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 all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
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) - Switzerland1.3 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
1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)
Création de réserves fourragères sur pieds [Tunisia]
Dans les situations où la dégradation des parcours a atteint le seuil d’irréversibilité et où la reconstitution de l’écosystème par une simple mise en défens n’est plus possible, la réaffectation par plantation d’arbustes fourragers s’impose. Cette approche vise à écourter la période de soudure chronique, augmenter rapidement le disponible fourrager, …
- Compiler: Donia Mühlematter
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Le recours aux plantations d’arbustes fourragers aura lieu généralement si la dégradation a atteint le seuil d’irréversibilité. La plantation des arbustes est faite dans le but :
- Soit de combler un déficit dans le bilan fourrager annuel qui de la diffi-culté d »alimenter les troupeaux et qui se pose en général à la fin de l’année (fin d’automne et durant tout l’hiver).
- Soit pour la sauvegarde du cheptel en cas de sécheresse ou disette
- De conservation des eaux et des sols
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
Les principaux arbustes fourragers utilisés au Centre – Sud de la Tunisie sont : Acacia cyanophylla, Atriplex nummularia et A. halimus, Opuntia ficus indica var. inermis si l’on peut considérer comme arbuste. Ces espèces ont donné des résultats spéctaculaires au Centre du pays elles ont par contre échoué dans le Sud en raison de l’aridité extrême. Ce n’est que ces dernières années que le recours aux espèces locales, plus adaptées aux conditions difficiles, comme Periploca angustifolia, Rhus tripartitum, Retama raetam a pris de l’ampleur.
Dans les parcours collectifs, les services forestiers se chargent à travers des chantiers de l’irrigation et de l’entretien des plantations. Au niveau des par-cours privés, l’Office d’Elevage et des Pâturages se charge d’apporter les plants et fournir des subventions au bénéficiaire qui se charge de toutes les opérations d’entretien et de protection.
L’exploitation par pacage direct ou recolte (cas du cactus) se fait après 3 à 4 ans pendant les périodes de soudure et de sécheresse.
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
Region/ State/ Province:
Kasserine
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
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
Cropland
- Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - barley
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Grazing land
Extensive grazing:
- Nomadism
- Semi-nomadic 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
- pastoralism and grazing land management
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
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
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
- per Technology area
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 | 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 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 500.0 |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 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 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)?
- 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
animal production
Income and costs
farm income
Socio-cultural impacts
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups
Ecological impacts
Soil
soil cover
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
plant diversity
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 | 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 did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 11-50%
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
Création de réserves fourragères sur pieds [Tunisia]
Dans les situations où la dégradation des parcours a atteint le seuil d’irréversibilité et où la reconstitution de l’écosystème par une simple mise en défens n’est plus possible, la réaffectation par plantation d’arbustes fourragers s’impose. Cette approche vise à écourter la période de soudure chronique, augmenter rapidement le disponible fourrager, …
- Compiler: Donia Mühlematter
Modules
No modules