Approaches

Territorial Natural Resource Management Observatory [Tunisia]

approaches_6642 - Tunisia

View sections

Expand all
Completeness: 83%

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:

Faouzi Harrouchi

SLM specialist:

faouzi BATTI

SLM specialist:

Fatma Maaloul

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) - Tunisia
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Tunisia (GIZ Tunisia) - Tunisia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

03/01/2023

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

Dry Stone Walls
technologies

Dry Stone Walls [Tunisia]

Dry stone walls are durable landscaping structures created by arranging stones to construct small walls (without cement or plaster) either following contour lines or approximately perpendicular to the slope.

  • Compiler: Wafa Saidi
Mechanical Benches
technologies

Mechanical Benches [Tunisia]

Mechanical bench terraces are a landscaping technique employed on sloping terrain. These are essentially mechanically constructed earthen levees or embankments established along contour lines.

  • Compiler: Wafa Saidi
Contour tillage
technologies

Contour tillage [Tunisia]

Contour ploughing is an agricultural technique involving the cultivation of sloping land along contour lines. This technique creates a succession of closely spaced ridges and furrows which help to retain water and soil.

  • Compiler: Wafa Saidi
Individual Dry-Stone Basins
technologies

Individual Dry-Stone Basins [Tunisia]

Individual dry-stone basins are a traditional runoff water collection technique built in dry stone around the trunk of trees, mainly olive trees.

  • Compiler: Wafa Saidi
Jessour
technologies

Jessour [Tunisia]

Jessour is an ancient runoff water harvesting technique widely practiced in the arid highlands

  • Compiler: Mongi Ben Zaied
Tabia
technologies

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

A territorial natural resources management observatory is a scientific, technical and institutional system set up in a given area to observe, monitor and improve knowledge.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Tunisian revolution underscored the need for increased citizen involvement in rural development and the management of natural resources. With a focus on decentralization and providing local authorities with fiscal and administrative autonomy as key components of the new Constitution, DG/ACTA aims to promote a collaborative planning approach for the integrated and sustainable management of vulnerable natural resources, economic development in rural areas, and improved governance for territorial development.
To achieve these goals, DG/ACTA has initiated the establishment of a multi-institutional platform. This platform serves the purpose of collecting, processing, analyzing, and disseminating information, as well as providing support for concerted planning and decision-making. This platform is known as the Territorial Observatory for Natural Resource Management.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

Media Gallery

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

Country:

Tunisia

Map preview

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?

Yes

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?

Yes

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?

Yes

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

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?

Yes

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?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

No

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 all

Modules

No modules