1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de la Technologie

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

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

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar, Afghanistan (LIPT)

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

Terre des Hommes (Terre des Hommes) - Suisse

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

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

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

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

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (HAFL) - Suisse

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Déclaration sur la durabilité de la Technologie décrite

Est-ce que la Technologie décrite ici pose problème par rapport à la dégradation des terres, de telle sorte qu'elle ne peut pas être déclarée comme étant une technologie de gestion durable des terres?

Non

Commentaires:

SLM practices documented in the frame of the Rustaq NRM study were established only recently (1-3 years ago). It is too early for a final judgment on the sustainability of these technologies within the human and natural environment of Chokar watershed.

1.5 Référence au(x) Questionnaires sur les Approches de GDT (documentées au moyen de WOCAT)

2.1 Courte description de la Technologie

Définition de la Technologie:

Terraces are established on mountain slopes used mainly for cropping wheat, with the purpose of soil protection from erosion, preserving runoff, sediments and nutrients on-site. Improved seeds and fertilizer are applied on the terraces for increasing crop yield, but also vegetation cover and biomass production, and thus prevent further land degradation.

2.2 Description détaillée de la Technologie

Description:

Project supported implementation of terraces with application of improved seeds and fertilizer has taken place in the villages Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana and Dashti Mirzai, located in Chokar watershed of Rustaq District in Northern Afghanistan. The Chokar watershed is a mountainous area situated between 600 - 2,500 m above sea level. The climate is semi-arid with harsh and cold weather in winter and hot and dry summers. The annual precipitation in average years is 580mm. Land degradation affects all forms of land use and includes low vegetation cover, heavy top soil erosion from water, and poor soil fertility. Unsustainable agricultural practices, over-exploitation and high pressure on the natural resources are adversely impacting on the socio-economic well-being of local communities as well as contributing to the risk for being adversely affected by drought as well as landslides and flash floods triggered by heavy rainfall.
The data used for the documentation of the technology is based on field research conducted in Chokar watershed, namely in the villages: Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana and Dashti Mirzai. These villages represent the upper, the middle and the lower zone of Chokar watershed, respectively. They differ considerably in access to services and infrastructure, but in general are poorly served. The communities depend mainly on land resources for sustaining their livelihoods. In a good year with high yields, wheat-self-sufficiency lasts about 5 months.
Since 2012 the Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar (LIPT) implemented by Terre des hommes (Tdh) Switzerland has initiated a range of NRM interventions. The project introduced terraces as sustainable land management practices on private plots, situated on rolling (11-15%) and hilly (16-30%) slopes to protect the land from soil erosion and prevent the loss of water and fertile topsoil, seeds and fertilizers. The average plot size for terrace implementation is 2 Jerib (0.4 hectares) with contour strips of 40m x 4m. The height of the risers is 1m-1,5 m. Terrace benches are built along the contour by moving the soil above the bench downwards. The leveled benches of the terrace are cultivated with wheat. The risers of the terrace are mostly used for growing fodder crops, mostly alfalfa, which also helps to stabilize the terrace. If medicinal herbs (ferula) are included they are cultivated along the bench contours .
Maintenance activities include small repair work on the riser by adding some amount of soil and re-sowing of alfalfa seeds on those spots.
The terraces allow application of improved seeds and fertilizers without them being washed off. The land-users report noticeable increase of wheat yield from the terraced plot with application of improved seeds and fertilizer compared to the non-terraced plot. An average plot of 0.2 ha on non-terraced hilly cropland used to give about 70 kg of wheat (350kg/ha). On terraces the yield has increased/ doubled to 140 kg on the same plot area (700kg/ha). The expectations regarding terraces remain high as over the time the land user hope their land will become more stable and improved soil moisture and fertility will have positive impact on the productivity as well. However, so far no cost-benefit assessment has been conducted allowing attribution of individual measure to the wheat increase.
Many land users are interested in the terrace technology due to a number of environmental and economic benefits expected, however the costs for building the terrace are considered high by an average local land user. They have to rely on external support in order to have sufficient resources for implementation. Women considered an advantage that during the establishment phase, men were paid by the project to work on their own land (or other villagers land) when building the terraces. Thus, there was no need for men to go for seasonal labour migration and they stayed at home.

