2.3. Implementation of physical activities

2.3.1 Physical activities included in the CAPs
2.3.2 Criteria for project assistance
2.3.3 Cost sharing and people's contribution
2.3.4 Participatory feasibility analysis
2.3.5 Design of small scale engineering works
2.3.6 Implementation costs and agreements
2.3.7 Physical activities implemented

2.3.1. Physical activities included in the CAPs

A physical activity is defined here as any activity with a direct physical component, such as construction, planting, providing improved genetic (breeding) material, handing over and management of forest. In fact, this category includes all activities except training and group formation.

A total of 177 physical activities were included in the 26 CAPs (see Table 3). The most popular activity, by far, was water source protection, with 52 sources included in the plans, though it is remarkable that none were planned in Ampipal VDC (maybe because of the presence of UMN community health programs).

Trail improvement, included 24 times, was the second most popular activity. Here it is important to note that trail improvement was most frequently included in the plans by communities living higher up the slopes, such as Chitre (Chhoprak #1).

Small scale hill irrigation was the third most frequently planned activity. It is likely that this activity is strongly limited by actual water resources, otherwise many more communities would have included it in their plans.

Gully and landslide control was mentioned 15 times. It is much more frequently included in the south facing slopes of the watershed.

Table 3. Physical activities included in the 1996 Community Action Plans of 26 PRA communities in the Bhusunde Khola watershed.

VDC and Ward		PRA Site	Gully land slide control	Forest		Trail improvement	Water			Breed improvement		Planting					Community house	Health center	Latrines	Total
				Hand over	plantation		Source protect.	Hill irrig.	catch pond	Buffalo	Goat	Bamboo grass	Fodder	Fruit	vegetable	nursery
Amp.
	5	Ratdanda	1								X									2
	6	Simpani									X				X					2
	7	Simp. Hat											X	X						2
	9	Darmich.	1		1	1		2			X								X	7
Sub-total Ampipal			2		1	1		2			3		1	1	1				1	13
Chhop 1		Chitre			1	5	1	1									1			9
	2	Chiurib.				1					X									2
	2	Thumki		1			1	1							X		1			5
	2	Amarai				1	1				X	X						1		5
	3	Katacb.	1		1	3	3													8
	4	Salbot	1		1	2		4												8
	5	Faudarg.	1			2								X						4
	7	Majhgaon		1			6					X	X	X	X					11
	7	Bawalig.		1			3		1	X	X	X	X	X	X					11
	8	Tutunga	1				4		1				X	X	X				X	10
	8	Jaisith.					3			X	X			X					X	7
	8	Firfire	1				5	3												9
	8	Arub/Mat	3			1	2	1							X					8
	9	Katuban.	1	1		1	5					X		X						10
Sub-tot. Chhoprak			9	4	3	16	34	10	2	2	4	.4	3	6	5		2	1	2	1.07
Sub-t. Ch. 7+8+9			6	3		2	28	4	2	2	2	2	2	5	4				2	66
HarmB		Harmi B.	1				1		1	X	X									5
	6	Nawalpur																		-
	6	Ghimireg	1	1		1	4	1					X	X		1	1			12
Sub-total Harmi			2	1		1	5	1	1	1	1		1	1		1	1			17
Khop.																			X	5
	1	Suntale	2			1	1
	1	Falamkh.						3					X						X	5
	4	Belbas		3		2	5	2						X	X					14
	4	Kolkate	1	2	1	1	4							X						10
	4	Khurpaj.			1	2	3													6
Sub-tot. Khoplang			3	5	2	6	13	5					1	2	1				2	41
Total 26 PRA c's			16	10	6	24	52	18	3	3	8	4	6	10	7	1	3	1	5	177

Forest handover (community forestry) is included 10 times, and conservation plantation 6 times. These plantations are sometimes meant to improve the community forests and sometimes to help stabilize gullies and landslides.

Improvement of buffalo and especially goat was mentioned a number of times. The improved goats would generally be targeted at women and women groups.

Planting trees, fodder, fruit, grasses, bamboo, cardamom, vegetables, etc., is included in many CAPs. Many variations exist, such as planting on private farm land, communal lands, in gullies, forests, along streams, etc.

It is remarkable that none of the CAPs included plans to increase the availability of improved paddy or maize seed, fertilizer, pesticides or other food production enhancing interventions, except for irrigation facilities. It is not clear why this is so, maybe farmers do not realize that crop production is very low (less likely), or maybe they only see irrigation as a solution upon which all other improvements would depend (more likely).

2.3.2 Criteria for project assistance

As stated before, user groups are the appropriate and accepted community organization units through which participatory field activities of the Department of Soil Conservation (or any other line agency) are to be implemented. At the beginning of the Second Phase (end 1994) there were about 35 user groups in the Bhusunde Khola watershed, however, many of these were not functioning properly.

The project considered that it was not sustainable to work with purely input driven user groups, who otherwise hardly function. Therefore criteria were set early in 1996 for user groups who wished to solicit project assistance. It was decided to work only with active user groups defined by:

(i) Regular meetings;
(ii) Record keeping; and
(iii) Regular group savings.

Later another criterium was added:

(iv) Self initiated activities.

Thus, even in communities where PRAs had been carried out and CAPs had been prepared, the project insisted that it would only extend its assistance in physical activity implementation to active user groups according to the above set criteria. In case the community was eager to implement the physical activities foreseen in the CAPs, but was not properly organized in user groups fulfilling the criteria, the project offered specific capacity building training.

2.3.3 Cost sharing and people's contribution

Basically, only field activities identified and requested by local communities through participatory planning methods have been supported by the project since its inception. Modalities for cost sharing and participatory implementation of field activities have not remained constant throughout this period, though in general user groups contributed un-skilled labour and local materials, and the project contributed skilled labour and outside materials. During the first phase, the project tried to stimulate user groups by providing them with cash equivalent to 10% of the total estimated costs of specific -usually small scale infrastructure- activities, which should have been used as revolving funds (and which did not have the desired results).

During 1995 user groups were required to deposit 5% of the total estimated costs of such activities in their bank account before the start of the activity. After completion of the works an equal sum of money was deposited on the same accounts by the project. Several problems arose with this system:

(i) Poor communities could not manage to collect enough funds;

(ii) In some cases relatively wealthy people provided the 5% funds, and were later reimbursed by the user group upon completion of the activities and receipt of the additional 5% of the project;

(iii) Only in a few cases did the revolving funds actually work, more often it gave rise to mistrust and misunderstanding (and sometimes misuse) in the user groups; and

(iv) Villagers lost interest in activities that require very high levels of unskilled labour and low levels of external inputs, notably trail improvement and gully and landslide control.

It was therefore decided in February 1996 to amend the project activities implementation strategy, no longer to require cash deposits for infrastructure activities, and to streamline subsidy and cost sharing policies with the other district level line agencies' norms and policies as follows:

(a) Gully and torrent control, people's contribution in the form of unskilled labour would amount to no less than 25-30% of the total cost;

(b) Trail improvement, people's contribution in the form of un-skilled labour would amount to no less than 40% of the total cost;

(c) Water source protection/water supply and small scale hill irrigation, people's contribution would include all un-skilled labour (including labour for the supply of local material), while the project would provide skilled labour and external materials;

(d) Degraded land rehabilitation, people's contribution would consist of pitting and "social fencing", the project would provide planting material;

(e) Fruit tree planting, when fruit trees were to be planted in rehabilitation schemes, people would be charged 50% of the nursery cost, when fruit trees were to be privately planted as a pure income generating activity, people would be charged 100% of the nursery cost, and the project would arrange for transport;

(f) River bank and road stabilization, people's contribution in the form of un-skilled labour would be not less than 1 5-20% of total costs;

(g) On farm conservation, in general, people's contribution in the form of un-skilled labour would amount to at least 50% of the total costs (except for those activities that fall under above mentioned categories, where the said subsidy rates would apply);

(h) Other activities within the scope of the Department of Soil Conservation, as a general rule, external materials and skilled labour would be provided by the project and un-skilled labour as people's contribution; and

(i) Livestock improvement, the project would arrange for transport only.

