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)

Groupement de développement agricole Oasis centre Gabes (GDA Oasis centre Gabes 2024)

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

FAO Tunisia (FAO Tunisia)

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:

Ja

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?

Nee

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Shallow tillage involves disturbing the upper layer of soil without deep ploughing. It aims to provide a good seedbed, incorporate manure, control weeds, and enhance water infiltration while minimizing soil erosion and compaction. A machine tiller has recently replaced animal traction for this purpose.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Shallow tillage (15-20cm deep) involves disturbing the upper layer of soil and avoids deep ploughing. It aims to provide a good seedbed, while incorporating manure, controlling weeds, and enhancing water infiltration. Soil erosion is minimised, compaction is reduced and because deeper layers are not disturbed, less soil organic matter is oxidised.

Shallow tillage - sometimes called “superficial” or “light” tillage – disturbs only the topsoil and brings several benefits. These include:

* Soil Structure Preservation: Maintains the underlying soil structure, reducing the risk of compaction and erosion.
* Moisture Conservation: Helps retain soil moisture by reducing evaporation from deeper layers.
* Reduced Erosion: Minimizes soil erosion by maintaining residues.
* Increased Microbial Activity: Promotes beneficial microbial activity in the topsoil, enhancing soil health.
* Nutrient Management: Allows for targeted application of fertilizers and amendments, as it primarily affects the upper soil layer.
* Time and Labour Efficiency: Generally, requires less time and fewer resources compared to deep tillage methods.

Smallholders in Gabes, South-East Tunisia practice shallow tillage and were interviewed to gain extra insights into this technology. They were welcoming and happy to share their knowledge while gaining information about enhancing their own production systems.

These smallholders farm in “The Oasis of Gabes” where there is a specific design of multi-storey agroforestry with trees, shrubs and vegetable crops. This requires specific agronomic practices. One of these practices is shallow tillage. A machine tiller has recently replaced animal traction for this purpose. They would prefer a no-till technique, however this would be more costly because it requires extra manure and soil cover by mulching or sand backfill. This may be possible for another category of farmers.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

This technique has been practiced for decades. What has changed are the tools used for tillage. For example, previously a tiller was pulled by a domestic animal (a cow, a horse, a donkey...etc.)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

There is a lack of water and risk of drought in the south eastern region. We are working with farmers on recovering rainwater .

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Some farmers are using mulching for soil coverage and protection from weeds.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The studied lands are situated in Gabes, south east of Tunisia. The region is characterised by a semi arid climate, Soil is exposed to winds . We have to mention that the area is polluted compared to other regions in the country. This has badly affected the cropping systems and created an unbalanced ecological system. The polluted atmosphere has contributed to less rainfall.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation
• adapt to land degradation

Comments:

The majority of farmers are looking for adaptation techniques. Climate change has created climatic aberrations such as a rise in temperature, a decrease of the minimum number of hours of cold that are necessary for dormancy of seeds and trees. By necessity, current agronomic practices of farmers have changed in order to improve the cropping system.

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

other/ national currency (specify):

TND

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

3.07

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

150.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Exposing the soil to the sun to kill pathogens	July-August
2.	Keeping the soil dry and more stable	the mid final August
3.	Contracting with labour and machinery	August
4.	Making the minimum tillage (it depends on the surface)	September-October
5.	Tillage	Twice a year

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

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

350.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most important factors affecting the costs are: the need to keep more moisture in the soil, good aeration for roots, improvement of soil texture and increase in organic matter.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Ja

Specify:

The average of salinity water is 3.5-5.7 g/L

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Referring to scientific studies and indicators used to measure biodiversity in the oasis, we find out that many species have migrated, become extinct or are threatened by extinction. This can be explained for several reasons such as: excessive urbanisation in rural areas and polluted ecosystem, etc.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Ja

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm	not well
local sandstorm/ duststorm	moderately
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	not well
extreme winter conditions	not well at all
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	well
insect/ worm infestation	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
sea level rise	not known

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

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

120

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

• 51-90%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Ja

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• climatic change/ extremes

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The technology was adapted through design and material - specifically the type of machine use for tillage.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The technology has several virtues for Oasis ecosystem. Since it is a specific agriculture system, it requires constant interventions and various techniques. The technology allow farmers to care about their lands sustainably.
The technique is not costly affecting the farmer
The technique is adapted to the oasian ecosystem and the bioeconomy circumstances.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technique is not costly. Agriculture costs affect the decision of farmers in this area
It is a revenue incoming for cultivator owners
The timing adapted by farmers to till is very important. The technique enhances the manure and incorporation of fallen leaves. This enhances the amount and stability of organic material in the soil.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
It is a limited technique because of small plots of land	expanding the cultivated area
it requires physical effort	encouraging precision mechanisation

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

https://www.laboasis.org/oasis-traditional-water-systems/

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Les eaux de drainage de l'oasis de gabes

URL:

https://www.eyrolles.com/Litterature/Livre/les-eaux-de-drainage-de-l-oasis-de-gabes-9783841663160/

7.4 General comments

Le groupement de développement agricole oasis centre Gabes is encouraging these kind of initiatives in order to develop water and natural resource management for the benefit of small scale farmers. Thanks for his willingness to accept this initiative when I suggested it .Thanks to WOCAT and University of Bern for this insightful platform and distinguished team. It is such a pleasure to contribute to such a global initiative and present the method worldwide.
I have a remark. Farmers are more interactive when I interviewed them one to one in their lands. I suggest that WOCAT platform editors might give more columns to fill each farmers data so that the survey might be statistically be effective and correct.