1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)

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

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

Terre des Hommes (Terre des Hommes) - Suiza

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

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

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

17/10/2016

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

Sí

1.4 Referencia/s al/los Cuestionario(s) de Tecnologías MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

Two Watershed Associations (WSA), in Chaker and Nahristan watershed areas respectively, are registered at the national level with the Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL) and at the regional level with the Department of Agriculture. Both associations are strong, active, dynamic, and have the capacity to coordinate and support the Natural Resource Management Committees (NRMC) at village level.

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

Terre des Hommes (Tdh) has been implementing the Livelihood project (LIPT) in Rustaq district in northern Afghanistan since 2007. The overall aim of the project is to offer the rural population new and improved livelihood options, with capacity building of the rural population, to design and implement their own sustainable development options, and to enhance their resilience to cope with natural and conflict-related stress. For this purpose, capacity of supporting stakeholder institutions is strengthened (LIPT’s boundary partners) to ensure that good development is on-going. Boundary partners are trained and equipped in relevant techniques regarding sustainable natural resource management.
Two Watershed Associations (WSA) and 20 Natural Resources Management Committees (NRMC) were founded through LIPT. Two WSAs, in Chaker and Nahristan watershed areas, are registered at national level within the Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL), and at the regional level with the Department of Agriculture. Both associations are strong, active, dynamic, and have the capacity to coordinate and support the NRMCs at village level. Out of their newly established and registered regional offices, the WSAs coordinate the NRMCs, take over responsibilities from Tdh (e.g. the 2014 reforestation campaign) and are getting more involved in planning and monitoring of LIPT’s activities. The 20 NRMCs have "hands and eyes" on all LIPT activities implemented in their communities, and their trained extension workers render valuable services to the farmers in their villages.

Methods: Today, all NRMCs have a strong institutional set-up. Their extension workers have been trained and equipped. Members of NRMCs and WSAs have been trained on group management, planning, documentations, record keeping, IPM, reforestation management, soil protection, mulching, hedgerows and terracing, making fermenters, pruning and budding. WSAs and NRMCs gained further organizational, technical and management capacity building in both watershed areas. As one of biggest challenge at watershed level is soil erosion within hillside agriculture, LIPT III trained the NRMCs and WSAs on terracing and hedgerows to protect the soil from erosion. Furthermore, NRMCs were trained in sustainable irrigation water management, gully treatment, and surface water harvesting. There were also training courses conducted on leadership, finance, proposal writing, documentation, procurement and operations management.
Both WSAs and NRMCs started to get a real understanding of environmental issues and were then able to motivate their communities. WSAs coordinated the NRM intervention with NRMCs including reforestation, soil protection hedgerows, contour lines, terracing, establishment of public nurseries (to produce trees and be an income source for WSAs), establishment of centralized community bakeries (to reduce the demand for firewood and decrease the women’s workload in the watershed areas), irrigation infrastructure, bio-engineering and gully control (to reduce the progression of gullies on both ploughed lands and pastures), livestock value chains at regional (watershed) level, etc., while NRMCs are looking after these interventions and the mobilization of the community at the village level. Farmers and communities have adopted natural resource management practices to maintain/increase soil fertility, rangeland, water resources and forest coverage.

2.3 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

• proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

The main aim of the project is to offer the rural population new and improved livelihood options and to deliver capacity building for the rural population to design and implement their own sustainable development options and enhance their resilience to cope with natural and conflict related stress.

2.9 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque

	Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales	Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación	ninguno
planificación	interactivo
implementación	interactivo
monitoreo y evaluación	interactivo

3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:

• todos los actores relevantes, como parte de un enfoque participativo

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Sí

Especifique quién fue capacitado:

• usuarios de tierras
• personal de campo/ consejeros

4.2 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

Sí

Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:

• en los campos de los usuarios de tierras

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• sí, moderadamente

Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:

• local
• regional
• nacional

Describa la institución, roles y responsabilidades, miembros, etc.

LIPT III will leave behind successful and strong boundary partners in place to carry out the development options, as main boundary partners (WSAs, NRMCs, as the major boundary partners) will have a source of income for their operation and management.

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:

• financiero
• construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento
• equipo

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Especifique los temas:

• economía/ marketing
• tecnología

Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:

On-going research, as well as multiple trials by LIPT to find the best-adapted technical solutions, to communicate and discuss them with local communities and farmers, were the key elements of this success.

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:

• 10,000-100,000

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :

Sí

Si respondió sí, especifique el tipo o los tipos de apoyo, condiciones y proveedor(es) :

Fully supported under project

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

5.5 Otros incentivos o instrumentos

¿Se usaron otros incentivos o instrumentos para promover la implementación de Tecnologías MST?

Sí

Si fuera el caso, especifique :

local institution were support with equipment

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?

• sí

Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:

To look to the capacity and institutional strengthening of the project boundary partners, LIPT III will leave behind a successful and strong boundary partner in place to carry out the development options, as main boundary partners will have source of income (nurseries, cooperative shop, etc.) for their operation and management.

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
The traditional social structures and customary institutions play an important role in problem solving in everyday community life, but traditional problem solving structures may also limit the taking up of new approaches. More effective approaches are needed, for example in the field of the management of common pool resources (water, pastures, trees and shrubs). The newly established Watershed Associations demonstrate how groups addressing specific urgent tasks may be successfully established and functioning within a very short period of time.
NRM is the area where LIPT III made the most remarkable progress despite the fact that NRM was a completely new approach, and its implementation is highly demanding in terms of manpower, community awareness and mobilization. Profound changes in behaviour, motivation and mobilization both at individual and community levels made this possible. The permanent research, as well as multiple trials by LIPT to find the best-adapted technical solutions, to communicate and discuss them with local communities and farmers were the key elements of this success. WSAs and NRMCs are playing an active role in implementation of NRM intervention, even they have become more interested and active when they registered in Department of Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock at national and regional level.
Farmers adapt and replicate the innovations once they see the results, as soil erosion is the main concern in Rustaq - but nobody in watershed area was ready to protect their agriculture land by implementing barrier hedgerows. After demonstrating of hedgerow by LIPT III, farmers saw its impact on controlling of soil erosion, farmers' interest became high and they are ready to replicate it to protect their land from degradation.
All community extension workers are trained and in place, playing an essential role in supporting the boundary partners in implementing NRM activities that include community mobilization, technical design of orchards and nurseries, reforestation sites, terracing and hedgerow designs. The NRMCs, WSAs as well as individual farmers in both watershed areas increased their knowledge and gained better understanding of the importance of sustainable management, rehabilitation of farmland, pastures and their main natural resources. A high degree of motivation and mobilization of farmers, and adequate technical capacity of CEWs regarding NRM is certainly one of the main outcomes of the LIPT, and an essential step towards the fulfilment of LIPT’s mission.

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave

A rewarding sign of the development of NRM awareness is how farmers took up the problem of soil erosion.100 ha of cultivable land on hillsides have been terraced since the terracing activity had been initiated in November 2013. And 155 ha of additional land are in the process of being terraced. The biggest success with terracing is that a number of farmers started replication themselves what they had seen.

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información