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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 10, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1025, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': "Office de l'élevage et des paturages (OEP) - Tunisia", 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1025, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': "Office de l'élevage et des paturages (OEP) - Tunisia", '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

This technique is based on the principle of leaving the rangeland protected (by excluding grazing during 2-3 years) to allow the plant cover to recover.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

To tackle degradation and the negative effects of drought on rangelands, leaving the rangeland protected for rehabilitation is one of the common practices used for many decades by local people in arid areas of Tunisia. This technique is based on the principle of not allowing grazing for a period and thus resting the rangeland so that the plant cover can recover. The grazing-free period lasts commonly from 2 to 3 years depending on the ecosystem resilience (its capacity to recover) and climatic conditions. Owing to the high cost of fencing, an agreement between the administration and users is achieved regarding the boundaries (generally making use of natural ones such as a mountain chain, wadi, etc.). Users are totally committed to respect the protection of the site during the fixed period. In return, they receive a subsidy to compensate for the loss of production during this period. It is estimated at a quantity of barley equivalent to 70 US $ per hectare per year.

Purpose of the Technology: Applied in several types of improved land managements (rangeland improvement, dunes stabilization, national parks, etc.), this technique gives good results in terms of regeneration of vegetation in arid and even desert areas of Tunisia. However, the effectiveness of this technique varies according to several factors which determine the potential for regeneration of the treated area (rainfall, soil properties, level of degradation reached, etc.).

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The resting period is recommended even in heavily overgrazed sites, but only if the vegetation still has its resilience capacity (indicated by the presence of some remnants of key and good range species) so that regeneration is possible. To have a fast, substantial and convincing impact, this technique should be applied in those rangelands that still contain relics of good pastoral species and where soil is more or less covered by sediments which allow good infiltration. These wind deposits are used as seed bed and act as mulch. In situations of extreme degradation, there is no point in applying this technique, since in these situations the soil seed stocks are often lacking and/or the soil has reached a very degraded and shallow state.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The national strategy for rangeland improvement started in 1990.

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): degradation of plant cover, loss of plant diversity (mainly perennial species), abundance of unpalatable species, soil erosion.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): low potential of rangelands, increase in feed costs,

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: goat and sheep

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Comments:

Number of growing seasons per year:

1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 240Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - May

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)
• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: management measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Et: loss of topsoil, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bh: loss of habitats, Bq: quantity / biomass decline

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (Free continous grazing), other human induced causes (specify) (tree and cereal crop expansion, fuel wood collection)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

TND

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

1.3

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Agreement between the rangelands users and the National office of livestock and pasture (OEP)
2.	Identification and delimitation of the rangelands to be left fallow.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Other	delimitation rested rangelands	ha	1.0	50.0	50.0	50.0
Other	subsidies (animal feed barely)	ha	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					80.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					61.54

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Provide subsidies for the owners	Annually
2.	The owner has to guard the rested rangelands (otherwise subsidies can be suspended).
3.	The owner has to guard the rested rangelands (otherwise subsidies can be suspended).	Annually

4.6 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
Other	subsidies (animal feed barely)	ha	1.0	70.0	70.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					70.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					53.85

Comments:

The subsidies (barely) are fully provided by the government in the framework of the national strategy.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zones: 101-500 m a.s.l. (Dahar plateau rangelands)

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is: very low
Soil drainage / infiltration is: medium
Soil water storage is: low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Poor/none (surface water is limited by rainfall) or medium (in the mountain area)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Biodiversity is medium in the mountain areas and low in the others

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Difference in the involvement of women and men: Genrally, the outside house work is performed by men.
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: < 0.5%
10% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land.
70% of the land users are average wealthy and own 60% of the land.
20% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: Off-farm incomes come from migration, construction works, commerce, tourism sector, administration or informal activities.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• communal/ village
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well

Comments:

Without human disturbance, natural vegetation is well adapted to drought.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

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

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

98% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

2% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduce the costs of supplementation of livestock How can they be sustained / enhanced? subsidies of the goverment

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Traditional technology - not expensive How can they be sustained / enhanced? by the participation of the land user's

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?
Limitation of the grazing area	subsidies from the government and/or reduce animal numbers.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Heavily based on government subsidies	alternative feed, rangeland seeding, etc.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ouled Belgacem A., Papanastasis V. 1995. Impact of Grazing practices on rangeland vegetation of western Crete. Cah. Options Méditerr. ISSN: 1022-1379. vol.12: 209-212

Available from where? Costs?

IRA , CIHEAM

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ouled Belgacem A., Chaieb M., Neffati M., Tiedeman J. 2006. Response of Stipa lagascae R. & Sch. to protection under arid condition of southern Tunisia. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science. 9(3):465-469.

Available from where? Costs?

IRA

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ouled Belgacem, A., Ben Salem H., Bouaicha A., El Mourid Mohamed. 2008. Communal rangeland rest in arid area, a tool for facing animal feed costs and drought mitigation: the case of Chenini community, southern Tunisia. J. Bio. Sc., 8(4): 822-825.

Available from where? Costs?

IRA

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ouled Belgacem A., Zaafouri M.S. 1996. Impact de la privatisation des terres de parcours collectives sur la végétation pastorale en zones désertiques Tunisienne. Option Médit. Serie A: Séminaires Méditerranéens, n° 32: 213-217.

Available from where? Costs?

IRA, CIHEAM