2.3 Photos de la Technologie

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où la Technologie a été appliquée et qui sont couverts par cette évaluation

2.6 Date de mise en œuvre de la Technologie

Si l'année précise est inconnue, indiquez la date approximative: :

• il y a moins de 10 ans (récemment)

2.7 Introduction de la Technologie

Spécifiez comment la Technologie a été introduite: :

• par le biais de projets/ d'interventions extérieures

Commentaires (type de projet, etc.) :

Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar (LIPT) supported by Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) from 2012-17

3.1 Principal(aux) objectif(s) de la Technologie

• améliorer la production
• réduire, prévenir, restaurer les terres dégradées

3.2 Type(s) actuel(s) d'utilisation des terres, là où la Technologie est appliquée

3.3 Est-ce que l’utilisation des terres a changé en raison de la mise en œuvre de la Technologie ?

Commentaires:

Before implementation of the Technology, only annual crops were cultivated, with wheat as the main crop. Plots were ploughed along the countours mostly by animal traction. In recent years land users are starting to use tractors for ploughing, , where villages and plots are accessible by machinery.

3.4 Approvisionnement en eau

Approvisionnement en eau des terres sur lesquelles est appliquée la Technologie:

• pluvial

3.5 Groupe de GDT auquel appartient la Technologie

• mesures en travers de la pente

3.6 Mesures de GDT constituant la Technologie

Commentaires:

Agronomic measures: Terraces increase the economic viability of applying improved seeds and (chemical) fertilizer to badly nutrient depleted cropland.
Vegetative measures: Alfalfa is planted on the risers for stabilizing the terraces, and as an important contribution to fodder cropping.
Structural measures: The leveling of countour strips allows to harvest water and sediments.

3.7 Principaux types de dégradation des terres traités par la Technologie

3.8 Prévention, réduction de la dégradation ou réhabilitation des terres dégradées

Spécifiez l'objectif de la Technologie au regard de la dégradation des terres:

• réduire la dégradation des terres
• restaurer/ réhabiliter des terres sévèrement dégradées

4.1 Dessin technique de la Technologie

4.2 Informations générales sur le calcul des intrants et des coûts

Spécifiez la manière dont les coûts et les intrants ont été calculés:

• par superficie de la Technologie

Indiquez la monnaie utilisée pour le calcul des coûts:

• dollars américains

Indiquez le taux de change des USD en devise locale, le cas échéant (p.ex. 1 USD = 79.9 réal brésilien): 1 USD = :

67,0

4.3 Activités de mise en place/ d'établissement

	Activité	Calendrier des activités (saisonnier)
1.	Selection of the area for establishing a terrace (Men)	Autumn
2.	Designing of the terrace using A-frame, assisted by trained technician/project staff (Men)	End of autumn after rainy days
3.	Leveling the soil with a shovel (Men)	Autumn/Winter
4.	Sowing of alfalfa seeds on the risers (Men/women)	After 20 days of sowing wheat
5.	Sowing of wheat seeds on benches (Men/Women)	Winter/Spring
6.	Sowing of ferula along the contours (Men/women)	Winter/Spring

