Technologies

Improved livestock shed for better health and productivity [Afghanistan]

Tabela; Oghil

technologies_673 - Afghanistan

Completeness: 84%

1. Informação geral

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

Pessoa(s)-chave

SLM specialist:
Researcher:
land user:

Alti Boy Sherogha

Natural Resources Management Committee (NRMC)

Sari Joy village, Rustaq District

Afghanistan

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 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through 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 sustentável de gestão 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 as abordagens da gestão sustentável da terra

Watershed Associations (WSA) and Natural Resource Management Committees (NRMC)
approaches

Watershed Associations (WSA) and Natural Resource Management Committees ... [Afghanistan]

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 ...

  • Compilador/a: Bettina Wolfgramm

2. Descrição da tecnologia de gestão sustentável da terra

2.1 Descrição curta da tecnologia

Definição da tecnologia:

Existing livestock sheds can be improved through interior and exterior refurbishing, and door and window installation. More favourable indoor conditions benefit animal health and the quality of animal products.

2.2 Descrição detalhada da tecnologia

Descrição:

Livestock keeping is one of the key livelihood strategies in rural Rustaq - in addition to cultivation of agricultural crops. Families rely on their livestock not only for consumption of meat and dairy products, but also as means of transportation (donkeys), labour force in agriculture (oxen, donkeys) and as a source of cash income. When crops fail to produce enough, families sell their livestock to survive until the next season. The pressure to sell livestock is more acute during winter months, when cases of livestock loss increases - from diseases, lack of fodder and the harsh cold winter. These factors, along with poor conditions for livestock keeping, expose the animals to various negative impacts, affecting health, productivity and low quality/ quantity of meat and milk.

This situation is observed mainly in Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana and Dashti Mirzai villages, although Dasthi Mirzai has limited grazing land and livestock keeping is not as prevalent as in the two other villages. All three villages were selected to demonstrate improved livestock sheds, which are among the key factors for productive livestock keeping, along with stable supplies of quality fodder. Improved livestock sheds are part of the chain of activities introduced in the three villages to support livestock production, and at the same time improve the availability and quality of fodder, and restore the degraded and overgrazed pastures.

The Natural Resources Management Committee in the respective villages select a farmer, who is active in livestock keeping and already has a livestock shed. The farmer agrees to provide his livestock shed to serve as a demonstration. The farmer is supported technically and financially to renovate his shed in accordance with the defined requirements. The internal and external walls of the shed are covered with plaster made from a clay mixture to block all holes and protect the building from wind and rain. The roof is renovated to prevent leaking from snow and rain. Windows, a door and a ventilator are installed to ensure air circulation, decrease humidity levels, and protect the animals from cold and heat. A water trough and feeding racks are installed inside the shed. All the costs for the material are covered by the project. The farmer contributes with his labour.

The improved shed is vital for keeping livestock healthy. It also contributes to lowering livestock loss through decreasing the risks of diseases and cold stress during winter. The overall benefit towards livelihoods is significant, since animals are an important household asset and a coping strategy for the majority of households in the villages. The wives of the farmers benefit particularly from the renovated livestock sheds, because they are the ones who feed and water the animals, and they clean the shed of manure.

However, the costs for carrying out renovation of livestock sheds are perceived too high by the farmers. Many are unwilling to make such investments, despite the benefits.

2.3 Fotos da tecnologia

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

Country:

Afghanistan

Region/ State/ Province:

Takhar Province, Rustaq District

Further specification of location:

Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana, Dashti Mirzai villages

Comentários:

Coordinates of SLM plots owned by SLM implementers who participated in the FGD derived through the Rustaq NRM study QGIS database.
This documentation is based on the experiences of SLM implementers from Sari Joy (1 Livestock shed), Jawaz Khana (1 Livestock shed) and Dashti Mirzai (1 Livestock shed).

2.6 Data da implementação

Indique o ano de implementação:

2014

Caso o ano exato seja desconhecido, indique a data aproximada:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

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. Classificação da tecnologia de gestão sustentável da terra

3.1 Principal/principais finalidade(s) da tecnologia

  • improve animal health

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

Assentamentos, infraestrutura

Assentamentos, infraestrutura

  • Assentamentos, edificações
Observações:

Livestock shed, cows, sheep, goats

3.4 Grupo de gestão sustentável da terra ao qual pertence a tecnologia

  • Gestão de pastoralismo e pastagem
  • Livestock management

3.5 Difusão da tecnologia

Especifique a difusão da tecnologia :
  • Aplicado em pontos específicos/concentrado numa pequena área

3.6 Medidas de gestão sustentável da terra contendo a tecnologia

Medidas estruturais

Medidas estruturais

  • S9: Abrigo para plantas e animais

3.8 Redução, prevenção ou recuperação da degradação do solo

Especifique o objetivo da tecnologia em relação a degradação da terra:
  • Não aplicável

