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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)

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

Institut des Régions Arides de Médenine (Institut des Régions Arides de Médenine) - 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:

Yes

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Integrated land and water management approach, including vegetative, management, and agronomic measure

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The overall purpose of the approach is to prevent soil and water loss by combined measures and to provide a better environment. Soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies, based on harvesting area of surface water and underground water, are implemented to conserve soil and water and to improve the production and the biodiversity.

Methods: This approach is designed for the exploitation of water runoff for agricultural development, particularly for fruit trees cropping (mainly olives).This can be achieved through erosion reduction and aquifer recharge via runoff water infiltration into the terraces, slope angle and length reduction, runoff retaining, infiltration increase and soil loss reduction. The system is based on various runoff water harvesting systems, as jessour, tabias. It is marked by fruit tree development, notably olives. On the terraces, the fruit trees are arranged in inter-rows with the three main species encountered in the study areas. Generally, olive trees are planted, with in between rows almonds and/ or fig trees. SWC technologies play an importance role in arid zones. Since the 1970s, the Tunisian state has encouraged the local population to conserve water and soil in arid zone. Successive programmes and strategies of water and soil conservation have been developed and were implemented in all three natural regions of Tunisia (North, Centre and South).These techniques can be implemented by farmer with governmental subsidies or by government intervention in the projects and programmes of water and soil conservation. During the last decade, the Tunisian government implemented the first national strategy for soil and water conservation (1990-2000) and the second national strategy for soil and water conservation (2001-2011). These strategies mobilized important funds at national and regional levels. About 672.5 ha of SWC technologies were built and about 550 ha of SWC technologies are planned for the second national strategy.

Stages of implementation: 1) Assessment of the current natural resources and socio-economic conditions; 2) Proposition of actions at local and regional level; 3) Aggregation and coherence at the national level; 4) implementation of national action plan at local and regional level.

Role of stakeholders: Different levels of intervention are observed from the individual farm, through the community level, the extension / advisory system, the regional or national administration, or the policy level, to the international framework. The participative approach is usually applied in the construction of SWC technologies.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only (production, soil fertility, biodiversity, employement oppourtunities, food self-sufficiency, fixing population and stop farming exodus)

The objectives of the approach are to control soil and water loss to reduce floods and enhance fertility, to enhance rainfed agriculture productivity, to improve the livelihoods of farmers, to contribute to the production increase among farmers and pastoralists, to recharge the groundwater and to extend the area of cropland.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The problems originate in the scarcity of water which is leading to conflicts over resource use between farmers. Oversized techniques leading to prevention of runoff from upstream to downstream reduce agricultural production and therefore the farm income, which causes a lack of cash to invest in SLM. In some cases irreversible land degradation is the result. The problems are mainly related to the lack of technical knowledge, the high costs of investment and the lack of tangible and assessable impacts of SWC activities, technically or socially.

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

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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	Farmers and local population are very familiar with traditional SWC applied. Therefore the receptiveness to these techniques is very high. There is state encouragement through subsidies.
planning	interactive	Workshops/seminars; After a programme is granted, the implementing agency and local communities work together.
implementation	external support	Responsibilities are divided into major steps; In practice, local communities are the major part to manage and carry out.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Participative evaluation; Interviews/questionnaires.
Research	interactive	It can give some suggestions or questionnaires.

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:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

consultative,explain

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. Decisions are made by politicians/SWC specialists; land users are consulted in the planning phase (experienced farmers may be involved initially).

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

The capacity building programme and activities have benefited farmers representing the diversity of land users (women and men); representatives of NGO; local and external stakeholders, engineers and technicians responsible of the services of agriculture and forest.

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Training focused on teaching them how to design and build SWC technologies, how to implement these technologies and about the participatory approach.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Integrated watershed management; Key elements: Training and demonstration open days, Demonstration plots implemented in private farms, Target farmers groups are visited by specialist to help and advise them.; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system. Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: planners; Activities: training

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The extension system is adequate to ensure continuation of activities. At each governorate level, there is a SWC division which is in charge of SWC activities, including its extension.extension

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial

Give further details:

support with financial resources, capacity building, training, institutional support. The financial schema is made of three main components: self-financing from farmers and beneficiaries, subsidies from the government and credit from bank.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: investigation/ of yield, income of land users, rainfed productivity

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Investigation of land users perceptions of cultural change

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Indicators are runoff loss, sediment load, soil moisture

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by government through measurements; indicators: Impact assessment

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by government through measurements; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: for example at the institutional level.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

• approaches

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Land users have been involved. SWC technologies construction is based on scientific design, according to local conditions.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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: local community / land user(s): 20.0%; national non-government: 5.0%; government: 55.0%; international: 20.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• construction

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

Voluntary but rewarded with in-kind support by government subsidies

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

repayment conditions: Credit was promoted through agricultural banks with various interest rates, usually lower than market rates.

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

Can given the recent escalation in payments made to land users for implementation under certain projects it seems that the costs will be too high to sustain. Currently the Ministry of Agricultural is demanding that in-depth cost-benefit analyses are carried out involving environmental, social as well as economic assessments

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduction of soil erosion (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: ensure the durability of the works implemented)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improvement of livelihood (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: spreading and improvement of a more holistic SLM approach focusing on livelihoods)
Many people involved and trained at different levels (pyramid system) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: participatory approach)
More participation and involvement of local population (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Improve participatory approach and increase confidence between partners)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Abandonment of the works, less maintenance	Continue to support farmers and local institution and organisation. Repairing and maintaining in time.
Low impact on livelihood conditions	improve efficiency of SWC activities and participatory approach

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Less confidence between partners and less participation	improve dialog and communication; improve efficiency of SWC activities and participatory approach.
High costs: farmers depend on external support from the government; they are not willing to invest their labour without payments	New approach should give farmers loans for construction as now they use machines to do the work. In addition, search for cheaper SWC technologies and for improving the benefits.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Genin D., Guillaume H., Ouessar M., Ouled Belgacem A., Romagny B., Sghaier M., Taamallah H. (Eds) 2006. Entre la désertification et le développement : la Jeffara tunisienne. CERES, Tunis; de Graaff J. & Ouessar M. (Eds.) 2002Water harvesting in Mediterranean zones: an impact assessment and economic evaluation.

Available from where? Costs?

TRMP paper n° 40, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Water harvesting in Mediterranean zones: an impact assessment and economic evaluation.

Available from where? Costs?

TRMP paper n° 40, Wageningen University, The Netherlands