2.3.4 Participatory feasibility analysis

After completion of the 95/96 PRA and Planning exercise, it was evident that the list of activities proposed by the CAPs needed to be further screened through a participatory feasibility analysis. This was done in the period of February - April 1996.

The participatory feasibility analysis focussed on social, technical and environmental aspects, while economic aspects were considered less relevant:

(i) Social aspects includes the verification whether direct stake holders actually agree with every detail of the proposed activity, e.g. landowners should agree that a water pipe will run through their land.

(ii) Technical aspects includes the verification whether the proposed activity is technically possible, e.g. whether water for a proposed small scale hill irrigation scheme can actually reach the farm land, and whether it will be enough to irrigate the proposed area.

(iii) Environmental aspects includes the verification whether the proposed activity will have a positive or negative impact on the environment, e.g. whether a proposed trail will increase the risk of a landslide or provoke gully formation.

(iv) Economic aspects. To date, the project has not carried out actual economic feasibility analysis. Only a minority of proposed activities would qualify for such an analysis (i.e. income generating activities), but there is also a clear reluctance to carry out such analysis (i.e. the local conviction that nothing in the hills of Nepal is economically feasible). However, intrinsic economic criteria have been used in the feasibility study, notably the numbers of beneficiary households as compared to cost of activities.

Apart from these, the earlier stated project criteria for user groups and cost sharing were also utilized as screening tools. Finally, it was realized that some CAPs were far too ambitious to be carried out in 1 or even 2 years, and therefor the criterium of available local workforce (manpower) was added.

The participatory feasibility analysis were carried out by the Area Facilitators of the project, mid-level technicians of multi-disciplinary backgrounds: rangers (foresters), an overseer (engineering) and a junior technician agriculture. Regular back-stopping support was provided by the senior project staff.

The results of the participatory feasibility analysis and related screening methods are presented in Table 4. A total of 81 physical activities, or 46% was screened out: 9 (5%) were outside the project mandate; 24 (14%) were not feasible for social, technical or economical reasons; 16 (9%) could not be done because the user groups did not (want to) fulfill the criteria; and 32 (18%) were "postponed" because there was not enough labour available in the community to complete them (in fact more had to be postponed, but only from 1996 to 1997).

Of the engineering activities (gully control, trail improvement, water source protection, irrigation and catchment ponds), which with 121 proposed activities made up 68% of the physical activities in the CAPs, a total of 62, equivalent to 51% was screened out. The main problem in gully control is the high cost and large amount of labour required. Trails are especially labour intensive, but usually otherwise feasible. Proposed irrigation schemes and ponds often do not meet technical requirements.

Forest handover and management (community forestry) is sometimes not feasible because of social conflicts (user rights). Forest plantations (conservation forests) were often not feasible, because the project insisted on effective social fencing before it would agree to make any payments to user groups. Those that were feasible were part of more elaborate gully control works.

Improved breeding animals was considered not a project activity in the case of buffalo's, here farmers could apply for specific loans with other institutions. Improved goats however was retained, because this activity particularly benefits women groups.

Table 4. Results of the participatory feasibility analysis and other screening methods used to determine which physical activities could be implemented of the 26 CAPs.

Activity	Screened out by method				Total screened out		Total remaining activities
	Activity PUCD can not support	Particip. feasibility analysis	Cost sharing or user group criteria	Labour shortage in the community	Number	%
Gully control		2	1	9	12	75	4
Forest handover		2	-	-	2	20	8
Forest plant.		-	4	-	4	67	2
Trail improvem.		1	7	10	18	75	6
Water Source P.		6	4	8	18	35	34
Irrigation		7	-	5	12	67	6
Catch, pond		3	-	-	3	100	-
Impr. buffalo	3				3	100	-
Impr. goat		-	-	-	-	0	8
PI. grass/bamb.		-	-	-	-	0	4
PI. fodder		-	-	-	-	0	6
PI. fruit		-	-	-	-	0	10
PI. vegetable		2	-	-	2	40	5
Nursery		1	-	-	1	100	-
Comm. house		-	-	-	-	0	3
Health center	1				1	100	-
Latrines	5		(5)		5	100	-
Total	9	24	16	32	81	46	96

Usually all planting activities are feasible, except when it is done as an income generating activity, such as the proposed nursery and some of the proposed vegetable production schemes (no market).

A community health center is clearly not within the project mandate. Latrines could be within the mandate, as long as it would only be training, however communities wanted latrines to be installed in every household.

It should be pointed out, that in fact more of the proposed activities could not be implemented in 1996 than suggested by Table 4. Several activities took more than one year to complete - especially gully control works-, while others were rescheduled during a series of Participatory Evaluation and Re-Planning workshops organized between October and December 1996.

Clearly, there was a major gap between activities identified in the CAPs, and those still within the workplan after feasibility analysis and other screening methods were applied. Thus, there is scope for improvement of the CAP planning process.

2.3.5 Design of small scale engineering works

First of all, it should be understood, that in the context of rural Nepal, one has to be careful before making a formal design of a small scale engineering work, because whichever office or institute makes the design is expected to also take care of its implementation. Therefore, it is wise to only make designs of those works which one can actually also implement. This is the reason that the project limited its design activities to those that it would subsequently support for implementation. Several other feasible activities were said to be "taken over" by other line agencies, notably the District Development Council and the District Water Supply Office, as well as one of the Village Development Committees. These activities are not further dealt with in this or the subsequent paragraph, but will be included in the lists of "implemented activities" in paragraph 2.3.7.

Gully control and landslide treatment consists of gabion checkdams and/or dry stone walls, accompanied by biological conservation measures. Trail improvement consists of enlargement and paving with stone slabs of steep footpaths. Water source protection includes capturing of a source and construction of a water holding tank, laying of water pipes and installation of one or more water taps per source. Small scale hill irrigation consists of the tapping of water from small streams, and guiding through narrow channels or pipes to cropland.

A major effort has gone in the design of the feasible small scale engineering works. These designs include detailed estimates in volume and quantity of different works, such as stone quarrying, sand transport, trench digging, masonry, preparation of gabion boxes, and so on. Unit rates are used to determine costs and/or labour time to prepare each particular detail. Standard rates are used for volumes of work per labour day. District rates are used to calculate cost of skilled and un-skilled labour. Market prices are used to estimate the cost of outside materials.

Thus a first step is the design and calculation of actual costs of proposed activities. This implies a lot of field work and involves direct beneficiaries in the tracing of channels, trails, and the like. Secondly and based on the detailed estimates as well as the criteria for cost sharing, calculations are made to determine project costs and user group contribution.

These designs and calculations are made by the concerned area facilitator, assisted -if necessary- by another mid-level technician with particular expertise. Subsequently these designs and cost estimates are presented to the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer for verification. Once satisfied the ASCO recommends the activity to the District Soil Conservation Officer and the Chief Technical Advisor for implementation. A final screening is done to compare proposed activities with available budgets.

It is important to note that sometimes during implementation the need/desire arises to change the design. Though these changes are often minor (e.g. size of cement slab in front of a water tap), they are sometimes major, in particular in the case of gully control works. Therefore a certain flexibility is always required.

2.3.6 Implementation costs and agreements

Of the proposed activities that passed the participatory feasibility analysis and other screening methods, the small scale engineering works were by far the most expensive - at least for the project (see also para 2.3.3 on cost sharing and people's contribution). Conservation plantations can also be costly, depending on their size, but no agreement could be reached on implementation conditions of any of these, thus they were not included in the project workplans for 1996 and 1997.

The estimated implementation costs (excluding project staff and operational costs) of the small scale engineering works included in the 1996 CAPs and retained in the 1996 and/or 1997 project workplans was NRs 2,267,669, equivalent to appr. US$ 40,000 (Table 5)³. Of this sum NRs 1,339,467 (59%) was budgeted as project contribution, of which NRs 968,751 (43%) for-outside-material, and NRs 370,716 (1 6%) for skilled and un-skilled labour. Total people's contribution was estimated at NRs 928,202 (41 %), all in the form of un-skilled labour and local materials (also requiring un-skilled labour).

