Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Rangeland management in South Tunisia:
Lessons learnt from PRODESUD Program
and Prospects
Amor Jarray1 Patrick Herlant², Z...
Framework of PRODESUD Program
Program of agropastoral development and promotion of
local initiatives at South East Tunisia...
• G. Tataouine: 2250 000 ha (81%)
Private land : 330 000 ha
Collective land (forestry regime) : 180 000 ha
Communal/ colle...
Target population
27 Socio-territorial units Communities
(STU)
 66 000 people; 8250 households
 6500 agropastoralists in...
Plaine
Piémont
Djebel
Dahar
Dunes Mobiles
Grand Erg Oriental
100 mm
Two aridity gradients:
• North – South
• East - West
B...
Project Objectives
Conservation of
communal natural
resources through
participatory
management
Promotion of
local initiati...
PRODESUD basic concepts
1. Communal natural resources do not fit with
administrative boundaries  Socio-Territorial Units
...
Participatory Community Development Plan:
Methodology/ Steps and tools
• Step 1. Participatory characterization of the Com...
Toward Sustainable Development …
• Empowering GDAs: responsibility in the
management of natural resources (rangeland,
wate...
PRODESUD: an Integrated Program
• Participation of communities and other local partners
(Management council, GDA) until fi...
Rangeland improvement: a long-term process
for sustainable development
• Rangeland-based livestock production system is
th...
Rangeland resting: the most appropriate
echnique for rangeland improvement in arid
lands
Deep changes of the pastoral & agropastoral
systems ….
13
 Dismantlement of traditional
institutions;
 Privatization of ...
Soil status
 Trapped sand needed to
water rain water infiltration
and burying of seeds
 Sand veil
Rangeland resting: imp...
Participatory management of communal
rangelands
Open grazing Two years resting
Good resilience
Participatory management of communal
rangelands
2006 2008
Biomass RUE
Range
value Biomass RUE
Range
value
Rest (P) 800 23,...
Evolution of α diversity (Shanon index H'
and Equitability E) during 2006 – 2008 in
relation to management mode
Impact of rangeland resting on
biodiversity
2006 2008
Species
richness
Protected
area (P)
Grazed
area (G)
Protected
area (...
TD/UZO
Impact of rangeland resting technique on
pastors income
Adoption of collective rangeland resting
technique (no fencing)
Private rangelands (type 0):
Total area: 170 000 ha
Area u...
Excellent resilience: Biomass, flora, and fauna in a
private rangeland following 3 years of resting
INSTALLATION 3 years a...
Implementation procedures of
rangeland resting technique
Criteria for site selection and potential for
success
1. The site must be identified and suggested by
entitled persons (ay...
Practical considerations for rangeland resting
4. When do resting be started? It is recommended to
start resting with the ...
Incentives
• Why? Compensate the gain loss due to the
rangeland resting
• How?
– Feed for livestock
– Private rangeland: N...
Post-resting management
- The rested rangeland must be put under grazing not later that the
third year
- Two grazing perio...
Achievements
 17 sites of communal rangelands have been put under rest with
a total area of 133 000 ha (43 400 ha in Tata...
Constraints encountered
• Land tenure issues:
 Duality between livestock owners and « land owners »
 Distortion and conf...
Constraints encountered (ctd.1)
Technical issues:
 Loose camel flocks
 Allocation of incentives to communal rangelands:...
Constraints encountered (ctd.2)
Organization and institutional issues:
 Institutions in charge of negotiation and implem...
Rangeland management challenges
• At macro level:
– Future trends of livestock activity in the regional economy
– Climate ...
For a better integration of rangelands
in livestock production system
 Specific improved rangeland areas to:
 Ease flock...
Each year:
Grey zones: improved pasture land, in regenration, to be
grazed for short period (annual species)
Yellow zones:...
Key learning
• The success of the program depends on effective
communication where all stakeholders are involved in
negoti...
Key learning
• The success and the sustainability of the process
depends on the promotion of democratically elected
commun...
Key learning
 GDA: combination of tradition and modernity
 The power given to the community (GDA) is a part of the MOU
s...
Thank you
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

presentation prodesud tunisia ifad project

90 views

Published on

Rangeland management in South Tunisia

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

presentation prodesud tunisia ifad project

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Rangeland resting: the most appropriate echnique for rangeland improvement in arid lands
  13. 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. 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. 15. Participatory management of communal rangelands Open grazing Two years resting Good resilience
  16. 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. 17. Evolution of α diversity (Shanon index H' and Equitability E) during 2006 – 2008 in relation to management mode
  18. 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. 19. TD/UZO Impact of rangeland resting technique on pastors income
  20. 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. 21. Excellent resilience: Biomass, flora, and fauna in a private rangeland following 3 years of resting INSTALLATION 3 years after
  22. 22. Implementation procedures of rangeland resting technique
  23. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 37. Thank you

×