1.2 ຂໍ້ມູນ ການຕິດຕໍ່ພົວພັນ ຂອງບຸກຄົນທີ່ສໍາຄັນ ແລະ ສະຖາບັນ ທີ່ມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມ ໃນການປະເມີນເອກກະສານ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຊື່ໂຄງການ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ/ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar, Afghanistan (LIPT)

ຊື່ໂຄງການ ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ/ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

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

ຊື່ສະຖາບັນ (ຫຼາຍສະຖາບັນ) ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ / ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

Terre des Hommes (Terre des Hommes) - ສະວິດເຊີແລນ

ຊື່ສະຖາບັນ (ຫຼາຍສະຖາບັນ) ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ / ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

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

ຊື່ສະຖາບັນ (ຫຼາຍສະຖາບັນ) ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ / ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

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

ຊື່ສະຖາບັນ (ຫຼາຍສະຖາບັນ) ທີ່ອໍານວຍຄວາມສະດວກ ໃນການສ້າງເອກກະສານ / ປະເມີນ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ (ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ)

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

1.3 ເງື່ອນໄຂ ກ່ຽວກັບ ການນໍາໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນເອກະສານ ທີ່ສ້າງຂື້ນ ໂດຍຜ່ານ ອົງການພາບລວມຂອງໂລກ ທາງດ້ານແນວທາງ ແລະ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ຂອງການອານຸລັກ ທໍາມະຊາດ (WOCAT)

ຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ແລະ ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ ທີ່ໃຫ້ຂໍ້ມູນ (ຫຼາຍ) ຍິນຍອມ ຕາມເງື່ອນໄຂ ໃນການນຳໃຊ້ຂໍ້ມູນ ເພື່ອສ້າງເປັນເອກກະສານຂອງ WOCAT:

ແມ່ນ

1.4 ແຈ້ງການວ່າ ດ້ວຍຄວາມຍືນຍົງຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ດັ່ງກ່າວໄດ້ອະທິບາຍ ເຖິງບັນຫາ ກ່ຽວກັບ ການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນບໍ? ຖ້າບໍ່ດັ່ງນັ້ນ ມັນບໍ່ສາມາດ ຢັ້ງຢືນໄດ້ວ່າ ເປັນເຕັກໂນໂລຊີ ໃນການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ? :

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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 ແບບສອບຖາມທີ່ອ້າງອີງເຖີງແນວທາງ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ (ໄດ້ເຮັດເປັນເອກະສານທີ່ໃຊ້ WOCAT)

2.1 ຄໍາອະທິບາຍສັ້ນຂອງ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການກຳໜົດຄວາມໝາຍ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ:

Degraded pastures are restored with alfalfa through broad seeding method. The area is put under quarantine for three years to allow for the pasture to restore sufficiently.

2.2 ການອະທິບາຍ ລາຍລະອຽດ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ການພັນລະນາ:

Project supported pasture rehabilitation 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 foods 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 on land resources for sustaining their livelihoods. In a good year with high yields, wheat-self-sufficiency lasts about 5 months. The three villages are home to ethnic Qarluq communities. Since 2012 the Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar (LIPT) implemented by Terre des hommes (Tdh) Switzerland has initiated a range of NRM interventions.

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 cows, goat and sheep, dairy products such as milk and sour milk, but also as means of transportation (donkeys), labour force in agriculture (oxen, donkey) and source of cash income. 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, Dashti Mirzai and Sari Joy are characterized by poor vegetation cover, low carrying capacity and sever erosion with deep rills clearly visible on the surface. These severely degraded pastures continue to be used uncontrollably without any management schemes or regulations in place. Cropland not suitable for cultivation has been converted to pastures. The quantity and quality of livestock fodder is insufficient for all the livestock affecting poor animal health.

The village communities have recognized the poor condition of their pastures and the need to take measures to revert the situation. Pasture rehabilitation measures were introduced, which aim to restore heavily degraded pasture land with alfalfa. Initially the land user and the community agrees to leave the sown pasture under quarantine for three years. The restoration measures include: leveling the soil with a rack to soften the soil and prepare the seedbed. 3,5 kg of alfalfa is seeded on 1 jerib or 0.2 ha of pasture land using the broadcast seeding method. Fertilizer application (DAP and/or animal manure) is followed by the seeding. The area is protected from grazing during three years. During this quarantine period the alfalfa has to grow in sufficient size in order to be harvested for livestock fodder.

It has been observed that after two years in some part it is already possible to harvest the alfalfa. Improvements of the pasture are visible given the fast growth rate of the alfalfa crop. The plant grows well without irrigation, which is favorable given the shortage of irrigation water in the villages. The rehabilitated pastures will slow down the run-off, improve water infiltration and protect the pasture from erosion during heavy rain fall. The land users recognize the pasture improvements and relatively increased fodder availability. Alfalfa reseeding is done in 5-10 years and appeals to the needs of the land users, which cannot afford annual reseeding. One of the constraint remains is the quarantine period of 1-3 years, which deprives the livestock from fodder and the farmers have to find options for covering the loss.

Women are generally aware about the use of alfalfa for the production of better fodder for their livestock. Women do take part in haymaking, collecting the hay and bringing it to their homes or to the community fodder bank. Often they are helped by their children to do the work.

2.3 ຮູບພາບຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

2.5 ປະເທດ / ເຂດ / ສະຖານທີ່ບ່ອນທີ່ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຮັບການນໍາໃຊ້ ແລະ ທີ່ຖືກປົກຄຸມດ້ວຍການປະເມີນຜົນ

2.6 ວັນທີໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ

ຖ້າຫາກວ່າ ບໍ່ຮູ້ຈັກ ປີທີ່ຊັດເຈນ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ປະມານ ວັນທີເອົາ:

• ຕໍ່າກວ່າ 10 ປີ ຜ່ານມາ (ມາເຖິງປະຈຸບັນ)

2.7 ການນໍາສະເໜີ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຖືກຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດຄືແນວໃດ?

• ໂດຍຜ່ານໂຄງການ / ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອຈາກພາຍນອກ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ (ປະເພດ ໂຄງການ ແລະ ອື່ນໆ):

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

3.1 ຈຸດປະສົງຫຼັກ (ຫຼາຍ) ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

• ປັບປຸງ ການຜະລິດ
• ຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ, ປ້ອງກັນ, ຟື້ນຟູ ການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ

3.2 ປະເພດການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃນປະຈຸບັນ() ທີ່ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ໄດ້ຖືກນໍາໃຊ້

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Number of growing seasons per year: 1

3.3 ການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ມີການປ່ຽນແປງຍ້ອນການຈັດຕັ້ງທົດລອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ແມ່ນບໍ່?

ການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ມີການປ່ຽນແປງຍ້ອນການຈັດຕັ້ງທົດລອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ແມ່ນບໍ່?

• ແມ່ນ (ກະລຸນາຕື່ມໃສ່ ຄຳຖາມຂ້າງລຸ່ມນີ້ກ່ຽວກັບການນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ກ່ອນການທົດລອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ)

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

Some plots of the pastures are previous croplands, which have been strongly degraded and no longer used for crop cultivation.

3.4 ການສະໜອງນ້ຳ

ການສະໜອງນໍ້າ ໃນພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ:

• ປະສົມປະສານ ກັນລະຫວ່າງ ນໍ້າຝົນ ແລະ ນໍ້າຊົນລະປະທານ

3.5 ການນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ທີ່ຢູ່ໃນກຸ່ມການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ

• ການປິດພື້ນທີ່ (ຢຸດການນໍາໃຊ້, ເພື່ອປູກເປັນປ່າຟື້ນຟູ)
• ການປັບປຸງດິນ / ພືດຄຸມດິນ

3.6 ມາດຕະການ ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ ທີ່ດິນແບບຍືນຍົງ ປະກອບດ້ວຍ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

3.7 ປະເພດດິນເຊື່ອມໂຊມ ຫຼັກທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

3.8 ການປ້ອງກັນ, ການຫຼຸດຜ່ອນ, ຫຼືການຟື້ນຟູຂອງການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ເປົ້າໝາຍ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ທີ່ພົວພັນ ກັບຄວາມເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ:

• ຫຼຸດຜ່ອນການເຊື່ອມໂຊມຂອງດິນ
• ການຟື້ນຟູ / ຟື້ນຟູດິນທີ່ຊຸດໂຊມ

4.1 ເຕັກນິກ ໃນການແຕ້ມແຜນວາດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

4.2 ຂໍ້ມູນທົ່ວໄປກ່ຽວກັບການຄິດໄລ່ປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າໃນການຜະລິດ ແລະ ມູນຄ່າອື່ນໆ

ລະບຸ ວິທີການ ຄຳໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ ແລະ ປັດໄຈນໍາເຂົ້າ ທີ່ໄດ້ຄິດໄລ່:

