26.03.2013 Views

Desire for Greener Land

Desire for Greener Land

Desire for Greener Land

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Assessment<br />

Impacts of the Technology<br />

Production and socio-economic benefits Production and socio-economic disadvantages<br />

increased fodder production<br />

increased fodder quality<br />

increased animal production<br />

increased farm income<br />

loss of land<br />

Socio-cultural benefits Socio-cultural disadvantages<br />

national institution strengthening<br />

conflict mitigation<br />

improved conservation / erosion knowledge<br />

improved food security / self sufficiency<br />

Ecological benefits Ecological disadvantages<br />

improved soil cover<br />

increased biomass / above ground C<br />

increased plant diversity<br />

reduced soil loss<br />

increased soil organic matter / below ground C<br />

Off-site benefits Off-site disadvantages<br />

reduced downstream flooding<br />

reduced wind transported sediments<br />

reduced damage on public / private infrastructure<br />

Contribution to human well-being/livelihoods<br />

combat the rural exodus and improve the income of agriculture (20%)<br />

Benefits/costs according to land user<br />

Acceptance/adoption:<br />

Benefits compared with costs short-term: long-term:<br />

Establishment positive very positive<br />

Maintenance/recurrent positive very positive<br />

In all, 98% of land user families have implemented the technology with external material support.<br />

Only 2% of land user families have implemented the technology voluntary.<br />

There is a moderate trend towards (growing) spontaneous adoption of the technology.<br />

Concluding statements<br />

Strengths and how to sustain/improve Weaknesses and how to overcome<br />

Traditional technology - not expensive by the participation of the<br />

land user's<br />

Reduce the costs of supplementation of livestock subsidies of<br />

the government<br />

Limitation of the grazing area subsidies from the government<br />

and/or reduce animal numbers.<br />

Heavily based on government subsidies alternative feed,<br />

rangeland seeding, etc.<br />

Key reference(s): Ouled Belgacem A., Chaieb M., Neffati M., Tiedeman J. 2006. Response of Stipa lagascae R. & Sch. to protection under arid condition of<br />

southern Tunisia. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science. 9(3):465-469., Ouled Belgacem, A., Ben Salem H., Bouaicha A., El Mourid Mohamed. 2008. Communal<br />

rangeland rest in arid area, a tool <strong>for</strong> facing animal feed costs and drought mitigation: the case of Chenini community, southern Tunisia. J. Bio. Sc., 8(4): 822-825.,<br />

Contact person(s): A. Ouled Belgacem Institut des Régions Arides, 4119 Medenine – Tunisia, Azaiez.OuledBelgacem@ira.rnrt.tn<br />

Mliki Salem, OEP - 4100 Medenine - Tunisia<br />

172 DESIRE – WOCAT <strong>Desire</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Greener</strong> <strong>Land</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!