Rangeland management in South Tunisia

1. Rangeland management in South Tunisia:
Lessons learnt from PRODESUD Program
and Prospects
Amor Jarray1 Patrick Herlant², Zine El Abidine Ghoudi3,
Didier Genin4, Ali Nefzaoui5
1: CRDA Tataouine, Coordinateur du Programme PRODESUD
²: FIDA, Rome, Country Project Manager
3: FIDA, Focal Point Tunisia
4: IRD, UMR151 AMU-IRD, Marseille, IFAD Consultant
5: ICARDA Consultant, NARP

2. Framework of PRODESUD Program
Program of agropastoral development and promotion of
local initiatives at South East Tunisia
(Programme de Développement Agro-Pastoral et Promotion des Initiatives Locales du
Sud-Est)
Project target region
Agropastoral area of 4.7
million ha

3. • G. Tataouine: 2250 000 ha (81%)
Private land : 330 000 ha
Collective land (forestry regime) : 180 000 ha
Communal/ collective land: 610 000 ha
Dahar Tataouine (Range): 1130 000 ha
• G. de Kébili (Dahar Douz) 19% : 530 000
Project total area : 2.78 million ha
Non-Investigated Zone (Erg oriental): 1930 000 ha

4. Target population
27 Socio-territorial units Communities
(STU)
 66 000 people; 8250 households
 6500 agropastoralists in Tataouine & 6300 in Douz)
 Proram Budget (2003-2010): 64.2 Millions TD (50
million $ US)

5. Plaine
Piémont
Djebel
Dahar
Dunes Mobiles
Grand Erg Oriental
100 mm
Two aridity gradients:
• North – South
• East - West
Bioclimate:
- Lower Arid to Saharian
- Rainfall : 25-175 mm/year
- Frequent droughts
Project Area/ Harsh climate

6. Project Objectives
Conservation of
communal natural
resources through
participatory
management
Promotion of
local initiatives
integrating
women and youth
Sustainable improvement of agropastoralists
livelihood through appropriate public investment
policies and private/associative initiatives,
participatory local development, environmentally
friendly to natural resources of South Tunisia.
Livestock
integration &
promotion of
local products

7. PRODESUD basic concepts
1. Communal natural resources do not fit with
administrative boundaries  Socio-Territorial Units
Concept (STU)
2. Failure of top down approaches  Participatory
approach involving all stakeholders
3. Empowering communities  Promotion of Community-
Based Organizations (GDA: Agricultural Development
Groups)
4. Getting policymakers at the local and national level to
realize that technical, policy, and institutional options
must be strongly linked and integrated for a successful
and sustainable local development

8. Participatory Community Development Plan:
Methodology/ Steps and tools
• Step 1. Participatory characterization of the Community
(territory and users): knowledge/learning phase
• Step 2. Participatory diagnosis & planning
• Step 3. Participatory programming
• Step 4. Characterization & promotion of community-based
organizations
• Step 5. Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation
Process based on group animation and multi-
disciplinary team work

9. Toward Sustainable Development …
• Empowering GDAs: responsibility in the
management of natural resources (rangeland,
water resources) through payment of fees by
users.
• Integration of rangeland and livestock activities
• Implementation of pastoral infrastructure to
ease pastoral activity (equipment of water and
pastoral services points, better distribution of
water points, rural tracks, shadow areas for
livestock)

10. PRODESUD: an Integrated Program
• Participation of communities and other local partners
(Management council, GDA) until final delivery to GDA
• Management rules of rangelands and livestock activities
agreed upon with users and beneficiaries;
• Integrated approaches for planning and
implementation of pastoral activities: Example of
communal rangeland management based on well defined
criteria (flocks mobility routes, avoiding conflicts,
potential for regeneration);
• Institutionnel mobilization to valorize products and
services delivered by USTs

11. Rangeland improvement: a long-term process
for sustainable development
• Rangeland-based livestock production system is
the main source of livelihoods of
agropastoralists in the region (80 % of the
agricultural income)
• Rangelands are not only a source of feed for
livestock, they have other functions: biodiversity
conservation, control of dersertification, off farm
activities (ecotourism, medicinal plants, etc.)

12. Rangeland resting: the most appropriate
echnique for rangeland improvement in arid
lands

13. Deep changes of the pastoral & agropastoral
systems ….
13
 Dismantlement of traditional
institutions;
 Privatization of communal rangelands;
 Regression of animal mobility;
 Reliance on supplemental feed;
 Mechanization;
 Inequity between poor and rich herders

14. Soil status
 Trapped sand needed to
water rain water infiltration
and burying of seeds
 Sand veil
Rangeland resting: impact on rangeland
ecology and biodiversity conservation
(improving rangeland resilience)

15. Participatory management of communal
rangelands
Open grazing Two years resting
Good resilience

16. Participatory management of communal
rangelands
2006 2008
Biomass RUE
Range
value Biomass RUE
Range
value
Rest (P) 800 23,5 45 2135 106,7 120
Open (G) 450 13,2 38 236 11,8 32
Biomass: DM.Kg.ha-1; RUE: Kg.mm-1; Range value: FU.ha-1.year-1
Impact of two years rangeland resting (P) on biomass,
rain use efficiency (RUE) and range value as compared to
those of the grazed site (G) of the Chenini (Tunisia)
communal rangeland
(O. Belgacem et al., 2007).

17. Evolution of α diversity (Shanon index H'
and Equitability E) during 2006 – 2008 in
relation to management mode

18. Impact of rangeland resting on
biodiversity
2006 2008
Species
richness
Protected
area (P)
Grazed
area (G)
Protected
area (P)
Grazed
area (G)
Total
species 46 23 52 22
Perennial
species 32 9 40 9
Annual
species 14 14 12 13
Perennial
grasses 4 2 6 2

19. TD/UZO
Impact of rangeland resting technique on
pastors income

20. Adoption of collective rangeland resting
technique (no fencing)
Private rangelands (type 0):
Total area: 170 000 ha
Area under rest: 30 000 ha
Communal rangeland inter-STUs (type 1):
Total area: 400 000 ha
Area under rest: 40 000 ha
Ouara rangelands (type 2):
Total area: 130 000 ha
Area under rest: 30 000 ha
Dahar rangelands (type 3):
Total area: 530 000 ha
Area under rest: 70 000 ha

21. Excellent resilience: Biomass, flora, and fauna in a
private rangeland following 3 years of resting
INSTALLATION 3 years after

22. Implementation procedures of
rangeland resting technique

23. Criteria for site selection and potential for
success
1. The site must be identified and suggested by
entitled persons (ayants-droit)  Clear
ownership, no conflicts
2. Physical indicator: The surface soil must not
be crusty and covered with sand veil
3. Biological indicator: The suggested site must
have clear indication of potential and rapid
regeneration

24. Practical considerations for rangeland resting
4. When do resting be started? It is recommended to
start resting with the first rains (autumn)
5. Length of the resting period ? This duration
depends of:
– Rainfall
– Potential for regeneration (seed bank, soil type, etc…)
– Level of respect of resting
 The duration differs from one site to another and
must not exceeds 3 successive years

25. Incentives
• Why? Compensate the gain loss due to the
rangeland resting
• How?
– Feed for livestock
– Private rangeland: No problem (75 TD/ha/3 years)
– Communal rangelands: 30 TD/ha/3 years and some
constraints:
• Legal problems
• Distribution of incentives! To whom?
• Selected option: Collective infrastructure

26. Post-resting management
- The rested rangeland must be put under grazing not later that the
third year
- Two grazing periods:
o Following a rainfall to make benefit of annual species growth
o The other is during summer time: grazing of 50 % of the growth of
perennial species
- Need to ensure a biological monitoring of rested sites and take
appropriate decision:
o Publicize of the opening date for grazing of the rested site together
with the management committee meeting
o Calculation of the grazing fee to be paid
o Flocks admission to graze
o Continuous monitoring and take necessary decision if rules are not
respected

27. Achievements
 17 sites of communal rangelands have been put under rest with
a total area of 133 000 ha (43 400 ha in Tataouine and 80 000
ha in Kébili)
 9750 ha of private rangeland under rest by OEP (Livestock
authority), and incentives delivered under the form of a
technology package for 3 years and for 560 agropastoralists
 370 ha of rangeland in Douz planted by local pastoral species
 Reseeding of 2500 ha using local species (Aristida pungens,
Laegos retam, Gymnocarpos decander)
 Pastoral infrastructure: Wells and network for water
distribution, shadow areas, rural roads to 125000 ha of
rangelands accessible (Tataouine)

28. Constraints encountered
• Land tenure issues:
 Duality between livestock owners and « land owners »
 Distortion and conflict in decision making, respect of
management rules and adoption of technologies
 Zoning of pastoral areas:
 Lack of strategic vision of the multi-functionality of
rangeland areas and in the grazing management

29. Constraints encountered (ctd.1)
Technical issues:
 Loose camel flocks
 Allocation of incentives to communal rangelands:
o Equity problem: Who are the beneficiaries? Pastoral association!
o Currently perceived by users and beneficiaries as a bargaining
tool
Social issues:
 Deconstruction of traditional institutions (Miaad)
 Conflicting interest between “land owner” and “land
users”. Land owners wish division and privatization of
communal rangelands while users prefer to keep the
status unchanged to ensure a grazing source

30. Constraints encountered (ctd.2)
Organization and institutional issues:
 Institutions in charge of negotiation and implementation:
Management Council (CG), GDA, rangeland users and their
representatives
 Change of paradigm of the project team: From monitoring
and control to advisory role
 Splitting of institutions and their competencies
 Inappropriate legislation, not adapted to rangeland
management

31. Rangeland management challenges
• At macro level:
– Future trends of livestock activity in the regional economy
– Climate change effects uncertainty
– Capability of agropastoralists to fully endorse rangeland
management processes
– State environmental policies
• At micro level:
– At mid and long-term, rangelands must not be perceived as
only a source of feed, but to make a better benefit of all other
rangeland functions

32. For a better integration of rangelands
in livestock production system
 Specific improved rangeland areas to:
 Ease flocks management during
crucial periods
 Rangelands as « feed bank » to
mitigate climate variability
 Provide good quality feeds to fill the
gap during speccific animals
physiological stages and/or for
marketing purposes

33. Each year:
Grey zones: improved pasture land, in regenration, to be
grazed for short period (annual species)
Yellow zones: improved pasture land used a buffer for
the current year and for small flocks during summer
Community
settlement
Territory managed
by the community

34. Key learning
• The success of the program depends on effective
communication where all stakeholders are involved in
negotiating and discussing community development
plan;
• Annual and long-term development plan approved by
communities is an efficient tool to mobilize resources
and ease project implementation
• Do not underestimate the ability of communities to
identify appropriate technical solutions, to solve
internal conflicts particularly relating to property
rights

35. Key learning
• The success and the sustainability of the process
depends on the promotion of democratically elected
community-based organizations (CBOs) that play a
key interface role between communities and other
actors (government agencies and decision makers, non
government agencies, donors, and other
communities).
• Better institutional encroachment of local institutions
(representative in local and regional organizations)
• Favor decentralization and devolution
• Empower individuals and communities

36. Key learning
 GDA: combination of tradition and modernity
 The power given to the community (GDA) is a part of the MOU
signed between the Community and the Administration;
 The President of the GDA is acting equal to equal with the
project director, and approves and co-sign with him any
deal/bargain related to their community.
• Some empowerment indicators:
• Self confidence,
• initiative
• Ability to rally people and to exert leadership.
• Collective feelings as “us” and confidence in ourselves
ability
• Ability to raise opportunities and funding (ex: 6 GEF grants)
• Part of the local and regional (Governorate) decision-
making process

37. Thank you