This is an outdated, inactive version of this case.
Go to the current version.
Approaches
Inactive
Observatoire Territorial de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles [Tunisia]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Wafa Saidi
- Editors: Siagbé Golli, Faouzi Harrouchi, faouzi BATTI, Fatma Maaloul
- Reviewers: William Critchley, Rima Mekdaschi Studer
approaches_6642 - Tunisia
View sections
Expand all Collapse all
Completeness: 83%
1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Direction Générale de l’Amenagement et de Conservation des Terres Agricoles (DG/ACTA) - TunisiaName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
GIZ Tunisia (GIZ Tunisia) - Tunisia1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
01/03/2023
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Ja
1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies
Jessour [Tunisia]
Jessour is an ancient runoff water harvesting technique widely practiced in the arid highlands
- Compiler: Mongi Ben Zaied
Tabia [Tunisia]
The tabia earthen dyke is a water harvesting technique used in the foothill and piedmont areas.
- Compiler: Mongi Ben Zaied
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
L’observatoire territorial de gestion des ressources naturelles est un dispositif scientifique, technique et institutionnel mis en place sur un territoire, pour assurer une fonction d’observation, de suivi, et d’amélioration de la connaissance.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
La révolution tunisienne a souligné la nécessité d'une plus grande participation des citoyens aux processus de développement rural et de gestion des ressources naturelles.
En plaçant la décentralisation et l'autonomie fiscale et administrative des collectivités territoriales au cœur de la nouvelle constitution, la DG/ACTA souhaite promouvoir une approche de planification concertée pour une gestion intégrée et durable des ressources naturelles vulnérables, un développement économique en milieu rural et une amélioration de la gouvernance pour le développement territorial. Et afin d'atteindre ces objectifs, la DGACTA a commencé la mise en place d'une plateforme multi
institutionnelle de collecte, traitement, analyse et diffusion des informations, d'une part, et de planification concertée et d'aide à la décision, d'autre part. C'est l’observatoire territorial de gestion des ressources naturelles.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
Media Gallery
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Tunisia
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:
less than 10 years ago (recently)
2.7 Type of Approach
- project/ programme based
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- enabling
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- enabling
institutional setting
- enabling
collaboration/ coordination of actors
- enabling
policies
- enabling
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- enabling
markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
- enabling
other
- enabling
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
- community-based organizations
- SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
- researchers
- NGO
- private sector
- local government
- national government (planners, decision-makers)
- international organization
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
| Involvement of local land users/ local communities | Specify who was involved and describe activities | |
|---|---|---|
| initiation/ motivation | interactive | None |
| planning | interactive | None |
| implementation | interactive | None |
| monitoring/ evaluation | interactive | None |
3.3 Flow chart (if available)
3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies
Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
- all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
- evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
- research findings
- personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
4.1 Capacity building/ training
Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?
Ja
Specify who was trained:
- land users
- field staff/ advisers
Form of training:
- demonstration areas
- public meetings
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Ja
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- on land users' fields
- at permanent centres
4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)
Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
- yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
- local
- regional
- national
Specify type of support:
- capacity building/ training
- equipment
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Ja
If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?
Nee
4.5 Research
Was research part of the Approach?
Ja
Specify topics:
- sociology
- ecology
- technology
5. Financing and external material support
5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach
If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
- 100,000-1,000,000
5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users
Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?
Ja
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
- equipment
| Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
|---|---|---|
| machinery | partly financed | None |
- agricultural
| Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
|---|---|---|
| seeds | partly financed | |
| fertilizers | partly financed | |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- paid in cash
5.4 Credit
Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?
Nee
5.5 Other incentives or instruments
Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?
Nee
6. Impact analysis and concluding statements
6.1 Impacts of the Approach
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- increased production
- increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
- reduced land degradation
- reduced risk of disasters
- environmental consciousness
- enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
- uncertain
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
Jessour [Tunisia]
Jessour is an ancient runoff water harvesting technique widely practiced in the arid highlands
- Compiler: Mongi Ben Zaied
Tabia [Tunisia]
The tabia earthen dyke is a water harvesting technique used in the foothill and piedmont areas.
- Compiler: Mongi Ben Zaied
Modules
No modules