4.4 Coûts et intrants nécessaires à la mise en place

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% du coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Designing of the terrace using A-frame	person-day	10,0	9,0	90,0
Main d'œuvre	Leveling the soil with a shovel	person-day	150,0	5,3	795,0	51,0
Main d'œuvre	Sowing of wheat and alfalfa seeds	person-day	10,0	5,3	53,0	51,0
Main d'œuvre	Sowing of ferula	person-day	2,0	5,3	10,6	100,0
Equipements	Pick axe	Pcs	1,0	3,0	3,0	100,0
Equipements	Pitchfork	Pcs	1,0	5,3	5,3	100,0
Equipements	Wheel barrow	Pcs	1,0	38,0	38,0	100,0
Equipements	Shovel	Pcs	1,0	3,8	3,8
Equipements	Hoe	Pcs	1,0	7,5	7,5
Equipements	A-Frame	Pcs	1,0	6,0	6,0
Matériel végétal	Wheat seeds	Kg	140,0	0,42	58,8
Matériel végétal	Alfalfa seeds	Kg	17,5	0,42	7,35	100,0
Matériel végétal	Ferula seeds	Kg	2,5	6,35	15,88	100,0
Engrais et biocides	DAP	Kg	125,0	0,9	112,5
Engrais et biocides	Urea	Kg	125,0	0,45	56,25
Engrais et biocides	Herbicide	Liter	50,0	0,25	12,5
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie					1275,48
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					19,04

Si le coût n'est pas pris en charge à 100% par l'exploitant des terres, indiquez qui a financé le coût restant:

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

Commentaires:

Equipment provided by the project was re-used for the implemenation of different SLM practices on different plots. For completness equipment costs are fully accounted for.
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.

4.5 Activités d'entretien/ récurrentes

	Activité	Calendrier/ fréquence
1.	Ploughing the land with animal traction (Men)	Winter/Spring/Annually
2.	Sowing of wheat seeds on benches (Men/Women)	Winter/Spring/Annually
3.	Application of fertilizer (Men/Women)	Fall
4.	Weeding (Women)	Summer
5.	Harvesting wheat (Men and women together)	Summer/Fall
6.	Harvesting alfalfa (Men and women together)	Summer/Fall
7.	Collecting and delivering harvested wheat (Men and women)	Fall
8.	Collecting and delivering harvested alfalfa (Men and women)	Fall
9.	Repairing terrace risers with a shovel (Men)	Winter/Spring/After heavy rain or snow
10.	Sowing alfalfa seeds on the repaired area (Men/Women)	Winter/Spring/When required

4.6 Coûts et intrants nécessaires aux activités d'entretien/ récurrentes (par an)

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% du coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Ploughing the land with animal traction	person day	2,5	5,3	13,25	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Sowing of wheat seeds on benches	person day	5,0	5,3	26,5	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Weeding and Fertilizer application	person day	5,0	5,3	26,5	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Harvesting and delivering wheat and alfalfa	person day	70,0	5,3	371,0	100,0
Equipements	Sickle	Pcs	1,0			100,0
Matériel végétal	Wheat seeds	Kg	140,0	0,42	58,8	100,0
Engrais et biocides	DAP	Kg	125,0	0,9	112,5	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Urea	Kg	125,0	0,45	56,25	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Herbicide	Liter	50,0	0,25	12,5	100,0
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie					677,3
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					10,11

Si le coût n'est pas pris en charge à 100% par l'exploitant des terres, indiquez qui a financé le coût restant:

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

Commentaires:

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.

4.7 Facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts

Décrivez les facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts :

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 Climat

5.2 Topographie

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la topographie:

The information was derived from two different sources:
-SLM implementers information provided in the Land User Protocol (LUP) during an FGD
-Elevation and slope statistics derived for terraced plots from ASTGTM. ASTGTM is the ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V002 with a 30 m spatial resolution. More information on ASTGTM is available here: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/node/1079. The data can be downloaded here: https://gdex.cr.usgs.gov/gdex/

5.3 Sols

Si disponible, joignez une description complète du sol ou précisez les informations disponibles, par ex., type de sol, pH/ acidité du sol, capacité d'échange cationique, azote, salinité, etc.

Local land users differentiate between the following soil types where terraces are implemented:
-Light soils: moderately deep; texture of topsoil medium (loamy, silty); low topsoil organic matter
-Dark soils: moderately deep; texture of topsoil medium (loamy, silty); medium topsoil organic matter

5.4 Disponibilité et qualité de l'eau

La salinité de l'eau est-elle un problème? :

Non

La zone est-elle inondée?