³ The official exchange rate during this period has been remarkably stable at NRs 56.75 for US$ 1.00.

It should be noted that these were not the only small scale engineering works included in the projects' 1996 and 1997 workplans. A number of previously started works had not been completed in 1995 and could only be finished in 1996 or even 1997. New works were also added in the series of Participatory Evaluation and Re-Planning workshops that were conducted between October and December 1996. Furthermore, a few works were added to cope with unforeseen situations (i.e. to assist communities in certain sensitive areas, otherwise not fulfilling the criteria for implementation).

It should also be noted that actual implementation costs are slightly different from estimated costs, reflecting fluctuations in prices, cost of transport to remote sites, and amendments in design.

Four gully control works were budgeted, for a total of NRs 625,252 (appr. US$ 11,000), or NRs 156,313 per treated gully. Nrs 391,408 (63%) would be contributed by the project as material (NRs 288,455 or 46%), and labour (NRs 102,973 or 16%). Estimated people's contribution was NRs 233,845 or 37%, ranging from 24% to 41 % of total costs. The gully control work in Ghimiregaon constitutes the largest field activity carried out during the project, with a total value of NRs 471,595 (appr. US$ 8,300).

Table 5. Estimated implementation costs (in NRs) of the engineering works included in the 1996 CAPs and retained in the 1996 and/or 1997 (project) workplans (this list does not include small scale engineering works executed in 1996 and 1997 that were not included in the 1996 CAPs.

Activity	VDC, Ward & community	People's contribution		Project costs				Total cost	Year included in workplan
		Labour	%	Labour	Material (NRs)	Total (NRs)	%
Gully control	Amp. 5, Ratdanda	7,058	38	618	10,974	11,592	62	18,649	1996
	Chh. 8, Tutunga	21,828	24	27,453	41,449	68,882	76	90,720	1997
	Chh. 9, Katubanse	11,072	25	7,037	26,179	33,216	75	44,288	1996
	Har. 6, Ghimireg.	193,877	41	67,865	209,853	277,718	59	471,595	1996/97
	Sub-total	233,835	37	702,373	288,455	337,408	63	625,252
Trail improvement	Amp. 9, Darmich.	24,177	45	29,550	0	29,550	55	53,727	1996
	Chh. 1, Chitre	21,101	45	25,790	0	25,790	55	46,891	1996
	Chh. 4, Salbot	36,027	45	44,033	0	44,033	55	80,060	1996
	Chh. 4, Salbot	25,820	45	31,558	0	31,558	55	57,378	1996
	Chh. 8, Arub/Mat.	11,636	50	11,637	0	11,637	50	23,273	1997
	Kho. 4, Khurpaj.	20,895	45	25,538	0	25,538	55	46,433	1996
	Sub-total	139,656	45	768,706	0	168,106	55	307,762
Water source protection	Chh. 1, Chitre	12,670	39	1,769	18,265	20,034	61	32,704	1996
	Chh. 7, Bawalig.	8,458	36	1,618	13,308	14,926	64	23,348	1996
	Chh. 7, Bawalig.	3,084	33	661	5,613	6,274	67	9,358	1996
	Chh. 7, Majhgaon	8,877	36	1,696	14,198	15,894	64	24,771	1996
	Chh. 7, Majhgaon	5,100	34	929	8,852	9,781	66	14,882	1997
	Chh. 7, Majhgaon	3,254	37	722	4,923	5,635	63	8,889	1997
	Chh. 7, Majhgaon	7,730	32	2,119	13,986	16,105	68	23,835	1997
	Chh. 8, Jaisithok	8,721	38	1,639	12,354	13,994	62	22,715	1996
	Chh. 8, Firfire	14,740	39	1,621	21,046	22,667	61	37,407	1996
	Chh. 8, Firfire	2,464	25	649	6,682	7,330	75	9,794	1996
	Chh. 8, Tutunga	3,724	38	690	5,515	6,205	62	9,929	1996
	Chh. 8, Tutunga	12,498	29	1,945	29,000	30,945	71	43,445	1996
	Chh. 8, Tutunga	2,644	38	694	3,609	4,303	62	6,947	1997
	Chh. 8, Tutunga	7,382	35	1,633	12,333	13,966	65	21,348	1997
	Chh. 9, Katubanse	1,164	37	204	1,740	1,944	63	3,109	1996
	Chh. 9, Kat/Thum.	6,268	35	1,454	10,191	11,645	65	17,913	1997
	Chh. 9, Kat/Phok.	9,431	35	3,162	14,131	17,293	65	26,724	1997
	Chh. 9, Kat/Thum.	25,301	34	2,893	46,123	49,016	66	74,317	1997
	Har. 3, H.B. (#8)	19,255	46	2,867	19,619	22,486	54	41,741	1996
	Har. 6, Ghimireg.	26,240	46	2,875	27,881	30,756	54	56,996	1996
	Har. 6, Ghimireg.	13,437	41	1,783	17,733	19,516	59	32,953	1996
	Kho. 4, Belbas	32,713	45	5,040	35,096	40,136	55	32,713	1996
	Kho. 4, Belbas	6,376	45	720	6,946	7,666	55	14,042	1996
	Kho. 4, Belbas	13,762	40	1,443	19,009	20,452	60	34,214	1996
	Kho. 4, Belbas	10,515	38	2,483	14,278	16,761	62	27,276	1997
	Kho. 4, Kolkate	15,023	52	3,000	10,871	13,871	48	28,895	1996
	Kho. 4, Kolkate	8,584	46	5,860	4,447	10,307	54	18,891	1997
	Kho. 4, Khurpaj.	8,185	37	1,712	12,192	13,904	63	22,089	1997
	Kho. 4, Khurpaj.	12,023	43	3,809	11,903	15,712	57	27,734	1997
	Sub-total	305,623	33	57,630	427,844	473,534	67	783,757
Irrigation	Amp. 9, Darmich.	22,019	43	3,901	25,524	29,425	57	51,444	1996
	Chh. 4, Salbot	60,817	47	8,370	59,152	67,522	53	128,339	1996/97
	Chh. 4, Salbot	56,729	47	7,956	54,924	62,880	53	119,609	1996/97
	Kho. 1, Falamkh.	37,960	44	7,680	40,905	48,585	56	86,545	1996
	Kho. 4, Belbas	68,193	43	14,040	77,947	91,987	57	160,180	1996
	Sub-total	245,088	45	47,347	258,452	300,333	55	545,487
Total engineering activities		928,202	41	370,776	568,757	7,339,467	59	2,267,669

Reference is made to the communities in which the activity was proposed, sometimes activities have been implemented by active user group from neighbouring communities (e.g. trail improvement).

Six trail improvement works were budgeted, for a total of NRs 307,762 (appr. US$ 5,400), or NRs 51,294 per trail, and entirely consisting of skilled and un-skilled labour. Project contribution was estimated at NRs 168,106 (55%), and people's contribution at NRs 168,106 (45%), ranging from 45% to 50% of total costs.

Twenty-nine water source protection works were budgeted, for a total value of NRs 789,157 (appr. US$ 13,900), or NRs 27,212 per source. NRs 479,534 (61%) would be contributed by the project, consisting of material, NRs 421,844 (53%) and skilled labour, NRs 57,690 (NRs 7%). Estimated user group contribution was NRs 309,623 (39%), ranging from 25% to 52% of total costs.

Five small scale hill irrigation works were budgeted, for a total of NRs 545,487 (appr. US$ 9,600), or NRs 109,097 per irrigation scheme. NRs 300,399 (55%) would be contributed by the project, consisting of material, NRs 258,452 (47%), and skilled labour, NRs 41,947 (8%). Estimated people's contribution was NRs 245,088 (45%), ranging from 43% to 47% of total costs.

Once design and budget of proposed small scale engineering works (and conservation plantations) have been cleared and approved by all parties concerned, an agreement is signed by the implementing user group, the concerned area facilitator and the District Soil Conservation Officer.