• ຕໍ່ພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ລະບຸ ສະກຸນເງິນທີ່ໃຊ້ສໍາລັບ ການຄິດໄລ່ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ:

• USA

ຖ້າກ່ຽວຂ້ອງ, ໃຫ້ລະບຸອັດຕາແລກປ່ຽນຈາກ USD ເປັນສະກຸນເງິນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ (ເຊັ່ນ: 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

67.0

4.3 ການສ້າງຕັ້ງກິດຈະກໍາ

	ກິດຈະກໍາ	Timing (season)
1.	Selection of the land for rehabilitation	Fall
2.	Leveling the land with a rake	Fall
3.	Sowing alfalfa (broadcast seeding)	Spring
4.	Site under quarantine	Three years
5.	Site protection	Three years

4.4 ຕົ້ນທຶນ ແລະ ປັດໄຈຂາເຂົ້າທີ່ຈໍາເປັນໃນຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ

	ລະບຸ ປັດໃຈ ນໍາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລີດ	ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ປະລິມານ	ຕົ້ນທຶນ ຕໍ່ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ຂອງປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລິດ	% ຂອງຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ຈ່າຍເອງ
ແຮງງານ	Leveling the land	person-day	100.0	5.3	530.0	100.0
ແຮງງານ	Sowing alfalfa	person-day	5.0	5.3	26.5	100.0
ແຮງງານ	Site protection	year	1.0	447.0	447.0	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Shovel	piece	1.0	3.8	3.8	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Rope	meter	50.0	0.07	3.5	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Rake	piece	1.0	3.0	3.0
ວັດສະດຸໃນການປູກ	Alfalfa seed		17.5	0.42	7.35
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	DAP	kg	125.0	0.9	112.5
ຝຸ່ນ ແລະ ຢາຊີວະພາບ	Urea	Kg	125.0	0.45	56.25	100.0
ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ					1189.9
ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍທັງໝົດ ສຳລັບການສ້າງຕັ້ງເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເປັນສະກຸນເງີນໂດລາ					17.76

ຖ້າຫາກຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ນຳໃຊ້ມູນຄ່າຕ່ຳກວ່າ 100% ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ແມ່ນໃຜເປັນຜູ້ຊ່ວຍ ໃນລາຍຈ່າຍທີ່ເຫຼືອ:

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

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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 0.2-0.4 ha or 1-2 jeribs. Costs were simply multiplied by 5. The actual costs for a 1ha plot might be slightly different.

4.5 ບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ / ແຜນຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ກິດຈະກໍາ

	ກິດຈະກໍາ	ໄລຍະເວລາ / ຄວາມຖີ່
1.	Hay making	Summer
2.	Delivery of hay to the fodder bank	Fall
3.	Protection of the pasture during quarantine	Three years

4.6 ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ ແລະ ປັດໄຈນໍາເຂົ້າທີ່ຈໍາເປັນສໍາລັບການບໍາລຸງຮັກສາກິດຈະກໍາ / ແຜນປະຕິບັດ (ຕໍ່ປີ)

	ລະບຸ ປັດໃຈ ນໍາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລີດ	ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ປະລິມານ	ຕົ້ນທຶນ ຕໍ່ຫົວໜ່ວຍ	ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ຂອງປັດໃຈຂາເຂົ້າ ໃນການຜະລິດ	% ຂອງຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ຈ່າຍເອງ
ແຮງງານ	Hay making	person day	35.0	5.3	185.5	100.0
ແຮງງານ	Delivery of the hay to the fodder bank	person day	35.0	5.3	185.5	100.0
ແຮງງານ	Protection during quarantine	year	2.0	447.0	894.0	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Sickle	piece	1.0	2.25	2.25	100.0
ອຸປະກອນ	Pitchfork	piece	1.0	5.3	5.3	100.0
ຕົ້ນທຶນທັງໝົດ ທີ່ໃຊ້ໃນການບໍາລຸງຮັກສາ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ					1272.55
ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍທັງໝົດ ສຳລັບການບົວລະບັດຮກສາເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເປັນສະກຸນເງີນໂດລາ					18.99

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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 0.2-0.4 ha or 1-2 jeribs. Costs were simply multiplied by 5. The actual costs for a 1ha plot might be slightly different.

