This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.

Technologies

Inactive

Amélioration pastorale par la mise en repos [Tunisia]

Creation: 10/31/2018 12:22 p.m.
Update: 10/31/2018 12:50 p.m.
Compiler: Donia Mühlematter
Editor: –
Reviewer: Donia Mühlematter

تحسين المراعي باستعمال الإراحة القدال

technologies_4169 - Tunisia

View sections

Expand all

Completeness: 84%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

OULED BELGACEM Azaiez

Institut des Rögions Arides

Tunisia

SLM specialist:

NEFFATI Mohamed

Institut des Régions Arides 4119 El Fjè - Medenine - Tunisie

Tunisia

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

Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)

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

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

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

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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Les techniques de restauration sont généralement les plus conseillées si la dégradation n’a pas encore atteint le seuil d’irréversibilité et ce en raison de la facilité de leur application ainsi que leur coût relativement faible) Parmi les opérations de restauration, la mise en repos est la technique la plus couramment utilisée pour assurer la remontée biologique spontanée de la végétation originaire dégradée. Les résultats de la mise en repos réalisés dans plusieurs endroits arides où la dynamique de la végétation a connu un blocage, témoignent de l’efficacité de cette technique. Cette efficacité se traduit par une réinstallation et une régénération des espèces de haute valeur pastorale ayant disparu.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

La mise en repos se propose d’aider à l’initiation d’une dynamique ascendante des principaux types de parcours s’apprêtant à cette technique et d’asseoir une discipline de gestion basée sur le principe de la rotation ou du pâturage différé. Il s'agit d'un mode de gestion basé sur une utilisation régulière des sites retenus (abstraction faite de la nature de l’année), celle-ci alternant avec des périodes de récupération du couvert végétal de façon à aider à une remontée biologique de l’écosystème, tout en participant au soulagement d’autres sites soumis à une forte pression d’utilisation. Considérant les conditions écologiques du parcours cible, chaque parcelle mise en repos doit être mise hors usage pendant une période donnée en vue d’augmenter les chances de réhabiliter le stock en graines et/ou les souches des plantes pastorales les plus intéressantes et les plus affectées par la mauvaise gestion.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

Media Gallery

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Tunisia

Region/ State/ Province:

Menzel Habib- Gabes

Specify the spread of the Technology:

evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

0.1-1 km2

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

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:

during experiments/ research

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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:

Nomadism
Semi-nomadic pastoralism
Transhumant pastoralism

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:

rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

area closure (stop use, support restoration)
pastoralism and grazing land management
improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

management measures

M2: Change of management/ intensity level
M3: Layout according to natural and human environment

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

physical soil deterioration

Pc: compaction
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
Bh: loss of habitats
Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
Bl: loss of soil life

water degradation

Ha: aridification

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
adapt to land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Sur la base d’un certain nombre d’indicateurs comme la baisse du taux de recouvrement et la rareté des espèces de haute valeur pastorale comme les graminées pérennes, la mise en repos reste la technique la moins coûteuse et la plus efficace pour permettre la reconstitution spontanée de la végétation pastorale. Cette technique a permis d’obtenir des ré-sultats très encourageants particulièrement dans le sud de la Tunisie dans la mesure où son effet bénéfique aussi bien dans la conservation de la biodiversité et l’amélioration de la production pastorale est très net lorsque les conditions de son application soient réunies.

Author:

OULED BELGACEM Azaiez

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

per Technology area

Indicate size and area unit:

other/ national currency (specify):

Dinars Tunisien (DT)

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

2.5

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

10 DT

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Délimitation de la parcelle à mettre en repos
2.	Suivi-évaluation de l’état de la végétation pastorale pendant 3 années.
3.	Le gardiennage est assuré par les bénéficiaires.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input
Labour	Compensation (concentré)	personne	2.0	10.0	20.0
Labour	Mesures accompagnatrices	personne	5.0	10.0	50.0
Labour	Gardiennage	personne	5.0	10.0	50.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					120.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					48.0

Comments:

La contribution du bénéficiaire se limite au respect de l’opération de la mise en repos (exclure tout type d’intervention). La compensation est assurée par l’Office de l’Elevage et des Pâturages.

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:

not relevant

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)
medium (loamy, silty)

Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):

coarse/ light (sandy)
medium (loamy, silty)

Topsoil organic matter:

low (<1%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

poor/ none

Water quality (untreated):

unusable

Water quality refers to:

ground water

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Is flooding of the area occurring?

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:

Habitat diversity:

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
> 50% of all income

Relative level of wealth:

very poor

Individuals or groups:

cooperative

Level of mechanization:

manual work

Gender:

Age of land users:

middle-aged
elderly

5.7 Average area of land used 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)?

large-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

communal/ village

Land use rights:

communal (organized)

Water use rights:

communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

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

increased

Comments/ specify:

Amélioration de la productivité des parcours.

animal production

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Amélioration de la production animale.

risk of production failure

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

Conservation du couvert végétal.

Income and costs

farm income

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Amélioration du revenu de l’éleveur.

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

Amélioration du niveau de vie des éleveurs.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

Amélioration du savoir faire en matière d’amélioration pastorale.

Ecological impacts

Soil

soil moisture

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Conservation des eaux et des sols.

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

plant diversity

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Conservation de la biodiversité.

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	very well

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:

positive

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

Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

> 50%

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

91-100%

Comments:

Cette technologie est acceptée par la population et les techniciens des services de développement locaux ne trouvent pas de problèmes à sa réalisation. La principale contrainte qui peut menacer la pérennité de l’adoption de la technique c’est la sub-vention accordée par l’Etat. La cessation de cette compensation pourrait être une cause du non respect de la population des conditions de réussite de la technique.

6.6 Adaptation

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

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Technique simple et très peu coûteuse ->> Sensibiliser et encourager la population à la pratiquer même pour de très courtes durées.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Technologie permettant l’amélioration de la productivité des par-cours et la conservation de la biodiversité --> Respecter les condi-tions de son application.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
La subvention accordée par l’Etat peut influencer la durabilité d’adoption de la technique.	Sensibiliser la population sur l’importance d’une gestion durable des ressources pastorales.

7. References and links

Links and modules

Expand all