Implementation agreements with user groups

These agreements indicate the site and activity, implementing user group, and approximate start and completion date of the activity. They also provide an outline of the material and skilled (and in some cases un-skilled) labour to be paid for by the project, and the un-skilled labour and local materials to be provided by the user group. The detailed design estimates are attached in annex to the agreements. The agreements also stipulate conditions for payment, and indicates that user groups are not allowed to use material for any other purposes. Similarly, the user groups are obliged to carry out the work themselves, without making use of subcontracted un-skilled labour.

2.3.7 Physical activities implemented

Signing an agreement for the implementation of a specific activity or small scale engineering work with a user group does not necessarily mean that the activity will be effectively implemented. For many user groups the agreements remain "a piece of paper", with more importance being given to the amounts of money or supplies to be provided than on the actual timing (by the user groups) of implementation. Thus, there are many examples of delayed implementation, and in some cases cancellation because of too long delays.

A total of 74 physical activities included in the 1996 CAPs was implemented in 1996 and the first half of 1997, most with assistance from the project, some by other institutions (Table 6). Thus out of an original total of 177 activities, 96 appeared feasible, and 74 (42% of the original total, 77% of the feasible total) were completed within a year and a half.

Table 6. Physical activities included in the 1996 Community Action Plans of 26 PRA communities in the Bhusunde Khola watershed and implemented in 1996 and/or 1997.

VDC and Ward		PRA Site	Gully land slide control	Forest		Trail improvement	Water			Breed improvemt		Planting					Community house	Health center	Latrines	Total
				Hand over	plantation		Source protect.	Hill irrig.	catch pond	Buffalo	Goat	Bamboo grass	Fodder	Fruit	vegetable	nursery
Amp.
	5	Ratdanda	1																	1
	6	Simpani
	7	Simp.Hat												X						1
	9	Darmich.			1	1		1												3
Sub-total Ampipal			1		1	1		1						1						5
Chhop 1		Chitre				1	1										1			3
	2	Chiurib.
	2	Thumki		1													1			2
	2	Amarai																1
	3	Katarb.
	4	Salbot				2		2												4
	5	Faudarg.
	7	Majhgaon		1			4							X	X					7
	7	Bawalig.		1			2					X	X	X						6
	8	Tutunga	1				4							X	X					7
	8	Jaisith.					3							X						4
	8	Firfire					2													2
	8	Arub/Mat				1		1							X					3
	9	Katuban.	1				4							X						6
Sub-tot. Chhoprak			2	3		4	20	3				1	1	5	3		2	1		44
Sub-t. Ch. 7+8+9			2	2		1	19	1				1	1	5	3					35
HarmB		Harmi B.					1													1
	6	Nawalpur																		-
	6	Ghimireg	1				2							X			1			5
Sub-total Harmi			1				3							1			1			6
Khop.
	1	Suntale
	1	Falamkh.						1												1
	4	Belbas		3			4	1						X	X					10
	4	Kolkate		2			2							X						5
	4	Khurpaj.				1	2													3
Sub-tot. Khoplang				5		1	8	2						2	1					19
Total 26 PRA c's			4	8	1	6	31	6				1	1	9	4		3			74

In Ampipal VDC, only 5 out of 13 originally planned activities (38%) were completed. In Chhoprak VDC, 44 out of 107 (41%) were completed, but in the concentration area. Wards # 7, 8 and 9, 35 out of 66 (53%) were realized. In Harmi VDC, 6 out of 19 (32%) were completed, and in Khoplang VDC, 19 out of 40 (48%).

It is important to note that certain activities were implemented in communities that had not originally included these in their CAPs. An example is Firfire, which did not include grass-, fodder-, fruit- and vegetable- planting in their CAP, but who participated in all of these. Similarly, improved breeding bucks (goats) were provided, but none of the communities that had originally indicated its interest in this activity was prepared to actually buy such a buck. Other communities who had not originally indicated their interest did purchase such a buck with the assistance of the project.

Political disturbances negatively affected implementation of planned activities in parts of the watershed.