This is an outdated, inactive version of this case.
Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive
Plantation d’arbustes fourragers [Tunisia]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Donia Mühlematter
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Donia Mühlematter
غراسة الشجيرات العلفية
technologies_4051 - Tunisia
- Full summary as PDF
- Full summary as PDF for print
- Full summary in the browser
- Full summary (unformatted)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Nov. 22, 2018 (public)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Nov. 6, 2018 (inactive)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Sept. 20, 2018 (inactive)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Sept. 20, 2018 (inactive)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Sept. 17, 2018 (inactive)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Sept. 17, 2018 (inactive)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Sept. 17, 2018 (inactive)
- Plantation d’arbustes fourragers: Sept. 17, 2018 (inactive)
View sections
Expand all Collapse all
Completeness: 71%
1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}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 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?
No
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.3 Photos of the Technology
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Tunisia
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
- 10-50 years ago
2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Specify how the Technology was introduced:
- through land users' innovation
- through projects/ external interventions
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- conserve ecosystem
- reduce risk of disasters
- adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Grazing land
Extensive grazing land:
- Nomadism
- Semi-nomadism/ pastoralism
3.3 Further information about land use
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- pastoralism and grazing land management
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
3.5 Spread of the Technology
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:
- 0.1-1 km2
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
management measures
- M2: Change of management/ intensity level
- M5: Control/ change of species composition
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
physical soil deterioration
- Ps: subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil
- Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities
biological degradation
- Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/01/1/01124735-e5a3-4b04-b178-89c624903d50.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/40/0/40080548-8be5-45b7-802d-222be5c4b1c4.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}
4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
- per Technology area
4.4 Establishment activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | None | Management | |
2. | None | Management | |
3. | None | Agronomic | |
4. | None | Vegetative | |
5. | None | Management |
4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | None | None | 20.0 | 10.0 | 200.0 | |
Plant material | None | 1.0 | 300.0 | 300.0 | ||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 500.0 |
4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | None | Agronomic | |
2. | None | Agronomic | |
3. | None | Management |
4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | None | None | 1.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Labour | None | None | 1.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Labour | None | None | 1.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 300.0 |
5. Natural and human environment
5.1 Climate
Annual rainfall
- < 250 mm
- 251-500 mm
- 501-750 mm
- 751-1,000 mm
- 1,001-1,500 mm
- 1,501-2,000 mm
- 2,001-3,000 mm
- 3,001-4,000 mm
- > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
- arid
5.2 Topography
Slopes on average:
- flat (0-2%)
- gentle (3-5%)
- moderate (6-10%)
- rolling (11-15%)
- hilly (16-30%)
- steep (31-60%)
- very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
- plateau/plains
- ridges
- mountain slopes
- hill slopes
- footslopes
- valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
- 0-100 m a.s.l.
- 101-500 m a.s.l.
- 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
- 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
- 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
- 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
- 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
- 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
- > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
- concave situations
5.3 Soils
Soil depth on average:
- very shallow (0-20 cm)
- shallow (21-50 cm)
- moderately deep (51-80 cm)
- deep (81-120 cm)
- very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
< 5 m
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
poor drinking water (treatment required)
Is water salinity a problem?
Yes
Is flooding of the area occurring?
No
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Habitat diversity:
- low
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Sedentary or nomadic:
- Sedentary
- Semi-nomadic
Market orientation of production system:
- subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
- less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- very poor
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
- animal traction
Gender:
- men
Age of land users:
- middle-aged
- elderly
5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology
- < 0.5 ha
- 0.5-1 ha
- 1-2 ha
- 2-5 ha
- 5-15 ha
- 15-50 ha
- 50-100 ha
- 100-500 ha
- 500-1,000 ha
- 1,000-10,000 ha
- > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
- medium-scale
- large-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- individual
Water use rights:
- individual
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
health:
- poor
- moderate
- good
education:
- poor
- moderate
- good
technical assistance:
- poor
- moderate
- good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
- poor
- moderate
- good
markets:
- poor
- moderate
- good
energy:
- poor
- moderate
- good
roads and transport:
- poor
- moderate
- good
drinking water and sanitation:
- poor
- moderate
- good
financial services:
- poor
- moderate
- good
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
fodder production
decreased
animal production
decreased
Income and costs
farm income
decreased
Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups
worsened
Ecological impacts
Soil
soil cover
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
decreased
plant diversity
decreased
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 | Type of climatic change/ extreme | How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|---|---|
annual temperature | increase | moderately | |
annual rainfall | decrease | moderately |
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
slightly positive
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- 1-10%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 10-50%
6.6 Adaptation
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
No
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules