed in order to meet the growing demand and serve a single purpose i.e. supply drinking water to households ( hence the name "Single Use" water systems). However, people's demands and needs increased and supplied water was then used for various purposes like for irrigation, animal husbandry, domestic chores like bathing, washing, etc.
The technology is applied in a natural environment (community forest). The source of water is a natural source that lies in a community forest and hence, the availability is seasonal. The land where the source falls is owned by the government and the implementation of the technology was primarily assisted by the Village Development Committee (VDC). Its use rights falls under the water users. The main elements include a concrete Reservoir tank (RVT), pipeline and tap system or tap towers with faucets. The major functions of this technology are to store water and distribute to the 30-35 households and to ensure the preservation of natural water source through its sustainable use. Major activities are labor and construction activities for building the reservoir tank and laying down the pipeline. Maintenance work, if and when it is needed, is carried out with the help of the water users. No specific group or committee has been formed that looks onto the matters of discussion of the committee. No investment has been made by the local water users' group towards the construction of the technology. Benefits of the technology are the availability of clean drinking water at household level and the preservation of the natural source of water that ensures its perennial availability. Water users admire the overall improvement of their health status through the availability of clean drinking water.
They dislike the fact of water scarcity during dry seasons and the poor management of the system. The quantity of the water is adequate for most of the year. However, scarcity of water during the dry months (when the source dries out) is still eminent. Quality of water is good with low salinity and or iron and other elements but persistence of lime in the water remains.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

It is based on a traditional system, but improvised to construct a reservoir tank (RVT) and water supplied through a pipeline. The traditional system contained a reservoir pond dug up and water was supplied through feeding rubber and plastic pipes to the households with no faucets. This caused the water to flow through the pipes without stopping and there was loss of precious water due to excess drainage. The dug up pond caused sediments, dirt, insects and leaves to collect in the water, clogging the pipes and making water unsafe for drinking.
The construction of concrete RVT with lid ensured water stayed free from sediments and falling leaves. Construction of tap towers with taps and faucets ensured water was not wasted. The use of Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe with pipeline system was done to the traditional system of supply of water to households.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

• drinking water purpose ( to improve water security at a household level)

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Samjhana Samudayik Ban ( Community Forest)

3.4 Water supply

other (e.g. post-flooding):

• Natural Water Source

Comments:

Natural Spring water source inside Community Forest

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• water harvesting
• ground water management

• water management ( for Drinking purpose) - Gravity Fed Single Line

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• not applicable

Comments:

The "intended" sole purpose of the technology was to serve a single purpose- to supply drinking water at a household level. Hence, no significant effect with regard to land degradation was intended to have been achieved; hence omitted.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

NPR

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

113.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Construction of Reservoir Tank
2.	Laying down the pipeline

Comments:

The SUWS system was contributed by the VDC but exact costs couldn't be recollected by the locals. Similarly, the locals vaguely remember the season of construction. As per some of the water users, the construction was started during summer, but could only be completed after winter season was over due to rains disturbing the work in between.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Voluntary
Equipment	Construction of RVT
Equipment	Laying down pipeline

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

1400.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Village Development Committee contributed 100% of costs, pipeline contributed by a NGO ( RRN), DFID helped with other miscellaneous costs and Newasanstha helping with other running costs.

Comments:

Since exact estimation and/or recollection of the costs of construction of the technology was not possible; an estimation was made based upon the then prices of materials, pipes and labor costs- which estimated to be roughly 70 USD.
It has to be kept in mind that the 70 USD that was used was almost 50 years ago. Keeping in line with the inflation rates, it could be worth more than 15-20 times of the original cost ( >1400 USD).
Hence, to make it easier to compare with the construction VS maintenance costs, the figures have been rounded off to today's value as 1400 USD.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Laying down pipeline ( by RRN)	Once (2056 B.S,) during winter
2.	Operation and maintenance costs (borne by a NGO- DFID)	Once (2071 B.S.) during summer
3.	Changing of pipes ( borne by NGO- Newasanstha and the locals)	6-7 times ( during summer, winter and during rains)

Comments:

The running and maintenance costs borne by various non-governmental organizations and the local community as and when required.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Voluntary Labour contribution by locals					100.0
Equipment	Changing of PVC Pipes					25.0

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

700.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Non-Governmental organizations like DFID, NewaSanstha and Village Development Committee contributed from time to time

Comments:

The exact costs couldn't be calculated. But as per the locals, the costs of changing the PVC pipes 6 times came to around 700 USD.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The construction materials, pipelines were the ones which costed the most.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Most of the community are literate ( finished upto classes 4/5 ) . The ratio of male: female is almost equal. Most of the users are middle-aged ( 40-50 yrs age-group) . The ethnicity consists of Thakuri, Dalits and Janajatis. Total land holding of the water users is around 20 ropanis. ( 1 hectare = 19.65 ropanis)

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Comments:

The water source is owned by the state / government. The access to water is open ; however during the time of crisis, its use is limited to each household.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

The access to all these services is limited as the locals have to traverse a distance of almost 30 minutes to bazaar area / marketplace. The road infrastructure is good.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The "intended" sole purpose of the technology was to serve a single purpose- to supply drinking water at a household level. Hence, no significant effect with regard to other ecological impacts have been achieved; hence omitted.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not well
annual rainfall		decrease	not well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	moderately

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Estimated maintenance and running costs could not be exactly calculated, but weighing down the pros with the costs; the benefits outweigh the costs.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Availability of clean source of drinking water is ensured.
Need to travel long distances to fetch water not prevalent due the the availability of taps with drinking water at household levels.
Water being used for various purposes like drinking, irrigation, domestic purposes, etc.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Water scarcity during arid and dry winters decreased if not stopped overall.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Water not available all year-round	By construction of another reservoir tank (RVT)

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Pipeline severely damaged due to lime	Lime treatment and changing of pipes to more resistant ones ( GI ) pipes instead of feeble PVC ones used
No specific committee / group set up to discuss the problems	Setting up water users' committee and donating a small sum per household every month that goes onto a fund, that can be later used to address various problems that may arise in the future.
Water being supplied for a single use only	upgrading the technology to Multiple Use Water Systems (MUWS) in place of Single-Use Water Systems (SUWS) could address the multiple uses of water users.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information