4. Especificações técnicas, implementação de atividades, entradas e custos

4.2 Especificações técnicas/ explicações do desenho técnico

The size of an improved livestock shed is 5 m x 3 m. The internal and external walls of the shed are covered with plaster made from a clay mixture to block all the holes and protect the building from the external elements of rain and wind. The roof is renovated to prevent leaking from snow and rain. Two windows, sized 60 cm x 30 cm and an entrance door 1.5 m x 2 m are installed. 3 ventilation pipes are installed on the roof. The installation of windows, entrance door and ventilators ensure air circulation, decrease humidity levels and protect the animals from cold winters and hot summers. A water trough and feeding racks are installed inside the shed. All the costs for the material are covered by the project. The farmer contributes through labour.

4.3 Informação geral em relação ao cálculo de entradas e custos

Especifique como custos e entradas foram calculados:
  • Por unidade de tecnologia
Especifique a unidade:

Building of the livestock shed

Especifique volume, comprimento, etc (se relevante):

5m x 3m

Especifique a moeda utilizada para os cálculos de custo:
  • Dólares norte-americanos
Indique a taxa cambial do dólar norte americano para a moeda local (se relevante): 1 USD =:

67,0

Indique a média salarial da mão-de-obra contratada por dia:

5.2-5.3 USD

4.4 Atividades de implantação

Atividade Tipo de medida Calendarização
1. Selection and inspection of the livestock shed for referbishing Gestão
2. Design of measures for referbishment Gestão
3. Transportation of construction materials Outras medidas
4. Covering the internal and external walls with plaster Estrutural
5. Installation of doors and windows Estrutural
6. Installation of feed racks, water trough and ventilator Estrutural

4.5 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 Transportation of construction materials person-day 1,0 52,0 52,0
Mão-de-obra Preparation works person-day 2,0 5,3 10,6
Mão-de-obra Rennovation works (doors, windows, water tanker and feed slot) person-day 14,0 5,3 74,2 100,0
Material de construção Pipe for air ventilation piece 3,0 7,4 22,2
Material de construção Lime Bag 1,0 14,0 14,0
Material de construção Cement Bag 10,0 5,2 52,0
Material de construção Door piece 1,0 59,0 59,0
Material de construção Window piece 2,0 22,0 44,0
Material de construção Cloth Meter 12,0 1,8 21,6
Outros Water tank for animals piece 2,0 8,9 17,8
Custos totais para a implantação da tecnologia 367,4
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) Switzerland

4.6 Atividades recorrentes/manutenção

Atividade Tipo de medida Calendarização/frequência
1. Repair of the roof with clay Estrutural Autumn

4.7 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 Repair of the roof person day 2,0 5,3 10,6 100,0
Custos totais para a manutenção da tecnologia 10,6

4.8 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. Ambiente naturale e humano

5.1 Clima

Precipitação pluviométrica anual
  • <250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1.000 mm
  • 1.001-1.500 mm
  • 1.501-2.000 mm
  • 2.001-3.000 mm
  • 3.001-4.000 mm
  • > 4.000 mm
Especifique a média pluviométrica anual em mm (se conhecida):

580,00

Especificações/comentários sobre a pluviosidade:

Average annual precipitation for the area was calculated as 580 mm, with minimum in dry years (2000 and 2001) of 270 mm and maximum in wet years (2009/2010) of 830 mm. The absolute maximum rainfall was calculated for 1986 as 1024 mm. The data series covers the period from 1979 to 2014.

Indique o nome da estação meteorológica de referência considerada:

Reference meteorological station considered: Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), http://rda.ucar.edu/pub/cfsr.html

Zona agroclimática
  • Semiárido

Derived from the publicly available data set on length of growing period (LGP) (Fischer 2009 / IIASA-FAO). Internet link: http://tiles.arcgis.com/tiles/P8Cok4qAP1sTVE59/arcgis/rest/services/Length_of_growing_period/MapServer

5.2 Topografia

Encostas em média:
  • Plano (0-2%)
  • Suave ondulado (3-5%)
  • Ondulado (6-10%)
  • Moderadamente ondulado (11-15%)
  • Forte ondulado (16-30%)
  • Montanhoso (31-60%)
  • Escarpado (>60%)
Formas de relevo:
  • Planalto/planície
  • Cumes
  • Encosta de serra
  • Encosta de morro
  • Sopés
  • Fundos de vale
Zona de altitude:
  • 0-100 m acima do nível do mar
  • 101-500 m acima do nível do mar
  • 501-1.000 m acima do nível do mar
  • 1.001-1.500 m acima do nível do mar
  • 1.501-2.000 m acima do nível do mar
  • 2.001-2.500 m acima do nível do mar
  • 2.501-3.000 m acima do nível do mar
  • 3.001-4.000 m acima do nível do mar
  • > 4.000 m acima do nível do mar

5.4 Disponibilidade e qualidade de água

Lençol freático:

5-50 m

Disponibilidade de água de superfície:

Médio

Qualidade da água (não tratada):

Água potável boa

A salinidade da água é um problema?

