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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1069, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1140, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The technology utilizes a drought-tolerant native forage legume, Hedysarium coronarium, to restore degraded soils by covering the soil, fixing nitrogen, improving biodiversity and increasing water infiltration while fodder quality and availability is improved.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In the semi-arid areas of Tunisia, drylands are prone to a harsh environment of high temperatures and limited annual rainfall (350- 600mm). Nevertheless, many marginal farmers depend on these drylands for income through grazing with their livestock. However, due to worsening climatic conditions and mismanagement, the land is becoming seriously degraded. This results in a degradation cycle: overgrazing results in less land and more degradation. To break the cycle, a new innovative approach is needed.
The International Centre of Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) recognized the problem and developed an approach, together with national parties Office de l'élevage et des pâturages (OEP), Office du Développement Sylvo- Pastoral du Nord -Ouest (ODESYPANO), and Direction Générale des forêts (DGF). They focused on native species which are adapted to the harsh environmental conditions. They selected leguminous species because these enhance the soil's nutrient status through nitrogen fixation. Additionally, legumes improve the diet of livestock. The perennial Hedysarum coronarium or "Sulla" provides the soil with cover, reducing erosion and increasing water infiltration: raindrops are intercepted by the vegetation cover, resulting in less runoff. The cover also provides shade, which decreases evaporation. Then, the roots of the vegetation improve soil porosity, hence the infiltration capability of the soil. All these benefits improve biophysical and socio-economic resilience.
A degraded field was planted with Sulla in 2017. The land was ploughed before manual seeding. To prevent overgrazing, grazing was managed according to guidelines formulated by ICARDA and national parties. In the initial year, twenty-five animals (sheep/goats) graze one hectare for thirty to sixty days. In subsequent years, forty animals graze one hectare for thirty to sixty days since the vegetation is then better rooted and developed. To maintain optimal production, a field needs reseeding after three years hence the activities and related costs shown in this documentation are recurrent every three years.
This technology has had several positive impacts in the area. The productivity was increased from 2307 kg (dry matter: DM) per hectare to approximately 5330 DM kg per hectare. The technology also increased water productivity from 9.5 DM kg per mm rainfall to 11.8 DM kg per mm rainfall. Hedysarum coronarium improved the quality of fodder, thus benefiting local land users. In addition, the soil was less prone to erosion and water is better retained in the soil.
Land users also stated that they benefited from the improved fodder availability because this decreased the costs of feed import. Also, since Sulla is suited to the local climate, few inputs are required, reducing costs and work.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2017

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

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

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Land Preparation
2.	Seeding

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
Labour	Manual Seeding	Person-Hours	10.0	0.875	8.75	100.0
Equipment	Plough	Machine-Hours	0.75	15.0	11.25	100.0
Plant material	Sulla Seed	Kilogram	30.0	1.5	45.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					65.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					65.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The seeds are often provided by other parties such as ICARDA or national parties

Comments:

The activities and related costs are recurrent every 3 years.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

(47% silt, 29% sand and 24% clay)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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:

• individual, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

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

• single cases/ experimental

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Decreased costs of feed import
Better year-round availability of fodder
Less risk of drought damage

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Enhanced soil conditions such as improved soil moisture and fixated nitrogen
Improved economic situation of local land users
Restoration of degraded land

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?
Grazing management	Grazing management ensures sustainable fodder production hence it is a necessary sacrifice.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mounir Louhaichi, Slim Slim, Khlifa Jilali. (30/11/2020). Field day on sulla cultivation using a participatory community-based approach.

Available from where? Costs?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/12367

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Slim Slim, Mounir Louhaichi, Mouldi Gamoun, Serkan Ates, Sawsan Hassan, Oumeima Rhomdhane, Azaiez Ouled Belgacem. (17/2/2021). Assessment of soil surface scarification and reseeding with sulla (Hedysarum coronarium L. ) of degraded Mediterranean semi-arid rangelands. African Journal of Range and Forage Science.

Available from where? Costs?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/12618

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mounir Louhaichi, Kailene Jamel, Slim Slim, Med Bechir Tarchi, Mouldi Gamoun, Sawsan Hassan, Hloniphani Moyo. (30/4/2019). Sustainable Silvopastoral Restoration to Promote Ecosystem Services in Tunisia Project Final Report.

Available from where? Costs?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10220

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mounir Louhaichi, Slim Slim, Gouider Tibaoui. (14/9/2018). Managing rangelands: promoting sustainable legume species: Hedysarum coronarium L. a biennial herbaceous legume used for forage in the Mediterranean basin. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

Available from where? Costs?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/8497