1.2 Detalhes do contato das pessoas capacitadas e instituições envolvidas na avaliação e documentação da tecnologia

Nome do projeto que facilitou a documentação/avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

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

Nome do projeto que facilitou a documentação/avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar, Afghanistan (LIPT)

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/ avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

Terre des Hommes (Terre des Hommes) - Suíça

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/ avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

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

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/ avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

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

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/ avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

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

1.3 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de WOCAT

O/a compilador/a e a(s) pessoa(s) capacitada(s) aceitam as condições relativas ao uso de dados documentados através da WOCAT:

Sim

1.4 Declaração de sustentabilidade da tecnologia descrita

A tecnologia descrita aqui é problemática em relação a degradação da terra de forma que não pode ser declarada uma tecnologia de gestão sustentável de terra?

Não

Comentários:

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 Referência ao(s) questionário(s) sobre abordagens GST (documentado(s) usando WOCAT)

2.1 Descrição curta da tecnologia

Definição da tecnologia:

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 Descrição detalhada da tecnologia

Descrição:

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 Fotos da tecnologia

2.5 País/região/locais onde a tecnologia foi aplicada e que estão cobertos nesta avaliação

2.6 Data da implementação

Caso o ano exato seja desconhecido, indique a data aproximada:

• menos de 10 anos atrás (recentemente)

2.7 Introdução da tecnologia

Especifique como a tecnologia foi introduzida:

• através de projetos/intervenções externas

Comentários (tipos de projeto, etc.):

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

3.1 Principal/principais finalidade(s) da tecnologia

• Melhora a produção
• Reduz, previne, recupera a degradação do solo

3.2 Tipo(s) atualizado(s) de uso da terra onde a tecnologia foi aplicada

3.3 O uso do solo mudou devido à implementação da Tecnologia?

Comentários:

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 Abastecimento de água

Abastecimento de água para a terra na qual a tecnologia é aplicada:

• Precipitação natural

3.5 Grupo de GST ao qual pertence a tecnologia

• Medidas de curva de nível

3.6 Medidas de GST contendo a tecnologia

Comentários:

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 Principais tipos de degradação da terra abordados pela tecnologia

3.8 Redução, prevenção ou recuperação da degradação do solo

Especifique o objetivo da tecnologia em relação a degradação da terra:

• Reduzir a degradação do solo
• Recuperar/reabilitar solo severamente degradado

4.1 Desenho técnico da tecnologia

4.2 Informação geral em relação ao cálculo de entradas e custos

Especifique como custos e entradas foram calculados:

• por área de tecnologia

Especifique a moeda utilizada para os cálculos de custo:

• USD

Se for relevante, indique a taxa de câmbio do USD para moeda local (por exemplo, 1 USD = 79,9 Real): 1 USD =:

67,0

4.3 Atividades de implantação

	Atividade	Periodicidade (estação do ano)
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 Custos e entradas necessárias para a implantação

	Especifique a entrada	Unidade	Quantidade	Custos por unidade	Custos totais por entrada	% dos custos arcados pelos usuários da terra
Mão-de-obra	Designing of the terrace using A-frame	person-day	10,0	9,0	90,0
Mão-de-obra	Leveling the soil with a shovel	person-day	150,0	5,3	795,0	51,0
Mão-de-obra	Sowing of wheat and alfalfa seeds	person-day	10,0	5,3	53,0	51,0
Mão-de-obra	Sowing of ferula	person-day	2,0	5,3	10,6	100,0
Equipamento	Pick axe	Pcs	1,0	3,0	3,0	100,0
Equipamento	Pitchfork	Pcs	1,0	5,3	5,3	100,0
Equipamento	Wheel barrow	Pcs	1,0	38,0	38,0	100,0
Equipamento	Shovel	Pcs	1,0	3,8	3,8
Equipamento	Hoe	Pcs	1,0	7,5	7,5
Equipamento	A-Frame	Pcs	1,0	6,0	6,0
Material vegetal	Wheat seeds	Kg	140,0	0,42	58,8
Material vegetal	Alfalfa seeds	Kg	17,5	0,42	7,35	100,0
Material vegetal	Ferula seeds	Kg	2,5	6,35	15,88	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	DAP	Kg	125,0	0,9	112,5
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Urea	Kg	125,0	0,45	56,25
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Herbicide	Liter	50,0	0,25	12,5
Custos totais para a implantação da tecnologia					1275,48
Custos totais para o estabelecimento da Tecnologia em USD					19,04

Se o usuário da terra arca com menos que 100% dos custos, indique quem cobre os custos remanescentes:

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

Comentários:

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 Atividades recorrentes/manutenção

	Atividade	Periodicidade/frequência
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 Custos e entradas necessárias pata a manutenção/atividades recorrentes (por ano)

	Especifique a entrada	Unidade	Quantidade	Custos por unidade	Custos totais por entrada	% dos custos arcados pelos usuários da terra
Mão-de-obra	Ploughing the land with animal traction	person day	2,5	5,3	13,25	100,0
Mão-de-obra	Sowing of wheat seeds on benches	person day	5,0	5,3	26,5	100,0
Mão-de-obra	Weeding and Fertilizer application	person day	5,0	5,3	26,5	100,0
Mão-de-obra	Harvesting and delivering wheat and alfalfa	person day	70,0	5,3	371,0	100,0
Equipamento	Sickle	Pcs	1,0			100,0
Material vegetal	Wheat seeds	Kg	140,0	0,42	58,8	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	DAP	Kg	125,0	0,9	112,5	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Urea	Kg	125,0	0,45	56,25	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Herbicide	Liter	50,0	0,25	12,5	100,0
Custos totais para a manutenção da tecnologia					677,3
Custos totais de manutenção da Tecnologia em USD					10,11

Se o usuário da terra arca com menos que 100% dos custos, indique quem cobre os custos remanescentes:

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

Comentários:

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 Fatores mais importantes que afetam os custos

Descreva os fatores mais determinantes que afetam os custos:

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 Clima

5.2 Topografia

Comentários e outras especificações sobre a topografia:

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 Solos

Caso disponível anexe a descrição completa do solo ou especifique as informações disponíveis, p. ex. tipo de solo, PH/acidez do solo, nitrogênio, capacidade de troca catiônica, salinidade, 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 Disponibilidade e qualidade de água

A salinidade da água é um problema?

Não

Ocorre inundação da área?

Sim

Regularidade:

Esporadicamente

Comentários e outras especificações sobre a qualidade e a quantidade da água:

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 Biodiversidade

5.6 Características dos usuários da terra que utilizam a tecnologia

5.7 Área média de terrenos utilizados pelos usuários de terrenos que aplicam a Tecnologia

5.8 Propriedade de terra, direitos de uso da terra e de uso da água

Propriedade da terra:

• Indivíduo, não intitulado

Direitos do uso da terra:

• Indivíduo

Direitos do uso da água:

• Comunitário (organizado)

Comentários:

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 Impactos no local mostrados pela tecnologia

Impactos socioeconômicos

Produção

Impactos socioculturais

Impactos ecológicos

Ciclo hídrico/escoamento

Solo

Biodiversidade: vegetação, animais

6.2 Impactos externos mostrados pela tecnologia

Especificar a avaliação dos impactos fora do local (medidas):

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 Exposição e sensibilidade da tecnologia às mudanças climáticas graduais e extremos/desastres relacionados ao clima (conforme o ponto de vista dos usuários da terra)

Extremos (desastres) relacionados ao clima

Desastres meteorológicos

	Como a tecnologia lida com isso?
Temporal local	muito bem

Desastres climatológicos

	Como a tecnologia lida com isso?
Seca	bem

Comentários:

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 Análise do custo-benefício

Comentários:

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 Adoção da tecnologia

• 1-10%

Se disponível, determine a quantidade (número de unidades familiares e/ou área abordada):

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

De todos aqueles que adotaram a Tecnologia, quantos o fizeram espontaneamente, ou seja, sem receber nenhum incentivo/ pagamento material?

• 0-10%

Comentários:

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 Adaptação

A tecnologia foi recentemente modificada para adaptar-se as condições variáveis?

Sim

Caso afirmativo, indique as condições variáveis as quais ela foi adaptada:

• Mercados dinâmicos

Especifique a adaptação da tecnologia (desenho, material/espécie, 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 Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades da tecnologia

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do usuário da terra
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.

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada
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 Pontos fracos, desvantagens/riscos da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

Pontos fracos/desvantagens/riscos na visão do usuário da terra	Como eles podem ser superados?
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.

Pontos fracos/vantagens/riscos na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada	Como eles podem ser superados?
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 Métodos/fontes de informação