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)

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

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 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

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 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

Indicate year of implementation:

2014

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 animal health

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

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management

• Livestock management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• not applicable

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

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 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

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.	Selection and inspection of the livestock shed for referbishing	Management
2.	Design of measures for referbishment	Management
3.	Transportation of construction materials	Other measures
4.	Covering the internal and external walls with plaster	Structural
5.	Installation of doors and windows	Structural
6.	Installation of feed racks, water trough and ventilator	Structural

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	Transportation of construction materials	person-day	1.0	52.0	52.0
Labour	Preparation works	person-day	2.0	5.3	10.6
Labour	Rennovation works (doors, windows, water tanker and feed slot)	person-day	14.0	5.3	74.2	100.0
Construction material	Pipe for air ventilation	piece	3.0	7.4	22.2
Construction material	Lime	Bag	1.0	14.0	14.0
Construction material	Cement	Bag	10.0	5.2	52.0
Construction material	Door	piece	1.0	59.0	59.0
Construction material	Window	piece	2.0	22.0	44.0
Construction material	Cloth	Meter	12.0	1.8	21.6
Other	Water tank for animals	piece	2.0	8.9	17.8
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					367.4

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

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Repair of the roof with clay	Structural	Autumn

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	Repair of the roof	person day	2.0	5.3	10.6	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					10.6

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

5.4 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 low lying 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:

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 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:

• 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.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Socio-cultural impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Comments regarding impact assessment:

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 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	very 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 matrices 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 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 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

3 households took part in implementing the Technology

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 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 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?
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.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guidelines for Focus Group Discussions

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Methods section of the Rustaq NRM study