LEP approach: advantages and disadvantages

The LEP approach (Labour-based, Environment-friendly and Participatory approach) is a development approach for local infrastructure (rural roads, trails, bridges, irrigation, drinking water) that uses local labour as the main resource, protects the environment and involves the local community in all stages of the project. In Nepal it is adopted in the Local Infrastructure Development Policy, 2061 (2004) and applied in rural road and trail programmes.

Components

• L – Labour-based: local labour is the main resource; light equipment is used only where labour cannot give the required quality (e.g. compaction). Money spent goes to local workers as wages.
• E – Environment-friendly: the work causes minimum damage to nature: balanced cut and fill, no dumping of spoil down slopes, proper drainage, bio-engineering (planting grass, bamboo, shrubs on slopes), gradual construction to let slopes stabilise, and use of local materials.
• P – Participatory: the beneficiaries take part in all stages – selection, planning, design, construction, monitoring, and operation and maintenance – usually through a users' committee, with public hearings and public audits.

Examples

• Green roads in Nepal: rural roads built by local labour with balanced cut and fill, side drains and bio-engineering, introduced in the hills (e.g. in Dhading and other districts with support from GTZ and SDC) and later applied by DoLIDAR programmes such as the Rural Access Programme and DRILP.
• Trail bridges: local communities carry materials and provide labour; users' committees maintain the bridge.
• Community drinking water schemes and small irrigation canals built by users' committees with local labour and cost sharing.
• Rural Community Infrastructure Works (RCIW) using food/cash for work.

Advantages

1. Creates local employment and cash income; reduces poverty.
2. Low cost and less foreign exchange (fewer imported machines and fuel).
3. Environment protection: fewer landslides and less erosion, less forest damage.
4. Ownership and sustainability: people who build it maintain it.
5. Skill development of local workers and capacity of users' committees.
6. Transparency and good governance through public audits.
7. Suits remote, steep terrain where machines cannot reach.
8. Inclusion of women, poor and marginalised groups through job quotas.
9. Projects match the real needs of the community.

Disadvantages

1. Slow progress; not suitable for large, urgent or highly technical works.
2. Quality control is difficult if workers are unskilled or supervision is weak.
3. Needs strong management and social mobilisation; more time spent in meetings.
4. Possible political interference and capture by local elites in users' committees.
5. Labour shortage in villages due to foreign migration; wage rates rise.
6. Work may be seasonal (farming seasons, monsoon).
7. Not suitable for heavy works like highways, tunnels, large bridges.
8. Risk of misuse of funds if public auditing is weak.