Oui

Régularité:

épisodiquement

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la qualité et la quantité d'eau:

Floods occur mainly during the rainy seasons in spring and autumn. Availability of surface water differs for the three study villages Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana, and Dashti Mirzai. Sari Joy has sources and good surface water availability. Jawaz Khana has poor water availability as water has to be fetched from a lower laying stream. Dashti Mirzai has good water availability also from an irrigation channel.

5.5 Biodiversité

5.6 Caractéristiques des exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

5.7 Superficie moyenne des terres utilisées par les exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

5.8 Propriété foncière, droits d’utilisation des terres et de l'eau

Propriété foncière:

• individu, sans titre de propriété

Droits d’utilisation des terres:

• individuel

Droits d’utilisation de l’eau:

• communautaire (organisé)

Commentaires:

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.

6.1 Impacts sur site que la Technologie a montrés

Impacts socio-économiques

Production

Impacts socioculturels

Impacts écologiques

Cycle de l'eau/ ruissellement

Sols

Biodiversité: végétale, animale

6.2 Impacts hors site que la Technologie a montrés

Précisez l'évaluation des impacts extérieurs (sous forme de mesures):

These comments apply to 6.1 and 6.2:
- Socio-economic impacts: Based on the Land User Protocols: Individual SLM implementers were asked to rate the benefits for their Technology. They were asked to indicate production increase of crops; fodder; animals; wood; non-wood forest products; increase in product 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 SLM implementers are reflected here.
- Ecological impacts and off-site impacts: Based on the Land User Protocols: 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 implementers are reflected here.

6.3 Exposition et sensibilité de la Technologie aux changements progressifs et aux évènements extrêmes/catastrophes liés au climat (telles que perçues par les exploitants des terres)

Extrêmes climatiques (catastrophes)

Catastrophes météorologiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
pluie torrentielle locale	très bien

Catastrophes climatiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
sécheresse	bien

Commentaires:

Based on the multi-criteria matrix: 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 matrices compiled in three villages where the SLM technology had been implemented.

6.4 Analyse coûts-bénéfices

Commentaires:

Costs: As larger parts of the establishment of the technology were covered by the project, farmers consideration of the total costs are likely underestimated.
Benefits: Two plots were terraced in 2012, and 5 plots in 2013. However, most terraces were implemented in 2014 (11 plots ) and 2015 (8 plots). The Rustaq NRM study was conducted in autumn 2016. 1-2 years of cultivating the terrace system is too short a period for providing evidence on short- and long-term returns.

6.5 Adoption de la Technologie

• 1-10%

Si disponible, quantifiez (nombre de ménages et/ou superficie couverte):

10.7 ha has been terraced within the 3 study villages with LIPT project support.

De tous ceux qui ont adopté la Technologie, combien d'entre eux l'ont fait spontanément, à savoir sans recevoir aucune incitation matérielle, ou aucune rémunération? :

• 0-10%

Commentaires:

Based on the Land User Protocol: Individual SLM implementers were asked whether they received support for implementing the Technology. Each indicated the type of support he received from the proposed options: "Full Support 100%, Some Support, No Support 0%". 3 implementers claimed full project support, 22 claimed some support, and 1 implementer claimed no project support.

6.6 Adaptation

La Technologie a-t-elle été récemment modifiée pour s'adapter à l'évolution des conditions?

Oui

Si oui, indiquez à quel changement la Technologie s'est adaptée:

• évolution des marchés

Spécifiez l'adaptation de la Technologie (conception, matériaux/ espèces, etc.):

Ferula is planted on the terrace in addition to wheat and alfalfa. The resin-like gum from the dried sap extracted from the stem and roots of Ferula is in high demand as a basic product for pharmaceuticals. Ferula can be sold to local merchants, who resell it to India, and is thus intercropped by some farmers on the terraces.