4.7 ປັດໄຈ ທີ່ສໍາຄັນ ທີ່ສົ່ງຜົນກະທົບ ຕໍ່ຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍ

ໃຫ້ອະທິບາຍ ປັດໃຈ ທີ່ສົ່ງຜົນກະທົບ ຕໍ່ຕົ້ນທຶນ ໃນການຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ:

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 ອາກາດ

5.2 ພູມິປະເທດ

5.3 ດິນ

ຖ້າເປັນໄປໄດ້ ແມ່ນໃຫ້ຕິດຄັດ ການພັນລະນາດິນ ຫຼື ຂໍ້ມູນສະເພາະຂອງດິນ, ຕົວຢ່າງ, ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ປະເພດຂອງດິນ, ຄ່າຄວາມເປັນກົດ / ເປັນດ່າງຂອງດິນ, ສານອາຫານ,​ ດິນເຄັມ ແລະ ອື່ນໆ.

Local land users differentiate between the following soil types where the technology is 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 ມີນໍ້າ ແລະ ຄຸນນະພາບ

ມີບັນຫາ ກ່ຽວກັບນໍ້າເຄັມບໍ່?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

ເກີດມີນໍ້າຖ້ວມ ໃນພື້ນທີ່ບໍ່?

ແມ່ນ

ເປັນປົກກະຕິ:

ຕອນ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ ແລະ ຂໍ້ກໍານົດ ເພີ່ມເຕີມ ກ່ຽວກັບ ຄຸນນະພາບ ແລະ ປະລິມານ ຂອງນ້ຳ:

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 ຊີວະນາໆພັນ

5.6 ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ທີ່ໄດ້ນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ໃຫ້ລະບຸ ຄຸນລັກສະນະ ຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ:

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, however, women and children also take active part in the related work. The functions of men and women are clearly distinguished within the 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 ເນື້ອທີ່ສະເລ່ຍຂອງດິນ ທີ່ຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ ໃຊ້ເຮັດເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

5.8 ເຈົ້າຂອງທີ່ດິນ, ສິດໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ, ແລະ ສິດທິການນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ

ເຈົ້າຂອງດິນ:

• ບຸກຄົນ, ບໍ່ມີຕໍາແໜ່ງ

ສິດທິ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ:

• ບຸກຄົນ

ສິດທິ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ນໍ້າ:

• ຊຸມຊົນ (ທີ່ມີການຈັດຕັ້ງ)

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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 ການສະແດງຜົນກະທົບ ພາຍໃນພື້ນທີ່ ທີ່ໄດ້ຈັດຕັ້ງປະຕິບັດ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຜົນກະທົບທາງເສດຖະກິດສັງຄົມ

ການຜະລິດ

ຜົນກະທົບດ້ານວັດທະນາທໍາສັງຄົມ

ຜົນກະທົບຕໍ່ລະບົບນິເວດ

ວົງຈອນນໍ້າ / ນໍ້າ

ດິນ

ຊີວະນານາພັນ: ສັດ, ພືດ

6.2 ຜົນກະທົບທາງອ້ອມ ຈາກການນໍາໃຊ້ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ກໍານົດ ການປະເມີນ ຜົນກະທົບທາງນອກ (ການວັດແທກ):

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 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.
- 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 SLM 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 ການປ້ອງກັນ ແລະ ຄວາມບອບບາງ ຂອງເຕັກໂນໂລຢິ ໃນການປ່ຽນແປງສະພາບດິນຟ້າອາກາດ ແລະ ກ່ຽວຂ້ອງກັບອາກາດທີ່ມີການປ່ຽນແປງທີ່ຮຸນແຮງ / ໄພພິບັດທາງທໍາມະຊາດ (ຮັບຮູ້ໄດ້ໂດຍຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ)

ອາກາດ ທີ່ກ່ຽວພັນກັບຄວາມຮຸນແຮງ (ໄພພິບັດທາງທໍາມະຊາດ)

ໄພພິບັດທາງອຸຕຸນິຍົມ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ພະຍຸຝົນ	ດີຫຼາຍ

ໄພພິບັດທາງພູມອາກາດ

	ການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ສາມາດ ຮັບມື ໄດ້ຄືແນວໃດ?
ແຫ້ງແລ້ງ	ດີ

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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 ການວິເຄາະຕົ້ນທຶນ ແລະ ຜົນປະໂຫຍດ

ຈະເຮັດປະໂຫຍດເພື່ອປຽບທຽບກັບຄ່າໃຊ້ຈ່າຍກັບສິ່ງກໍ່ສ້າງ (ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ນຳໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ) ໄດ້ແນວໃດ?

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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. During the ranking the land users also did not account for the project support they received for the establishment of the technology.

6.5 ການປັບຕົວຮັບເອົາເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

• 1-10%

ຖ້າຫາກວ່າມີ, ປະລິມານ (ຈໍານວນຂອງຄົວເຮືອນ / ເນື້ອທີ່ການຄຸ້ມຄອງ):

6.1 ha

ທັງໝົດນັ້ນ ແມ່ນໃຜ ໄດ້ປັບຕົວເຂົ້າ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ, ມີຈັກຄົນ ທີ່ສາມາດເຮັດເອງໄດ້, ຕົວຢ່າງ, ປາດສະຈາກ ການຊ່ວຍເຫຼືອ ທາງດ້ານອຸປະກອນ / ການຈ່າຍເປັນເງິນ?

• 11-50%

ຄວາມຄິດເຫັນ:

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%". 20% implemented the Technology without receiving support.

6.6 ການປັບຕົວ

ໄດ້ມີການດັດປັບ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ເພື່ອໃຫ້ແທດເໝາະກັບເງື່ອນໄຂ ການປ່ຽນແປງບໍ?

ບໍ່ແມ່ນ

6.7 ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຂໍ້ດີ / ໂອກາດໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ
The technology does not require too much labor and material inputs for establishment work.
Alfalfa grows well and it can be harvested several years in a row without reseeding. The land users expect to have sufficient supplies of fodder during winter, which is the most difficult season to prevent animal loss and shortage of fodder is one of the main reasons. Alfalfa is considered as a good fodder for the, which makes it strong.
Sowing alfalfa is a good method to make better use of bad lands or degraded cropland. Some land users plan to sow alfalfa on their lands, which are not fit for crop cultivation.

ຈຸດແຂງ / ຈຸດດີ / ໂອກາດ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ
The decision to grow alfalfa on the degraded cropland and pasture land is an efficient and low-cost technology. It makes it possible to produce good fodder on the degraded land under low or no availability of irrigation water. At the same time the plant has a good feature in terms of enhancing moisture retention and halting soil erosion.
Land users learn about sustainable land management practices adapted to their local conditions and needs. The land users can collect their own seeds to use for seeding in the future.
Female members of the family help to protect the plot.

6.8 ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ໃນການນໍາໃຊ້ ເຕັກໂນໂລຢີ ແລະ ວິທີການແກ້ໄຂບັນຫາ

ຈຸດອ່ອນ / ຂໍ້ເສຍ / ຄວາມສ່ຽງໃນມຸມມອງຂອງຜູ້ນໍາໃຊ້ທີ່ດິນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
Land users expressed concerns that in 5 years they have to reseed again the alfalfa and they don't have seeds for it.
Some land users' expectations were not met as they planned to sow alfalfa on bigger land, but in reality could only sow on 1-2 jeribs (0.2-0.4 ha).
Female family members take part in haymaking and delivery of the hay to their homes or to the fodder storage. This increases their daily workload.

ຈຸດອ່ອນ/ຂໍ້ບົກຜ່ອງ/ຄວາມສ່ຽງ ຈາກທັດສະນະຂອງຜູ້ປ້ອນຂໍ້ມູນ ຫຼື ບຸກຄົນສຳຄັນ	ມີວິທີການແກ້ໄຂຄືແນວໃດ?
There is no fence to protect the pasture from grazing during the quarantine period. Grazing on the pasture during quarantine may affect the quality of the pasture. The land user has to hire a guard to protect the pasture or the family members have to protect the plot.	Further awareness raising about the importance of the quarantine regime within the village community. Affordable options for area closure, at least during quarantine.
The quarantine period of 1-3 years deprives the land user of its pasture and limits fodder production significantly. Although the land users did not specifically raise their concern about the quarantine, however it presents a major disadvantage in an area where there is already a shortage of grazing land and fodder. Such situation might cause conflict over the use of pasture land in the village.
Not all land users are aware of seed collection or practice seed collection, which could be very helpful to save costs for buying alfalfa seeds. They could also sell their surplus seeds.
The use of fertilizer is perceived by the land user as an important factor for growing quality fodder. Such perception might increase the reliance of land users on applying chemical fertilizers, rather than engaging in sustainable management of the plot.

7.1 ວິທີການ / ແຫຼ່ງຂໍ້ມູນ

7.2 ເອກກະສານອ້າງອີງທີ່ເປັນບົດລາຍງານ

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Guidelines for Focus Groups Discussions

ຫົວຂໍ້, ຜູ້ຂຽນ, ປີ, ISBN:

Methods section of the Rustaq NRM study