Não

Ocorre inundação da área?

Sim

Regularidade:

Esporádicamente

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 low lying stream. Dashti Mirzai has good water availability also from an irrigation channel.

5.5 Biodiversidade

Diversidade de espécies:
  • low
Diversidade de habitat:
  • low

5.6 Características dos usuários da terra que utilizam a tecnologia

Sedentário ou nômade:
  • Seminômade
Orientação de mercado do sistema de produção:
  • Misto (subsistência/comercial)
Rendimento não agrícola:
  • 10-50% de toda renda
Nível relativo de riqueza:
  • Rico
Indivíduos ou grupos:
  • Indivíduo/unidade familiar
Nível de mecanização:
  • Trabalho manual
Gênero:
  • Mulheres
  • Homens
Idade dos usuários da terra:
  • meia-idade
  • idosos
Indique outras características relevantes dos usuários da terra:

Source: Based on the data collected by CDE and HAFL.
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 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 great 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 Média da área de terra própria ou arrendada por usuários da terra que utilizam a tecnologia

  • < 0,5 ha
  • 0,5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1.000 ha
  • 1.000-10.000 ha
  • > 10.000 ha
É considerado pequena, média ou grande escala (referente ao contexto local)?
  • Média escala

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.

5.9 Acesso a serviços e infraestrutura

Saúde:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Educação:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Assistência técnica:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Emprego (p. ex. não agrícola):
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Mercados:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Energia:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Vias e transporte:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Água potável e saneamento:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom
Serviços finais:
  • Pobre
  • Moderado
  • Bom

6. Impactos e declarações finais

6.1 Impactos no local mostrados pela tecnologia

Impactos socioeconômicos

Produção

Produção de forragens

Diminuído
Elevado

Produção animal

Diminuído
Elevado

Produção florestal não madeireira

Diminuído
Elevado

Diversidade de produtos

Diminuído
Elevado

Área de produção

Diminuído
Elevado

Impactos socioculturais

Conhecimento de gestão sustentável da terra/degradação da terra

Reduzido
Melhorado
Comentários/especificar:

Land users learned how to implement SLM practices.

Situação de grupos social e economicamente desfavorecidos

Agravado
Melhorado
Comentários/especificar:

Female headed households are not included. Technology is implemented on private land, therefore people without land are excluded. However, they have the opportunity to earn income as a hired worker for the SLM implementers.

6.2 Impactos externos mostrados pela tecnologia

Comentários relativos à avaliação de impacto:

These comments apply to 6.1:
- 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 terrace 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 muito bem
Comentários:

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

Como os benefícios se comparam aos custos de implantação (do ponto de vista dos usuários da terra)?
Retornos a curto prazo:

muito positivo

Retornos a longo prazo:

muito positivo

Comentários:

Based on the multi-criteria matrix: During the FGD with SLM implementers, a multi-criteria matrix was elaborated, and different SLM practices were rated. In the frame of this exercise, SLM implementers were asked to jointly discuss and rate short term (1-3 years) and long-term (10 years) returns. As the SLM technology was only 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 technology. The ratings are mostly based on expected benefits and not on actual benefits.

6.5 Adoção da tecnologia

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

3 households took part in implementing the Technology

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%".

6.6 Adaptação

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

Não

6.7 Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades da tecnologia

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The animals are protected from severe cold weather during the winter. The ventilation is good for keeping the air clean inside the livestock shelter.
Lower risks of animal diseases.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved facility, proper feeding and and watering could reduce diseases and enhance the quality of meat and milk.
The survival of livestock may increase potentially, particularly losses may decrease during winter.

6.8 Pontos fracos, desvantagens/riscos da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Renovation works are too costly and many farmers cannot afford to purchase all the construction material
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Due to high establishment costs the practice is less likely to spread among the land users and will remain experimental.

7. Referências e links

7.1 Métodos/fontes de informação

  • interviews with land users

Focus group discussions (FGD) were organized to collect information from SLM implementers in Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana and Dashti Mirzai.

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

Close collaboration took place during the compilation of this material with the technical staff of the LIPT project in Rustaq.

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Information provided in the reports of Tdh LIPT Project in Rustaq served as an initial source of information during the preparatory phase and also solidifying the description of the technology and area of implementation. Other background papers on Afghanistan were referred to for general information on agriculture and natural resource management in Afghanistan.

7.2 Referências às publicações disponíveis

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guidelines for Focus Group Discussions

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Methods section of the Rustaq NRM study

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules