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)

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)

Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (HAFL) - 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 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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.

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

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 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

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 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

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

Comments:

Number of growing seasons per year: 1

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Comments:

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

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

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 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:

• USD

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

67.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	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 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Leveling the land	person-day	100.0	5.3	530.0	100.0
Labour	Sowing alfalfa	person-day	5.0	5.3	26.5	100.0
Labour	Site protection	year	1.0	447.0	447.0	100.0
Equipment	Shovel	piece	1.0	3.8	3.8	100.0
Equipment	Rope	meter	50.0	0.07	3.5	100.0
Equipment	Rake	piece	1.0	3.0	3.0
Plant material	Alfalfa seed		17.5	0.42	7.35
Fertilizers and biocides	DAP	kg	125.0	0.9	112.5
Fertilizers and biocides	Urea	Kg	125.0	0.45	56.25	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1189.9
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					17.76

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

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Hay making	Summer
2.	Delivery of hay to the fodder bank	Fall
3.	Protection of the pasture during quarantine	Three years

4.6 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	Hay making	person day	35.0	5.3	185.5	100.0
Labour	Delivery of the hay to the fodder bank	person day	35.0	5.3	185.5	100.0
Labour	Protection during quarantine	year	2.0	447.0	894.0	100.0
Equipment	Sickle	piece	1.0	2.25	2.25	100.0
Equipment	Pitchfork	piece	1.0	5.3	5.3	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1272.55
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					18.99

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

4.7 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 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 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 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 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, 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 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

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 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

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

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 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:

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 Cost-benefit analysis

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

Comments:

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 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

6.1 ha

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

• 11-50%

Comments:

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 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 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.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
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 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?
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.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
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 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