1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

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 project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar, Afghanistan (LIPT)

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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/10/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

Comments:

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.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Non-fruit and fruit trees are planted on heavily degraded forest land to protect the land from erosion and further degradation and provide fuelwood for the local community.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Project supported implementation of afforestation has taken place in the villages of 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 and 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 580 mm. Land degradation affects all forms of land use, and includes low levels of vegetation cover, severe water erosion of topsoil, and poor soil fertility. Unsustainable agricultural practices, over-exploitation and high pressure on the natural resources are adversely impacting the socio-economic well-being of local communities, as well as contributing to the risk of being adversely affected by drought - and landslides and flash foods triggered by heavy rainfall. The data used for the documentation of the technology are based on field research conducted in Chokar watershed, namely in the villages of Sari Joy, Jawaz Khana and Dashti Mirzai. These villages represent the upper, the middle and the lower zones 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

Despite the low forest cover in Rustaq, Afghanistan, local communities strongly rely on fuelwood and animal dung for cooking and heating throughout the whole year. Forests are mainly found on community land with open access to all, and there are no protection measures in place. The high demand on fuelwood for household needs places strong pressure on the remaining patches of forests and bushes, which are currently threatened by eradication. Such high demand in the area is likely to remain as there are no other alternative energy sources. The mass destruction of local forests is one of the main causes of intensive erosion, aridification, loss of topsoil and formation of gullies. Low forest cover increases vulnerability to severe rainfall and risks of landslides.

Afforestation measures in the three villages were initiated to halt the land degradation and provide sustainable firewood. The reforestation sites are largely on community land with a small share on private land. The area is characterized by hilly (16-30%) and steep (31-60%) slopes. Planting and maintaining forest in such conditions requires close support in the appropriate design of forest plots, and relevant maintenance recommendations, which can then ensure the survival of the plantation. A plot of 0.2 ha is divided into 4 m x 3 m sections. Each tree is placed in a pit of 50 cm x 30 cm with rich soil around the roots. Once the tree is planted, it is watered and covered with lime. Russian willow, acacia, mulberry and almond are the most common tree species used for afforestation purposes.

Most of the newly established forest sites are located at walking distance of the nearby villages: this is important to help provide protection of the plot from animal intrusion and ensure proper maintenance of the trees. The forest plot is watered for three years in a row. The Natural Resources Management Committees (NRMC) pays 0.60 US cents per tree per year to sustain the survival of the plantation within the first year. The funding for the irrigation is provided by the Livelihood Improvement Project Takhar (LIPT). LIPT supported the afforestation activities through the provision of technical and financial support. The tree seedlings were supplied by the project, and financial incentives were provided to engage the community in tree-planting.

The plantations are still very young: however, the land users express support for the new forest in their villages, and have observed localized stabilization of the soil and improvement in vegetation cover. There are high expectations of the new forest, which promises access to sustainable fuelwood and non-forest products, such as almonds and mulberry. The grass and tree leaves from the forest plots are already used for animal fodder.

Women and children under 15 years old are expected to be the direct beneficiaries of the new forest. They will no longer spend long hours to collect and deliver fuelwood, bushes and dung. A small portion of women reported involvement in forest establishment activities, while the majority are taking part in protecting the forests from livestock.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

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

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• reduce risk of disasters

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Some of the forest land has been heavily degraded and was used as grazing land for an extensive period. Most of the land is forest land.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

During the first three years the forest requires irrigation due to aridity. The first year of irrigation is supported by the project, and the rest of the irrigation measures are implemented by the local community with the support of the NRMC.

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Comments:

23.6 ha

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The establishment activities begin with selecting the area for reforestation. Most of the reforestation sites are on slopes above 6% steepness . A plot of 0.2 ha is divided into 4 m x 3 m sections. Planting pits of 50 cm x 30 cm are prepared for planting the trees. Each tree is placed in a pit and good soil is added to the roots. Most popular species used for reforestation are: Russian willow, acacia and mulberry. The newly planted tree is watered and the trunk is covered with a lime and water solution for protection and better growth.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

67.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Design of the forest plot	Management	Winter
2.	Digging pits 50 cmx 30 cm for tree plantation	Structural	End of winter
3.	Planting tree seedlings 3m x 4m	Vegetative	Spring/Rainy season
4.	Watering the tree after planting	Vegetative	Spring
5.	Covering the tree with lime	Other measures	Spring

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Design of the forest	person-day	15.0	5.3	79.5
Labour	Digging pits/holes for the trees	person-day	22.0	5.3	116.6
Labour	Planting tree seedlings and watering	person-day	15.0	5.3	79.5
Labour	Fertilizer and lime application	person-day	8.0	5.3	42.4
Equipment	Meter	piece	1.0	2.25	2.25
Equipment	Shovel	piece	2.0	3.8	7.6
Equipment	Pickaxe	piece	1.0	2.25	2.25
Equipment	Rope	meter	500.0	0.07	35.0
Plant material	Accacia seedlings	piece	275.0	0.45	123.75
Plant material	Russian willow seedlings	piece	275.0	0.45	123.75
Plant material	Mulberry seedlings	piece	275.0	0.45	123.75
Fertilizers and biocides	DAP	kg	250.0	0.9	225.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Lime	kg	25.0	1.5	37.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					998.85

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

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

Comments:

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.

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Protecting the trees from livestock	Management	Spring/Summer
2.	Pest and disease control	Vegetative	Spring
3.	Irrigation	Agronomic	Summer/First three years
4.	Replanting dead trees	Vegetative	Spring
5.	Pruning	Agronomic	Spring

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Pest and disease control	person day	7.5	5.3	39.75	100.0
Labour	Replanting dead trees	person day	7.5	5.3	39.75	100.0
Labour	Irrigating the trees	person day	10.0	5.3	53.0	100.0
Labour	Pruning	person day	5.0	5.3	26.5	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					159.0

Comments:

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.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

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 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Local land users refer to the soil type where reforestation is implemented as:
Dark soil is characterized as: moderately deep; topsoil texture medium, below surface texture medium; and medium topsoil organic matter.
Light soil is characterized as: moderately deep; texture medium; medium, low organic matter.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Floods occur mainly during the rainy seasons in spring and autumn. Availability of surface water varies in the three study villages. Sari Joy and Dashti Mirzai have good surface water availability, which is also food for drinking. Jawaz Khana has poor water both in quality and availability. Water has to be fetched from a distant stream.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

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, 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 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• communal/ village
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

Those who own land and use water for irrigation are obliged to pay for water. The payment is made either in kind or in cash to Mirob - the person in charge of distributing water in the community. The amount of the payment varies from village to village.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Comments regarding impact assessment:

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.
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 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	very well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Comments:

Based on the multi-criteria matrix: SLM implementers 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 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

Comments:

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 framework 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 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

23.6 ha have been afforested with LIPT support

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 10-50%

Comments:

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 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The tree plantations protect the soil from erosion. The land is less vulnerable to heavy rainfall, which washes off the topsoil
There are very high expectations about production of firewood. Availability of firewood in local forest will make it much easier to access firewood for cooking and heating by local households.
Apart from firewood and wood production, other non-timber products are provided by the afforestation plots, such as fodder for livestock from grass (alfalfa, sainfoin) and tree leaves during autumn. Also some plots are planted with almond and mulberry, which can be collected for own use or for selling.
Local people value the recreational benefit of the forest, which make their villages greener and provide green spaces for the local people.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The afforestation measures in the village including establishing the forest and protecting it, mobilizing the community around a common goal, and this has a positive impact on the village as a whole.
The planted trees and grass under the trees improve the vegetation cover and increase soil quality, which is then less prone to erosion
Improved varieties of fruit and non-fruit tree species used for afforestation help to diversify the tree species in the village and make the soil less resistant to dry spells
The expected combined benefits of wood and non-wood products, especially when the harvesting period starts, may have positive impact on households' income and food security.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
The establishment costs for afforestation measures are very high
The young trees are vulnerability to droughts
During maintenance some plots require irrigation
Afforestation plots, which are established on former grazing land, reduces the grazing land in the village and deprives animals from grazing land

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Community provides weak or no protection of the afforestation site, which results in low tree survival
Weak funding sources for irrigation of the afforestation plots, particularly during the first three years when the trees are young, might compromise the new plantations
Afforestation is established mostly on community land, where unclear land tenure rights persist, which may cause conflict in the community over forest vs grazing land

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guidelines for Focus Groups Discussions

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Methods section of the Rustaq NRM study