6.7 Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités de la Technologie

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
Notable higher crop yields on the plots where improved seeds and fertilizer are applied on newly established terraces. Farmers have high expectations for the years to come and for yields of annual crops (such as wheat) to remain high.
Diversity of crops planted on terraces is valued by the land users. For example, cultivating wheat and alfalfa on the terraced plot provides household with the key crop and also fodder for the livestock and thereby contributes to securing food for the family and maintaining better health of their cattle. Additionally, some farmers have started intercropping Ferula, a medical herb and cash crop.
Farmers percieve soil quality on terraced plots with fertilizer application to improve. An improvement in soil fertility (which may relate first of all to the effects of fertilizer application) and increased soil moisture have been reported. Single statements also related to effectiveness of applying fertilizer on terraced plots, as here fertilizer is not washed away during rains.
Terraced plots are considered less vulnerable to the effects of rainstorms and dry spells, than non-terraced plots on slopes where annual crops are cultivated.
Women considered an advantage that during the establishment phase, men were paid by the project to work on their own land when building the terraces. Thus, there was no need for men to go for seasonal labour migration and they stayed at home. At the same time the terracing of the land is seen as an opportunity to improve the land resources on their families plots. An increase in women's workload related to bringing food to the field during establishment was considered to be acceptable, especially compared to the expected increase in yields.

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
The application of fertilizer on terraces is expected to show multiple effects: yields from these fertility depleted croplands can be increased. This includes an increase in biomass production, which may be used as green manure on the field or as animal feed or as straw. Further, vegetation cover during the growing period can be increased, which helps to protect the soil from erosive rains.
The project paid establishment of terraces on farmers' plots provided 20 days of employment per 2 jerib (0.4 ha) plot for farmers in their home villages. At the same time the terracing is a long-term investment into the land resources. Terracing provides an opportunity to decrease soil degradation and even to rehabilitate degraded lands. Application of improved seeds and fertilizer contribute in the establishment year to increased crop and fodder yields.

6.8 Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques de la Technologie et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
The implementation costs are high and land users state that it is impossible for them to cover establishment costs on their own.
Farmers expectations partly exceeded the actual yield harvested from the terraces in the first years after the implementation.
Both men and women from households that have implemened terraces state that during the establishment year the household experiences an increased workload, that is not well compatible with other on-going household / farm activities.
The production area for annual crops only is slighty reduced.	So far not all farmers seem to use the production area fully. Intercropping with perennial plants is recommended in order to use the risers of the terraces for fodder production. Some farmers have started intercropping of Ferula as cash crop.
Sufficient own land is required.	How does the amount of cropland affect the innovation readiness of a farmer? A better understanding is required on farmers willingness to take a risk for investing in a new SLM technology, and especially terracing, and influencing factors.

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
The technology requires technical knowledge for implementation and maintenance, which is key for successful adoption, replication and upscaling. The project trained technicians to support land users with the design of terraces. While the project aided implementation of terraces has improved the general knowledge and awareness of the land users on the benefits of SLM practices, most farmers will not be able to design terraces on their own.
Technically correct design of the terrace presents a challenge and might not be always achieved. Forward sloping terrace benches may lead to channeled runoff and have the risk of rills and gully formation.
There is an attribution gap regarding the increased wheat yields, especially with regard to individual contribution of the terraces, the application of improved seeds and the fertilizer, and the combined effects (role of terraces in making improved seed and fertilizer application effective).	A cost benefit analysis (CBA) needs to be conducted to determine short- and long-term returns of the SLM technology. On farm trials are necessary for assessing impacts of the different measures (agricultural, vegetative and structural measures) before-and-after, as well as with-without the SLM technology.
Terrace maintenance is crucial. If not maintained properly for a longer period of time, the damaged terrace can lead to further land degradation through channeled runoff, sever erosion and possible risks of disaster for the surrounding settlements on the slopes.
The technology is established mainly by better-off households, which own more land than the average SLM implementer.

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information