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)

Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar, Afghanistan (LIPT)

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

Potential and limitations for improved natural resource management (NRM) in mountain communities in the Rustaq district, Afghanistan (Rustaq NRM Study)

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

Terre des Hommes (Terre des Hommes) - Switzerland

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

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

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

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

17/10/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

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?

Nee

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A plan for rotational grazing has been developed to control pasture use and prevent overgrazing of rehabilitated pastures.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Livestock keeping is one of the key livelihood strategies in rural Rustaq, in addition to cultivation of cereals. Families rely on their livestock not only for consumption of meat from cattle, goats and sheep, and dairy products such as milk and sour milk, but also as means of transportation (donkeys), labour in agriculture (oxen, donkeys) and as a source of income through sales. Naturally, every family strives to increase their household’s livestock as much as they can, which increases the pressure on the local pastures - leading to extensive overgrazing. The pastures in Jawaz Khana and Sari Joy are characterized by poor vegetation cover, low carrying capacity and severe erosion with deep rills clearly visible. Heavy rains in spring and autumn wash off the topsoil on pastures, resulting in heavy erosion, landslides and gully formation. These severely degraded pastures continue to be used though "open access" - without any management schemes or regulations in place. Some pastures that are not suitable for grazing have been converted to arable lands and tree plantations. The quantity and quality of livestock fodder is insufficient for all the livestock, and this affects animal health.

Plans for rotational grazing were prepared for the communities in Sari Joy and Jawaz Khana to organize the use of local pastures and prevent their further degradation. Rotational grazing plans regulate the frequency and intensity of livestock grazing on the pastures. The area is seeded with alfalfa to improve the fodder stock and enhance the quality of the pasture. For up to three years the seeded area is closed to grazing, during which period the community is provided with stocks of hay and straw to feed their livestock as an alternative. After the end of the closure period, the grazing area is divided into 6-7 sections (paddocks) depending on the area of the pasture. The livestock graze the first paddock for 7 days and move to the next paddock. Each paddock is grazed for the period of 7 days during April and May. From the month of May the grazing area is closed for resting. The livestock move to the summer pastures for the rest of the summer months.

The community is key in preparing the grazing plans and identifying the pastures where these plans will be applied, as well as the conditions which are part of it, such as the frequency of the grazing period. Frequent meetings need to be held with the community livestock holders to explain the purpose of the rotational grazing and how it can be beneficial in pasture improvement. The Natural Resources Management Committee and the technical staff of the Livelihood Improvement Project (LIPT) are in charge of engaging the local pasture users to meet their needs and consider their views accordingly.

The actual implementation of the rotational grazing plans is difficult to assess for the time being. The grazing area is not fully restored and the fodder stock remains low. Many land users do not fully understand the concept behind the rotational grazing plans or their purpose. In an area where there is a severe shortage of livestock fodder and very limited grazing land, accepting and following these plans will require more time and additional support in terms of awareness-raising and support feeding of the livestock during the exclusion period. The villagers have some doubts about the costs and benefits of grazing and rotation. They have no full understanding of the benefits of the rotational grazing for their household and are likely to be not ready to adhere to such schemes.

Women are part of the livestock management system, and are in charge of feeding and taking care of the livestock. However, they are not aware about the plans for rotational grazing in their village and how are these plans are applied in practice.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2015

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Livelihood Improvement Project in Takhar (LIPT) implemented by Terre des hommes (Tdh) Switzerland

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Some areas under the Technology are former croplands, which have been completely degraded and no longer suitable for crop cultivation.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Comments:

6 ha

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:

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

After the end of the exclusion period the grazing area is divided into 6-7 sections (paddocks) depending on the area of the pasture. The livestock graze the first paddock for 7 days and move to the next paddock after 7 days. Each paddock is grazed for the period of 7 days during April and May. From the month of May the grazing area is closed for resting. The livestock move to the summer pastures for the rest of the summer months.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

67.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Selection of the pasture area and awareness raising among people	Management	Fall
2.	Leveling of the land	Agronomic	Fall
3.	Sowing alfalfa seed	Agronomic	Spring
4.	Site under quarantine	Management	Three years
5.	Preparation of the grazing plan and community meetings	Management	Fall
6.	Protection of the site during quarantine	Management	Three years

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Leveling the land with a rake	person-day	150.0	5.3	795.0	71.0
Labour	Sowing alfalfa	person-day	5.0	5.3	26.5	71.0
Labour	Preparation of grazing plan	person-day	2.0	9.0	18.0
Labour	Protection of the site	year	1.0	447.0	447.0	100.0
Equipment	Shovel	piece	1.0	3.8	3.8	100.0
Equipment	Rope	Meter	50.0	0.15	7.5	100.0
Equipment	Rake	piece	1.0	3.0	3.0	100.0
Plant material	Alfalfa seed	kg	17.5	0.42	7.35
Fertilizers and biocides	DAP	kg	125.0	0.9	112.5
Fertilizers and biocides	Urea	kg	125.0	0.45	56.25
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1476.9

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

Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar (LIPT) implemented by Terre des hommes (Tdh) Switzerland

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Community agrees to leave the pasture for resting/ exclusion	Management	Three years
2.	Rotational grazing	Other measures	Spring/week/grazing plot
3.	Reseeding alfalfa	Vegetative	After 5 years
4.	Protection of the site	Management	Three years

4.7 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	Reseeding alfalfa	person day	5.0	5.3	26.5	100.0
Labour	Protection during exclusion	year	2.0	447.0	894.0	100.0
Plant material	Alfalfa seed	kg	17.5	0.42	7.35	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					927.85

Comments:

Costs calculated for a Technology area of 1ha was only done for the purpose of the WOCAT documentation. In reality SLM plots are on average 0.4 ha or 2 jiribs. Costs were simply multiplied by 2.5. The actual costs for a 1ha plot might be slightly different.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Due to the remoteness of the villages where the technology has been implemented, all the inputs for establishment, such as agricultural equipment, plant material, fertilizers, etc., are purchased in Rustaq town. The expenses for traveling and delivering the inputs affect the establishment costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Local land users differentiate between the following soil types where the technology is implemented:
- Red: shallow; texture medium, coarse; low organic matter
- Light: moderately deep; texture medium; medium, low organic matter

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Ja

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Floods occur mainly during the rainy seasons in spring and autumn. Availability of surface water differs for the villages of Sari Joy and Jawaz Khana. Sari Joy has good surface water availability. Jawaz Khana has poor water availability as water has to be fetched from a stream lower down.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The land users in the area where the Technology is applied belong to the Uzbek ethnic minority group Qarluq.
Although the men are generally the main land users, women and children also take active part in the related work. The functions of men and women are clearly distinguished within Afghan society. At the same time within the family this division of work and functions also results in men and women working hand-in-hand. An improvement of the family’s livelihood situation is expected to positively affect all family members. While, it is recognized that the involvement of women is key in order to secure basic human rights for everyone, to achieve good governance, sustainable development, and to efficiently contribute to poverty reduction (SDC 2004), it is also clear that a context sensitive approach is of high importance.
Women in rural Afghanistan are involved in many production and income generating activities that contribute to the overall household income, however, very few women own resources such as land and livestock, and their income generating options are fewer in comparison to that of men.

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

Those who own land and use water for irrigation are obliged to pay for the water. The payment is made both in kind and in cash to the Mirob - the person in charge of distributing water in the community. The amount of the payment varies from village to village.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Comments regarding impact assessment:

These comments apply to 6.1 and 6.2:
- Socio-economic impacts: Individual SLM implementers were asked to rate the benefits from the technology. They were asked to indicate production increase of crops; fodder; animals; wood; non-wood forest products; increase in prduct diversity; or production area. The most important increase they rated with 3, the second most with 2, others with 1 point. Averages of the points given by all terrace implementers are reflected here.
- Similarly for the "ecological impacts" and on "off-site impacts": Individual SLM implementers were asked to rate the on-site and off-site impacts of the technology on water; soil; and vegetation. They were asked to indicate the strength of impacts with three, two or one points. Averages of the points given by all terrace implementers are reflected here.
- Socio-cultural impacts: This section is answered by the scientists, based on information collected during focus group discussions, and interviews conducted with persons from the 3 villages where the LIPT project implemented the technology.

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	very well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Comments:

SLM implementers from three villages were asked to jointly discuss and rate how much the SLM technology reduced the lands vulnerability to drought and local rainstorms. Only vulnerability to the most prevalent climate extremes (drought and local rainstorms) was discussed. SLM technologies were rated as reducing vulnerability poorly, well, or very well. The average points reflected here are from multi-criteria matrixes compiled in three villages where the SLM technology had been implemented.

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:

SLM implementers from three villages were asked to jointly discuss and rate the SLM technologies short term (1-3 years) and long-term (10 years) return. As most of the technologies have only been implemented 1-2 years ago, it is too early to compare benefits to maintenance costs. Farmers have little experience so far on the actual benefits of the SLM technologies. The ratings are mostly based on expected benefits and not on actual benefits.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

6 ha

Comments:

Rotational grazing plans are developed for common lands used by the whole village. There is one common grazing plan for each village.

6.6 Adaptation

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

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
If implemented according to the plan and the pasture area is allowed to rest, the quality and quantity of the fodder will be enhanced.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The land users have no full knowledge about the plans for rotational grazing and how they should be applied	Increase awareness raising among the land users

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guidelines for Focus Groups Discussions

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Methods section of the Rustaq NRM study