Government assisted rangeland rehabilitation [Syrian Arab Republic]

approaches_2334 - Syrian Arab Republic

Completeness: 75%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Gintzburger Gustave

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon

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:


1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The rehabilitation of overgrazed and denuded rangeland with government intervention

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Based on the technology of range pitting and reseeding, a cost-effective way to rehabilitate rangelands, government institutions are rehabilitating large areas of public rangelands using a simple vehicle drawn pitting and reseeding implement.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied


Syrian Arab Republic

Region/ State/ Province:


2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (rangeland rehabilitation, water harvesting, livestock grazing)

To prevent reduce rangeland degradation and rehabilitate degraded rangelands in a cost-effective way. To improve livestock production through the improvement of biomass production on the rangelands

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The control of rangeland denudation and degradation by wind and water erosion.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

The landusers are not aware of modern technologies

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Raise the level of awareness and extension

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Although the technology is not expensive, the land users do not have sufficient funds

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Attractive loans to the land users

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

The seeds are usually not covered by soil and may be blown away

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Improve design of the pitting machine/seder to provide soil cover after seeding

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Working land users were mainly men

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Steppe Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture

  • 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 none
planning none
implementation interactive
monitoring/ evaluation none
Research none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • SLM specialists alone

directive (top-down).

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by politicians / leaders. directive (top-down).

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?


Specify who was trained:
  • land users
Form of training:
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

The overall degradation of rangelends and the need to rehabilitate the rangelands

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Field days; Key elements: open discussion, short presentations by extensionists; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system 2) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Field days

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



technical aspects were regular monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Modifications of the equipment used for pitting and seeding

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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:
  • 10,000-100,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (ICARDA): 65.0%; government (national - Ministry of Agriculture): 35.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?


5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery fully financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • paid in cash

At government-approved minimum wage rate

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

They protected the pits from grazing to conserve moisture

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • uncertain
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Although the technology is cost-effective, the landusrs do not have sufficient financial means to continue with the range rehabilitation measures without assistance

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all