ustainable dryland landscapes management · before visiting the potential areas, a set of criteria...
Post on 19-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
SUSTAINABLE DRYLAND LANDSCAPES MANAGEMENT RANGELAND GROUND TRUTHING REPORT WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR
INVESTMENT – JORDAN 2015
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE – REGIONAL OFFICE FOR WEST ASIA
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
IUCN ROWA would particularly like to thank the Ministry of Agriculture, who have provided valuable inputs through the research which used to develop investment options for the healthy rangeland in Jordan. Special acknowledgments go to Dr. Mahfouz Abu Zanat for his invaluable experience in rangeland assessment and his continuous support in conducting this study. The Author would accomplish whole stakeholder who support finalizing this report Eng. Fida Haddad IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature),
Drylands, Livelihoods and Gender Program, Program Manager
Eng. Amer Madat IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Drylands, Livelihoods and Gender Program, Senior Field Coordinator
Dr. Wael Rashdan Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Rangelands, Director
Dr. Jawad Al-Bakri The University of Jordan, Geo-spatial Techniques Specialist
Eng. Hani Hiasat Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Agriculture in Balqa, Director
Eng. Ahmad Yaseen Agricultural Directorate of Developing Sharah Region, Al-Hussinieieh Agricultural Liaison Office
Eng. Yousif Alrfaei Directorate of Agriculture in Azraq, Director
Mousa Nada Al-Qalab
Qura Bani Hashem Cooperative, President
Local Communities Al-Hussinieieh, Hima Bani Hashem, Al-Azraq, and Iyra and Yarqa
3
Contents
1. Background ................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1. DANIDA Project........................................................................................................................ 5
1.2. Components of DANIDA Project ...................................................................................... 5
1.3. Rangelands in Jordan ........................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Rangeland areas with high potential for investment ............................................... 6
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Pilot visits to potential rangeland areas ......................................................................... 8
3.1.1. Criteria for preliminary evaluation of potential rangeland areas ...................................... 8
3.1.2. First round of field visits.......................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Meeting local communities ................................................................................................ 10
3.2.1. Interviewing stockowners ..................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2. Indicators for selection of grazing locations ...................................................................... 10
3.3. Monitoring vegetation of potential rangeland areas............................................... 11
3.3.1. Sampling of locations............................................................................................................ 11
3.3.2. Measured variables ............................................................................................................... 13
4. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................. 13
4.1. Findings of pilot visits to potential rangeland areas ............................................... 13
4.1.1. Description of vegetation attributes .................................................................................... 13
4.1.2. Attractiveness for investment .............................................................................................. 15
4.2. Findings of local community meetings ......................................................................... 16
4.2.1. Important grazing locations in Iyra Range Reserve ......................................................... 16
4.2.2. Important grazing locations in Azraq area ......................................................................... 18
4.2.3. Important grazing locations in Al-Hussinieieh area .......................................................... 19
4.2.4. Important grazing locations in Hima Bani Hashem .......................................................... 20
4.2.5. Indicators adopted by herders for selection of grazing locations ................................... 21
4.3. Findings of vegetation monitoring .................................................................................. 23
4.3.1. Vegetation cover ................................................................................................................... 23
4.3.2. Species richness ................................................................................................................... 23
4.3.3. Vegetation grazability ........................................................................................................... 23
4
4.3.4. Biomass production .............................................................................................................. 24
4.5. Valuation of monitored vegetation ................................................................................. 25
4.6. Effect of grazing management on vegetation attributes ...................................... 27
5. Linking local knowledge on grazing resources to mapped data .................................................................................................................................................................... 27
6. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 28
6.1. Overall situation of sampled rangeland sites ............................................................ 28
6.2. Potential interventions for sustainable production of rangelands .................... 28
6.2.1. Harnessing surface runoff .................................................................................................... 28
6.2.2. Increasing rangeland forage production ............................................................................ 29
6.2.3. Increasing animal productivity ............................................................................................. 29
6.2.4. Supporting services for animal production ........................................................................ 30
6.3. Indicators and users ............................................................................................................. 30
7. References ................................................................................................................................. 31
LIST OF TABLES
Page 1 Criteria for the evaluation of recommended rangeland sites. 9
2 Summary of findings from field visits to recommended rangeland areas. 14
3 Attractive factors for investment. 15
4 Preliminary suggested interventions for the visited rangeland areas. 15
5 Percent vegetation cover of rangelands with high potential for investment. 22
6 Species richness in rangelands with high potential for investment. 23
7 Vegetation grazability of rangelands with high potential for investment. 23
8 Biomass production of rangelands with high potential for investment. 24
9 Vegetation valuation of rangelands with high potential for investment. 25
10 Scenarios of valuation of produced forage according to amount of rainfall. 26
5
1. Background 1.1. DANIDA Project
The Sustainable Dryland Landscapes in Africa and the Middle East Project is implemented by
International Union for Conservation of Nature Regional Office for West Asia (IUCN-ROWA) and
funded by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DANIDA). The three-year-project aims
at greater policy implementation in support of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in the
drylands of participating countries; Jordan, Kenya and Burkina Faso. The project plans to raise
awareness to identify investment priorities at local and national levels and to build partnerships
for SLM scale up at international level.
1.2. Components of DANIDA Project
The main components of DANIDA Project are (i) using the geo-spatial techniques (RS and GIS)
according to a certain set of physical criteria to select potential rangeland areas for investment,
(ii) ground truthing of the selected rangeland areas according to a certain set of biological
criteria mainly related to vegetation taking into consideration the socio-economic aspects of
local community, and (iii) the needed enabling environment to develop/amend a rational policy
for a sustainable investment for the potential rangelands.
1.3. Rangelands in Jordan
In Jordan, the Agriculture Law 44/2002 defined rangelands as “lands receiving less than 200
mm of annual rainfall and lacking a permanent source of irrigation water” which means that
around 90% of the country (8 million ha) is considered as rangelands. These rangelands are
located in the north-eastern region of the country and divided roughly into two main categories:
desert rangelands or Badia receiving less than 100 mm of annual precipitation and steppe
rangelands receiving between 100 and 200 mm of annual precipitation. Proportions of desert
and steppe rangelands in the country are 87 and 13%, respectively.
Low and erratic rainfall is the limiting factor for Badia forage production and consequently the
grazing season is short and not exceeding 3-4 months in a good year. The steppe rangelands
consist of two distinct categories: the grass region (dominated by species of Poa, Stipa, Carex
and Salsola) near Jordanian-Syrian borders and the shrub region (dominated by Artemisia
sieberi) extending from the south of Mafraq to the north of Naqab. The majority of desert
rangelands are state or treasury lands compared to the steppe rangelands which are mostly
privately owned.
In 2001, National Rangeland Strategy (NRS) was prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
with the support of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The NRS was
updated in 2013 by MoA and IUCN to be in harmony with the three Rio Conventions (climate
change, desertification and biodiversity).
6
1.4. Rangeland areas with high potential for investment
The geo-spatial techniques expert (Dr. Jawad Al-Bakri) accomplished the characterization of
watersheds and subwatersheds in the country to select suitable and sizable rangelands for
investment. The characterization was based on a set of criteria mostly of physical nature (soils,
climate, land tenure, water harvesting structures, economic importance, NVDI…). The
characterization was refined with participation of key governmental institutions (MoA, MoEnv,
MoWI, MoPIC), non-governmental organizations (ICARDA, CARNE, IUCN) and local rangeland
experts. The characterization process resulted in the selection of four potential locations: Wadi
Al-Fraisheen extending from Kharraneh to Ash-Shaumari Reserve, Iyra Range Reserve facing
Jordan Valley, Hima Bani Hashem west of Zarqa and Al- Al-Hussinieieh to the north of Ma’an
(Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Selected rangeland areas with high potential for investment (Source: Al-Bakri, 2015).
7
The selected rangeland areas with high potential for investment represented different
ecosystems in the country (Fig. 2). Wadi Al-Fraisheen extending from Kharraneh to Ash-
Shaumari Reserve and Al- Al-Hussinieieh to the north of Ma’an represented the chert hammada
ecosystem, Hima Bani Hashem represented batha steppe and Iyra Range Reserve facing
Jordan Valley represented Mediterranean non-forest ecosystem (Albert et al., 2003).
Figure 2: Jordan vegetation zones (Source: Albert et al., 2003) and distribution of selected sites among the zones.
8
2. Introduction
Rangelands are renewable resources that contribute significantly to the livelihoods of pastoral
communities especially in arid areas. In Jordan, the rangelands used to be the major forage
resource for supporting extensive production of sheep and goats for meat and milk production.
Serious declines in productivity have occurred over extensive areas of these rangelands (Abu-
Zanat et al., 2004). From socioeconomic perspective, the degradation of rangeland resources
resulted in the emergence of poor and very poor households (DoS 2010).
The main interconnected-requirements to improve the degraded rangelands are political well,
effective participation of local communities, generous funds and credible baseline information;
the later is the theme of this report. The lack of credible baseline information on rangeland
resources is one of the underlying constraints to sustainable management of these lands. The
availability of updated and geo-referenced data is the cornerstone before jumping to policy
formulation at the level of rangeland sector. The challenge is how to collect adequate and
reliable information on rangeland resources without wasting too many resources on detailed
baseline studies.
The recommended rangeland areas with high potential for investment and sustainable
management were visited to validate maps results. The validation work consisted of three
stages: i) conducting field visits to the recommended sites for a preliminary assessment based
on pre-determined set of criteria mostly related to vegetation attributes, ii) interviewing graziers
(herders) to harness local indigenous knowledge on suitability of areas for grazing and iii)
ecological assessment at the finest scale in the field.
This report summarizes the validation work on ground truthing of rangeland areas with high
potential for investment.
3. Methodology
3.1. Pilot visits to potential rangeland areas
3.1.1. Criteria for preliminary evaluation of potential rangeland areas
Before visiting the potential areas, a set of criteria mostly related to the natural vegetation, was
developed to evaluate the recommended rangeland sites. The criteria included type, structure
and coverage of vegetation; key forage species, current uses of sites, threats and potential for
investment (Table 1).
9
3.1.2. First round of field visits
Joined with Dr. Wael Al-Rashdan (Director of Rangeland Department, Ministry of Agriculture),
Dr. Jawad Al-Bakri (RS-GIS expert) and Amer Madat (Dryland Program, IUCN), the Range
Management Consultant visited the recommended potential areas during January-February,
2015 for rapid evaluation. The areas included Wadi Al-Fraisheen which extends from Al-
Kharraneh Palace to Al-Shaumari Nature Reserve ( الشومري-الفراشين خرانة ), Hima Bani Hashem ( حمى
هاشم بني ), Al-Hussinieieh (الحسينية), and Iyra Range Reserve ( عيرا محمية ).
The Consultant prepared a sheet-format (Appendix A) to report on the criteria listed in Table 1
during the pilot field visits.
Table 1: Criteria for the evaluation of recommended rangeland sites.
Vegetation type Describes the life form that gives its character to a plant community: -Grassy (dominated by grasses, grass-like plants and forbs with few shrubby species). -Shrubby (dominated by shrubs with or without herbaceous plants). -Mixed (composed of shrubs and herbs)
Vegetation structure Number of vegetal strata: -One layer -Two-layers -Three- layers or more
Coverage Represents the vertically projected percent cover of the live canopy layer for a plot or a grid cell. The categories of vegetation cover could be: -Poor <10% -Fair 10-25% -Good > 25%
Key forage species Important forage species upon which grazing management is based. These species should generally be abundant, productive and palatable components of the vegetation, and moderately sensitive to grazing.
Rangeland uses -Grazing -Collection of herbal and medicinal plants -Cultivation of crops
Threats to rangelands -Uncontrolled grazing -Encroachment of agriculture -Encroachment of urbanization -Unplanned mining -Fragmentation of habitats
Attractiveness for investment
-Area: sizable (> 100 ha) -Vegetation cover (> 10%) -Forage species (> 30%) -Grazable material (> 200 kg DM/ha) -Lack of disputes on land tenure -Accessible topography
10
3.2. Meeting local communities
3.2.1. Interviewing stockowners
The IUCN with the collaboration of MoA arranged the meetings with local communities. The
targeted communities were informed one week prior to the intended meeting date through the
Agricultural Departments/Centers in the targeted areas. The agenda of community meetings is
listed in Appendix B.
The meetings were opened with a brief on the objectives of DANIDA Project. The range
management consultant elaborated on the objectives of DANIDA project, the purpose of
meeting herders, and then interviewed the attendants (as a group) on many issues (status of
rangelands, problems associated with grazing, watering resources, subsidized feedstuffs…)
related to rangelands and livestock in their areas. The Consultant prepared a semi-structured
questionnaire to report the responses on relevant issues to the rangelands and then opened the
door for general discussion where attendants expressed their opinions on many issues related
to rangelands, veterinary services and feed subsidy (Appendix C).
Photo 1: Participation of stockowners in Iyra and Yarga meeting, Balqa Governorate.
3.2.2. Indicators for selection of grazing locations
During the meetings with local communities, stockowners were asked about the indicators
(attractiveness and clues) for the selection of certain locations for grazing animals. In addition,
11
the shepherds from each community who joined the consultant in the monitoring visits to
grazing locations were interviewed about the triggering factors for the selection of locations.
The majority of the stockowners participated in the meetings were of middle age with few (2-3)
of old ones. In the last few years, the pastoral animal production in the country is changing
gradually. In the past the stockowner is himself the herder but in the last few years the flock is
owned by a certain person (stockowner) but the management of the flock is entrusted to a
different person (herder or shepherd). This change in the management of flocks could be
attributed to many factors; firstly due the policy of feed subsidy which encouraged the increase
in flock size because of guaranteed profitability and secondly the availability of cheap herders
especially the migrated Syrians to Jordan. This brief analysis of stockowners/herders indicates
two things: i) Stockowners are mainly investors and know little about the grazing resources in
their areas and the indigenous knowledge related to grazing resources and practices is
vulnerable to be lost by time.
At this stage, the stockowners were asked about the following issues:
Naming the most preferred grazing locations in their areas.
Reasons (physical, biological, social, economic…) for preferring these grazing areas.
Comparing between the condition of grazing areas between now and last 5-10 years.
Controlling the grazing locations in your area.
3.3. Monitoring vegetation of potential rangeland areas
3.3.1. Sampling of locations
The traditional plot or transect method using measuring tape for monitoring vegetation in vast
areas such as those mentioned by herders (preferred grazing locations) was not practical.
Instead, the walk-in transect method was used where several stops (stations) were performed
for each location and at each stop the consultant walked for 200-250 m in three directions or
sometimes in two or one direction according to the topography and layout of the grazing
locations. The grazing locations of Al-Hussinieieh and Azraq are situated in wadies where one
transect of 200-250 m long was walked in a zigzag fashion at each stop (Photo 2). In
Mountainous and hilly rangelands such as Iyra Reserve and Hima Bani Hashem, two or three
linear transects of 150 m length were adopted at each stop to encounter possible variations in
coverage and diversity of vegetation at the two sides of hilly areas (Photo 3).
12
Photo 2: Walk-in zigzag transect for flat grazing locations such as wide wadies in Jordan Badia.
Photo 3: Walk-in linear transects for hilly and mountainous grazing locations such as Hima Bani Hashem and Iyra Reserve.
13
3.3.2. Measured variables
The main vegetation attributes measured included percent cover, species richness, grazability
and biomass production.
Percent cover refers to percent of ground covered by plants. The coverage of vegetation was
estimated visually in 45 plots of 1m2 each for each grazing location, 5 plots spaced 40-50 m
along each walk-in transect of 200-250 m.
Species richness is a measure of the number of species found in a sample, in this case the
number of plant species in a plot of 1m2.
Grazability refers to the suitability of standing vegetation to grazing animals. It is a qualitative
assessment and depends on kind of grazing animal, infestation of grazing areas with
unpalatable plant species that discourage grazing (e.g. poisonous, thorny and hairy). The
grazability concept was developed by the Range Management Consultant (M. Abu-Zanat) who
divided the grazability of vegetation into four categories:
Zero grazability (G0): meaning bare ground without any vegetation or inaccessible
vegetation throughout the grazing season.
High grazability (G1): vegetation is composed of palatable plants only and lacking any of the
unpalatable plants (e.g. poisonous, thorny and hairy).
Moderate grazability (G2): vegetation contains few numbers of the unpalatable plant species
(not more than 1 species per plot).
Low grazability (G3): location is infested with unpalatable plant species.
Grazability Index (GI) is the sum of all categories of grazability and was calculated using the
following formula: GI = G0 x 0 + G1 x 0.6 + G2 x 0.3 + G3 x 0.1
Biomass production refers to the weight of severed vegetation encircled by the plot at the
ground level. The clipped biomass was separated into forage and non-forage species for
weighing each category using a spring-scale.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Findings of pilot visits to potential rangeland areas
4.1.1. Description of vegetation attributes
The main attributes of vegetation (type, structure, coverage and key species) of the potential
rangeland areas visited are summarized in Table 2. In addition to the description of vegetation,
notes on topography, uses and threats to these areas were reported.
Vegetation type
The visited sites represented three vegetation types: chert hammada, batha steppe and
Mediterranean non-forest (Albert et al., 2003). The chert hammada vegetation is mostly
composed of fleshy plants which can resist hot conditions. Most of hammada vegetation is
14
restricted to the wadies where soil moisture is available. The batha steppe has a scrubby
appearance with low growing shrubs and herbs. Mediterranean non-forest consists of scrub and
many species of herbaceous vegetation.
Vegetation structure
In general, the vegetation of the visited sites consisted of two layers where the dwarf shrubs
occupied the upper stratum and the herbs occupied the understory. The species composition of
the two strata differed from one rangeland area to another.
Vegetation cover
The vegetation was diffused at all sites. Visual estimation of vegetation cover was fair (10-25%)
for Wadi Al-Fraisheen and Al-Hussinieieh sites compared to good (> 25%) for Hima Bani
Hashem and Iyra Reserve.
Key forage species
Prolonged history of destructive grazing at the four sites depleted most of the forage species.
The remnant vegetation is not a good indicator of forage species. Therefore, the traditional
graziers of the target sites were interviewed to know the forage species that used to be at the
sites compared to the existing ones.
Uses
Grazing could be described as uncontrolled for Wadi Al-Fraisheen and Al-Hussinieieh sites,
fairly controlled at some parts of Iyra reserve and controlled at Hima Bani Hashem. Besides
grazing, several agricultural activities, especially cultivation of barley, are taking place within
sites (Wadi Al-Fraisheen and Al-Hussinieieh) or at the boundaries on private lands (Iyra
reserve).
Topography
The fairly flat topography of Wadi Al-Fraisheen and Al-Hussinieieh sites facilitate accessibility to
these sites. Iyra reserve and Hima Bani Hashem are moderately accessible because of their
mountainous topographic features.
Threats
The main threats to Wadi Al-Fraisheen and Al-Hussinieieh sites were the encroachment of
barley cultivation and conflict on land tenure compared to almost no problems for Hima Bani
Hashem and Iyra reserve. It is worth noting that the present area (100 ha) of Hima Bani
Hashem is too small to feed around 6000 heads of sheep in the area.
Table 2: Summary of findings from field visits to recommended rangeland areas.
Major Findings Rangeland Sites
Wadi Al-Fraisheen Hima Bani Hashem Al-Hussinieieh Iyra Reserve
Vegetation type* Chert Hammada Batha steppe Chert Hammada Mediterranean non-
15
forest
Vegetation structure 2 layers. Shrubby layer: Seldlitizia rosmarinus Anabasis Syria ,(الدويد)( سوري شنان ), Achillea fragrantissimia (القيصوم). Herbaceous layer: few herbs Malva parviflora, Bromus sp., Hordeum sp. and clumps of Poa .root mat (القبا)
2 layers. Shrubby layer: Sarcopoterium spinosum (البالن) Herbaceous layer: mostly annual forbs (broad-leaved) such as Anemone sp. (شقار), Sinapis alba Urginea maritime ,(خردل)( المي عود ), Ballota undulate, and Asphodelus ramosus (العيصالن)
2 layers. Shrubby layer: Mostly Anabasis syriaca Herbaceous layer: Hordeum sp., Poa sp., Malva parviflora
2 layers. Shrubby layer: Astragalus sp., Artemisia sieberi, Noaea mucronata, Retama raetam & Salsola vermiculata. Herbaceous layer: Euphorbia sp., Helianthemum sp., Malva sp., Onopodron sp.
Coverage Fair Good Fair Good
Key forage species** na na na na
Uses -Uncontrolled grazing -Barley cultivation
-Controlled grazing -Collection of herbal and medicinal plants
-Uncontrolled grazing -Uncontrolled grazing -Barley cultivation on private lands -Olive orchards
Topography Fairly flat Hilly-Mountainous Fairly flat Mountainous
Threats -Conflict on land tenure -Cultivation of barley
-None -Conflict on land tenure -Cultivation of barley
-None
Investment potential -Area: sizable -Grazable material: Fair -Accessibility: easy
-Area: limited -Grazable material: Good -Accessibility: relatively easy
-Area: sizable -Grazable material: Fair -Accessibility: easy
-Area: sizable -Grazable material: Good -Accessibility: moderate
Data Availability Yes Yes No No
*based on the vegetation map of Albert et al., 2003 **graziers (shepherds, herders) were not interviewed at the time of field visits.
4.1.2. Attractiveness for investment
Investment means the technical and non-technical options or measures that the Government
should consider to halt further degradation of rangelands, ensure sustainable rangeland forage
production and consequently improve the livelihoods of pastoral communities. These options
depend on two groups of factors: the first group is directly related to the biophysics (area and
potential production of grazable material) of grazing resources and the second group is related
to sustainable management of these resources (lack of conflict on land tenure, organization of
users, governance/protection).
In general, the bio-physical attributes of grazing resources are promising for the four visited
sites (Table 3). Based on the evaluation of the bio-physical attributes and sustainable
management of grazing resources, Iyra reserve and Hima Bani Hashem occupied the 1st and
2nd ranks, respectively, for investment while Wadi Al-Fraisheen and Al-Hussinieieh sites
occupied the 3rd and 4th ranks, respectively. Preliminary thoughts on needed interventions are
shown in Table 4.
Table 3: Attractive factors for investment.
Rangeland Site Bio-Physical Attributes Sustainable Management
Area (ha)
Annual Rainfall
Grazable Biomass
Land Tenure
Organization of Users
Governance
16
(mm) Conflicts
1. Iyra Reserve 20,000 200 Moderate None None Good
2. Hima Bani Hashem 1000 220 Moderate None Yes Good
3. Wadi Al-Fraisheen - - Fair - - -
4. Al-Hussinieieh - - Fair - - - -: information not available
Table 4: Preliminary suggested interventions for the visited rangeland areas.
Rangeland Site Suggested Intervention Requirements
Iyra Reserve -Grazing management
-Studying reserve reports to assess current grazing management (production of grazable biomass, grazing systems, annual stocking rate).
Hima Bani Hashem -Grazing management -Construction of check dams -Expansion of area
-Studying cooperative reports to assess current grazing management (production of grazable biomass, grazing systems, annual stocking rate). -Studying the hydrology of the four wadies in the Hima to design needed check dams.
Wadi Al-Fraisheen -Grazing management -Controlling barley cultivation
-Establishment of cooperative for the site to organize users in order to manage grazing. -Construction of water harvesting structures (e.g. contour strips) and water spreading structures to encourage recovery of native vegetation.
Al-Hussinieieh -Grazing management -Controlling barley cultivation
-Establishment of cooperative for the site to organize users in order to manage grazing. -Construction of water harvesting structures (e.g. contour strips) and water spreading structures to encourage recovery of native vegetation.
4.2. Findings of local community meetings
4.2.1. Important grazing locations in Iyra Range Reserve
Iyra Range Reserve is stretching from the mountainous area of Iyra and Yarqa villages
representing the Mediterranean non-forest ecosystem down to Wadi Shoaib in Jordan valley
representing a tropical ecosystem. The Reserve consisted of numerous mountains and
undulating hills which makes accessibility to the different parts of the reserve not an easy job.
According to the Rangeland Department at the Ministry of Agriculture, the area of Iyra and
Yarqa Range Reserve is around 4000 ha out of which 50% is actually utilized. The population
of sheep grazing at the reserve is around 40,000 head. In a normal year, grazing period is
short, not exceeding 30 days, and permissible from 15 to 30 March (spring grazing) and from 15
to 30 September (fall grazing) each year. The estimated forage production is around 200 kg/ha
per year and the annual stocking rate is around 10 SUM/ha. The prevailing weather conditions
governed the mobility of sheep flocks; wintering from November to early March in Jordan Valley
and springing from March to October in the hilly and mountainous areas (Shafa Ghoriyeh).
Some sheep flocks stay in Jordan valley until mid-April feeding on the residues of vegetable
crops (tomato, cucumber, cabbage, lettuce, cauliflower, potato, squash, eggplants…) before
moving to the mountainous areas. It is worth noting that the increase of temperature in late
spring and summer in Jordan Valley forces herders to move their flocks into the highlands and
cereal production areas.
17
The herders indicated that the important grazing locations within the Reserve are: Azar (عازار),
Asfour ( العصافير مشاع أو عصفور ), Tanourah (طنورة), Al-Hoor (الحور) in the upper part of the reserve,
Bair Al-Shaikh ( الشيخ بير ) in the middle of the reserve and vast degraded areas stretching down to
Jordan Valley in the lower part of the reserve. The importance of these locations lies in the
dominance of herbaceous vegetation type (mostly forbs), presence of natural springs and
proximity to the residency of herders in Iyra and Yarqa.
Problems of grazing locations
The attendants highlighted several problems related to the Iyra Range Reserve which included
the following:
The presence of private land parcels at the edges and in many cases inside the reserve.
The Al-Jahallen (a nomadic tribe from Beir Al-Sabea السبع بئر ) used to camp at the edges
of the reserve in early spring to graze their flocks on private lands with high potential for
trespassing into the reserve.
The blowing dust from the nearby quarries creates a real problem for humans, grazing
livestock and vegetation. The Reserve is registered as a treasury land which authorizes
the Authority of Natural Resources (ANR) to issue licenses for quarrying in the area.
This means that conflicts on the type of investment (quarrying, grazing, eco-tourism…) in
some parts of the reserve should be resolved.
The topographic features of the Reserve make accessibility relatively difficult which
hinders trucking of water for livestock while grazing in the reserve, knowing that the cost
of water tank with 8 m3 capacity is around JD35. The herders asked for making cisterns
inside the reserve to collect surface runoff during the rainy season to be used later for
watering their animals during grazing periods. In addition, some springs in the reserve
require construction of watering troughs to water animals without contaminating these
springs with animal droppings.
All herders were not happy about the amount and quality of subsidized barley grains and
wheat bran. The subsidized and market prices were JD175 and JD220 per ton for
barley grains and JD2 and JD4.5 per bag (25 kg) for wheat bran. The herders claimed
that the monthly allowance of barley grains is not enough for proper nutrition of animals
especially during the lambing season (November-January) where no forage material is
available in the country. The herders complained from the low quality of barley grains,
shrinked-grains mixed with substantial amounts of dirt and straw.
High mortality of new born is the most devastating problem facing the herders. In some
seasons, mortality exceeds more than 50% which sweeps all expected income from the
sales of young. The herders indicated that the increase in the incidence of livestock
diseases could be attributed to increasing dependence on barley grains to feed animals
due to continuous deterioration of rangelands which results in poor health of dams, poor
storage of the monthly allowance of feedstuffs especially during winter, and mobility of
flocks carrying the diseases and parasites among the different grazing locations.
18
Potential investment for sustainable production
From investment perspective, the following are sound interventions to improve quality, quantity
and diversity of native vegetation:
Construction of cisterns to collect surface runoff for watering animals during the grazing
periods is of vital importance. This reduces the necessity of hauling water to the flocks
grazing inside the reserve during the permissible period.
Application of phosphate fertilizers and reseeding with leguminous forage species in the
mountainous areas receiving the highest rainfall. This intervention was designed and
applied by ICARDA and NCART/MoA (NCARE now) before many years at the reserve
and showed positive results in both diversity and productivity of rangeland plant species.
The lower areas of the reserve are vast but of low productivity resulting from low
precipitation and uncontrolled grazing. Plantation of native fodder shrubs at these lower
areas of the reserve is highly recommended to reduce soil erosion and enhance the
forage productivity.
The current grazing management of the reserve should be revised and more than one
grazing theme could be applied to accommodate the variations of upper and lower areas
of the reserve.
4.2.2. Important grazing locations in Azraq area
The targeted rangeland area is located between Al-Kharraneh Palace and Al-Shaumari Natural
Reserve. The area is relatively flat and consists of several wadies and harbors three stock-
ponds (Al-Kharraneh, Dmaneh and Hsaideh). In some parts of the area, soil surface is covered
with small black gravels which protect soils from erosion by wind and water.
In general, the vegetation is diffused or accumulated in small islands. The plants are mostly
pedestalled indicating active soil erosion by flood water. Many locations were encountered
within the area where barley is cultivated. The risky barley cultivation aims either to boost
forage productivity in the area or to establish land ownership (defacto) knowing that the area is
considered as a treasury land.
During the spring season, flux of sheep and goat flocks from Azraq, Wadi Dulail and Rweished
graze the native vegetation and cultivated barley until early summer. The herders indicated that
the population of sheep and goats graze in the area is variable depending on the rainy season
(floods) and the flocks of outsiders.
Problems of grazing locations
The main problems addressed by herders are summarized in the following:
19
The attendants emphasized their complete rejection to the establishment of range
reserve(s) at their traditional grazing domain knowing that the consultant reiterated
many times in the meeting that the DANIDA project is not interested in the
establishment of Range Reserves. This shows how much the magnitude of mistrust
between the pastoral communities and the Authorities.
The attendants view the targeted area as their traditional tribal fronts even though the
tribal fronts in the country were cancelled by a Governmental Decree. On ground, the
issue of tribal fronts is still effective which shows that the ambiguity of rangeland
governance in Jordan. The lack of enforcing Agriculture Law especially the articles
tackling the issues of rangeland creates an enabling environment for all types of
irrational uses such as encroachment of dry and irrigated agriculture, urbanization,
uncontrolled mining, uprooting of woody plants and destructive grazing.
The participants appreciated the construction of stock ponds for watering animals which
reduces the cost of hauling water substantially. They demanded the construction of
more stock ponds to benefit from the flashfloods in the area.
The herders complained from the low amounts of allocated barley to their flocks and
from the low quality of the distributed barley grains. They asked the Government to free
the market of barley grains and permits the private sector to handle the imports, pricing
and distribution of this important feedstuff for livestock sector in the country.
The attendants recommended four grazing locations (Hsiadeh Al-Darwah , حصيدة , الضروة
Al-Gharah and Al-Hazeem الغرة for improving vegetation and construction of stock ( الهزيم
ponds.
Potential investment for sustainable production
Appropriate interventions aiming to improve rangeland forage productivity and livestock
performance in the area would be:
Construction of stock ponds for watering animals which is expected to reduce the costs
of pastoral animal production. From rangeland health perspective, the stock ponds are
expected to reduce the mobility of trucks hauling water; consequently reducing the areas
vulnerable to damage as a result of haphazard trails of trucks in the area.
Construction of water spreading structures to reduce the impact of flashfloods that
accelerate soil erosion.
Development and implementation of awareness program that focuses on the importance
of managed grazing to sustainability of rangeland resources in the area.
4.2.3. Important grazing locations in Al-Hussinieieh area
The targeted rangelands are located in the east of highway (towards the desert) and stretching
from Al-Hussinieieh to Al-Jafr. The area is vast, flat and consists of several wadies such as
Rweishdat (الرويشدات), Abu-Tlaiha ( طليحة أبو ), Abu-Safa ( صفا أبو ) and Jurdaneh (الجردانه). Several
20
stock ponds were constructed in the area. Grazing of sheep, goats and camels is the main use
of these wadies, barley cultivation was not observed.
Problems of grazing locations
The main problems raised by the community were:
Rejection of establishing any range reserve in the western part of Al-Hussinieieh
because it is private land and most of it is used for agriculture.
Rejection of planting fodder shrubs in the wadies of eastern part because it was tried
before and failed.
Being vast, the area is visited by large number of sheep, goat and camel flocks coming
from almost all parts of the country which makes regulation of grazing a very difficult
task.
Potential investment for sustainable production
In spite of remoteness from Al-Hussinieieh, the area is promising especially Wadi Abu-
Safa and Wadi Al-Jurdaneh. Water spreading structures will be useful to spread water
over larger areas to encourage native vegetation can be recovered and at the same time
soil erosion by flashfloods in the wadies will be reduced.
Construction of stock ponds in some wadies such as Rweishdat.
4.2.4. Important grazing locations in Hima Bani Hashem
The Hima area is around 100 ha which is a part of 1500 ha treasury land. The Hima consists of
narrow Wadi surrounded by rocky-mountains and hills at the two sides. The Wadi is known
locally as Wadi Bgaireen (meaning cattle producers). Before 20 years, cattle barns or sheds
were located at the lowest entrance of the Wadi. The low lands surrounding the Hima are used
for growing wheat, barley, and olive trees. The sheep and goat population in the area is around
3500 head.
Problems of Hima area
The cooperative administration highlighted the following issues:
The Hima area is not enough to provide substantial forage for sheep population owned
by members of the cooperative. There is a need to add an additional 100 ha or more to
the existing Hima from the surrounding treasury land.
The treasury land surrounding the Hima is grazed by flocks from outside the area which
attempting to trespass into the Hima especially at the boundaries creating some conflicts
in the area. This issue forced the Administration of the Hima to recruit three guards for
protection which increases the running costs at the burden of the Hima Cooperative.
21
Lack of water resources inside the Hima. The constructed 10 cisterns in the Hima are
not functioning well because of water seeps which require allocation of budget for
renovation of these cisterns.
The vegetation of the Hima is grazed during November-December (fall grazing or Al-
Ghasab الخصاب) and this practice is really a waste of forage resources where grazing the
green lush forage plants improves the nutrition and health of animals.
Potential investment for sustainable production
After 2 years of protection, the health of rangelands in the Hima is improving in terms of
productivity and diversity of plant species. The scaling up of the Hima to include an
additional 100-200 ha from the surrounding treasury land will benefit more stockowners
in the area.
The mountainous and hilly topographic features of the Hima funnels surface runoff into
the wadi. The construction of several small earth dams to harness some of the surface
runoff is highly required for watering animals and for irrigating some land pieces that are
harboring substantial number of medicinal and herbal plants.
The current grazing management of the Hima should be revised to optimize the benefits
of vegetation.
Training members of the cooperative on planning and implementation of community-
based grazing management is essential for sustainable forage production of the Hima.
4.2.5. Indicators adopted by herders for selection of grazing locations
According to the responses of group discussion during community meeting, the main indicators
for selection of grazing locations included abundant vegetation cover, lack of poisonous plants,
availability of watering sources, and abundance of certain forage plant species (e.g.
leguminous).
Vegetation cover
Herders believed that locations with abundant plant cover usually reflect good soil moisture and
good plant productivity. Abundant cover means more diversity and good nutritive value of
vegetation.
Lack of poisonous plants
The herders avoided the locations invested with poisonous plants such Ferula communis (kalkh
,(حرمل harmal) Peganum harmala ,(حلبلوب halablab) Photo 4) Euphorbia hierosolymitana ,كلخ
Chicorum sp. ( الهندباء أو العلت Photo 5), Lupinus sp. ( المر البري الترمس ) especially before the flowering
time of these noxious plant species.
Availability of watering points
22
The herders preferred to graze their flocks in locations with available water source (e.g. hafeer,
cistern or natural spring) even if the vegetation cover is not abundant. The rough topography in
certain grazing locations such as Hima Bani Hashem and Iyra Range Reserve creates problems
in trucking water to grazing animals.
Quality forage species
Through time, herders developed accurate maps in their minds about the locations where
certain plant species dominate. In desert rangelands, herders prefer locations with abundance
patches of Trigonella stellata, Zilla spinosa, Achillea fragrantissimia and Artemisia sieberi.
Some of these plants contain essential oils which give a pleasant flavor and aroma to the
mutton and chevon produced from grazing animals. Sheep grazing on rangelands with
abundance of Artemisia sieberi are more marketable in Saudi Arabia. In hilly and mountainous
areas receiving good rainfall, herders seek locations with abundance of leguminous plants such
as Vicia sp., Medicago sp., and Trifolium sp.
The herders target certain plant species during the different seasons which is considered an
important factor triggering the mobility of flocks at the village or reserve level. For example,
locations dominated by Anabasis syriaca (a dwarf shrub known locally as shnan شنان) are
avoided when the plant is green because it is unpalatable due to the high content of alkaloids.
When the plant becomes dry and the dust washed by the first rainfall, animals start browsing
this plant species. Locations rich in grass plants such as Hordeum, Phalaris and Stipa species
are highly preferred by herders of Al-Hussinieieh to graze their flocks believing that more energy
(known locally as shahim شحم) will be obtained by the grazing animals from eating these species.
Lack of thorny plants
Locations infested with thorny shrubs and trees are avoided; herders refrain from grazing sheep
flocks on locations planted with Prosopis species (an exotic thorny-dwarf tree, Photo 6) because
of the risk that small sheep can be trapped and caught by these thorny plants. Physical
damage to the lips and udder of sheep can be caused by thorny plants such as Cirsium sp.,
Silybum sp., and Eryngium creticum known as Karsaaneh قرصعنة.
Lack of conflict on land tenure
From Agriculture Law perspective, there is no “tribal lands or tribal fronts” as claimed by local
communities. The majority of rangelands in Jordan are treasury lands where the right of use is
guaranteed or secured for local communities but the ownership of these lands is not granted. In
reality, the tribes still claim that these lands are tribal lands and should be solely used by certain
tribes.
The lesson learned from the issue of land tenure is that herders prefer to graze their flocks on
areas without any disputes on land tenure and this issue is one of the entry points to promote
the idea of Hima or community-management of grazing lands.
23
4.3. Findings of vegetation monitoring
4.3.1. Vegetation cover
The coverage of vegetation ranged between 0 and 95% and averaged 24.8, 59.1, 45.1 and
36.1% for the rangelands of Al-Hussinieieh, Hima Bani Hashem, Iyra reserve and Wadi Al-
Fraisheen, respectively (Table 5). The Hima and Iyra grazing locations showed high vegetation
coverage in response to the relatively high amount of rainfall compared to surface runoff in Al-
Hussinieieh and Wadi Al-Fraisheen locations.
Table 5: Percent vegetation cover of rangelands with high potential for investment for sustainable production.
Vegetation Cover %
Grazing Location Minimum Maximum Average ± STDEV
Al-Hussinieieh rangeland 0 70 24.8 ± 18.2
Hima Bani Hashem 0 95 59.1 ± 26.6
Iyra Range Reserve 0 95 45.1 ± 20.2
Wadi Al- Al-Fraisheen 0 80 36.1 ± 22.1
4.3.2. Species richness
The Hima and Iyra grazing locations showed higher diversity of plant species (6.4 and 5.2
species/m2, respectively) compared to those of Al-Hussinieieh and Wadi Al-Fraisheen locations
(2.7 and 2.6 species/m2, respectively) (Table 6). Higher diversity of plant species especially of
the forage ones indicates higher nutritive value of vegetation and consequently higher grazing
capacity.
Table 6: Species richness in rangelands with high potential for investment for sustainable production.
No. of Reported Plant Species
Species Richness (no. of species/m2)
Grazing Location Minimum Maximum Average ± STDEV
Al-Hussinieieh rangelands 20 0 6 2.7 ± 1.7
Hima Bani Hashem 56 0 15 6.4 ± 3.1
Iyra Range Reserve 40 0 11 5.2 ± 3.6
Wadi Al-Fraisheen 34 0 6 2.6 ± 1.6
4.3.3. Vegetation grazability
Grazability Index (GI) which represents the suitability of vegetation for grazing was highest for
Hima Bani Hashem followed by Iyra Range Reserve, Wadi Al-Fraisheen and Al-Hussinieieh
grazing locations (Table 7). Bare grounds and infested areas with unpalatable plants negatively
affected the value of grazability index. The grazability index could be used in case data on
forage biomass production is not available for targeted grazing locations.
Table 7: Vegetation grazability of rangelands with high potential for investment for sustainable production.
24
Vegetation Grazability % Grazability Index* Grazing Location G0 G1 G2 G3
Al-Hussinieieh rangelands 15.6 37.8 42.2 4.4 35.78
Hima Bani Hashem 8.9 55.6 28.9 6.7 42.7
Iyra range reserve 17.8 57.8 13.3 11.1 39.78
Wadi Al-Fraisheen 20.0 51.1 22.2 6.7 37.99 G0: bare ground (no vegetation), G1: lacking unpalatable plants, G2: harboring few unpalatable plants, G3: invested with unpalatable plants *GI= (G0*0) + (G1*0.6) + (G2*0.3) + (G3*0.1)
4.3.4. Biomass production
It is well known that the amount and distribution of annual rainfall have a direct effect on the
coverage and biomass production of native vegetation. As mentioned before, the 2014/2015
season is considered as a wet year with annual rainfall above the long term average in most
parts of the country. Regardless of the prolonged history of destructive grazing and collection of
fuel wood, the targeted grazing locations produced substantial amounts of forage material
mainly because of the received high amounts of rainfall or floodwater.
The rational management of protection and managed grazing at Hima Bani Hashem and Iyra
Range Reserve, which represent mountainous rangelands, resulted in significant production of
forage material (Table 8 and Fig. 3). The desert rangelands represented by Al-Hussinieieh and
Wadi Al-Fraisheen, which are under open access, produced low to moderate amounts of forage
material.
It is worth noting that in spite of the poor soil fertility of rangelands at the country level, high
levels of biomass production had been achieved. Imagine the potential production levels of
these rangelands if they were amended with cheap and safe organic fertilizers or conditioners
such as biosolids which are available in huge amounts in Jordan.
Table 8: Biomass production of rangelands with high potential for investment for sustainable production.
Fresh Biomass Production (kg/ha) Forage Biomass % Grazing Location Forage Non-forage
1 Total
Al-Hussinieieh rangelands 363 ± 307 200 ± 288 563 ± 509 64.4
Hima Bani Hashem 955 ± 677 209 ± 357 1164 ± 821 82.1
Iyra range reserve 691 ± 533 183 ± 347 874 ± 684 79.1
Wadi Al-Fraisheen 439 ± 351 167 ± 311 607 ± 526 72.4 1: unpalatable plants (poisonous, thorny and hairy)
25
Figure 3: Forage biomass production and management of preferred grazing locations by herders.
4.5. Valuation of monitored vegetation Economic valuation of rangeland services is vital for decision/policy makers, investors and
funders. In this study, the calculated monetary value of sustainable forage production ranged
between JD7.99 to 21.01/ha annually (Table 9). This value took into consideration the issue of
“take half and leave half” of standing vegetation to ensure better recovery of grazed plants
which is highly needed for the sustainability of rangeland forage production.
The assumptions for valuation of rangeland forage production are shown below:
26
Dry matter content of the harvested fresh vegetation of rangeland is 50%.
Percent forage biomass in the harvested vegetation was 64.4, 82.1, 79.1 and 72.4% for Al-Hussinieieh, Hima Bani Hashem, Iyra range reserve and Wadi Al-Fraisheen locations, respectively.
Nutritive value of rangeland forage is equivalent to 40% of that of barley grains (energy bases).
Utilization is 50% to ensure sustainable production of rangeland forage species.
Market price of barley grains: JD220 per ton.
For example, the calculated value of forage produced from Al-Hussinieieh rangelands was
JD15.97/ha per grazing season (563 kg fresh vegetation/ha) X 50% DM content of harvested
vegetation X 64.4% percent forage biomass in the harvested vegetation X 40% equivalent
nutritive value X 0.001 kg/ton X JD220/ton of barley grains).
For sustainable forage production of Al-Hussinieieh rangelands, only 50% of this produced
forage is allowed to be harvested by grazing animals which valued JD7.99 per ha per grazing
season. The levels of forage production of monitored grazing locations could be increased
substantially if these locations are rationally managed.
Table 9: Vegetation valuation of rangelands with high potential for investment for sustainable production.
Forage Production Valuation (JD/ha)
Grazing Location Forage (kg fresh /ha)
1
Forage (Kg DM/ha)
2
Barley Grain Equivalent (kg/ha)
3
Available Forage
4
Allowable Forage
5
Al-Hussinieieh rangelands 363 181.5 72.6 15.97 7.99
Hima Bani Hashem 955 477.5 191 42.02 21.01
Iyra range reserve 691 345.5 138.2 30.40 15.2
Wadi Al-Fraisheen 439 219.5 87.8 19.32 9.66 1: Weight of forage expresses as on is basis, 2: Based on 50% dry matter, 3: The nutritive value of rangeland forage is equivalent to 40% of that of barley grains, 4: Based on JD220 per ton of barley grains, 5: Based on 50% utilization for sustainable production of rangeland forage.
Since rangeland productivity is linearly related to rainfall, three scenarios for valuation of
produced forage from the four grazing locations could be postulated (Table 10).
Table 10. Scenarios for valuation of produced forage according to amount of rainfall.
Grazing Location Forage Weight
(Kg DM/ha)
Barley Grain Equivalent
(kg/ha)1
Forage Value
(JD/ha)2
Value of Allowable Forage (JD/ha)
3
High Rainfall
Moderate Rainfall
Low Rainfall
Al-Hussinieieh rangeland 181.5 72.6 15.97 7.98 3.99 2.0
Hima Bani Hashem 477.5 191.0 42.02 21.01 10.51 5.3
Iyra range reserve 345.5 138.2 30.40 15.20 7.60 3.8
Wadi Al-Fraisheen 219.5 87.8 19.32 9.66 4.83 2.4
1: Nutritive value of dry matter of native vegetation is around 40% of that of barley grains.
27
2: Forage value based on JD220 per ton of barley grains (market price). 3: Forage value based on the amount of annual rainfall (high: similar to 2014/2015 season, moderate: 50% of high rainfall, low: 25% of high rainfall).
4.6. Effect of grazing management on vegetation attributes The vegetation attributes are affected by many factors such as climate, edaphic and
management. In this study, we were interested in the impact of management on range
condition. The lack of rational management (open access) of tribal rangelands as the case in
Al-Hussinieieh and Wadi Al-Fraisheen showed fair range condition compared to good condition
of Hima Bani Hashem and Iyra Range Reserve locations where grazing is regulated. In tribal
lands, neither the population of grazing animals nor the grazing period are controlled which
leads to overgrazing of almost all forage species. On the contrary, both the population of
grazing animals and the grazing period of Hima Bani Hashem (fall grazing) and Iyra Range
Reserve (spring and fall grazing) were controlled which maintained a reasonable coverage and
biomass production of forage species. This shows that regardless of the ownership (state,
communal, community) of grazing locations, the management of these locations is the most
important for sustainable provision of forage material. The community-based management at
Hima Bani Hashem and the co-management (MoA and local community) at Iyra range Reserve
have a positive impact on the vegetation of these locations. The Government should focus on
enabling environment for development and implementation of community-based management
on state rangelands to gradually replace the present open access to ensure sustainable
production of good and services of grazing ecosystems in the country.
5. Linking local knowledge on grazing resources to
mapped data The results of monitoring vegetation in the preferred grazing locations revealed that these
locations still in a reasonable health. The collected information on the vegetation attributes of
these locations agreed with the mapped data of recommended rangeland sites with high
potential for investment. The local knowledge of herders related to grazing locations was very
important for validating the outputs of the geo-spatial techniques. The approach of combining
local knowledge of pastoralists and scientific knowledge of researchers is effective and can be
employed for monitoring of rangeland resources of the country.
The bio-indicators that were embraced by herders in the selection of grazing locations (item
4.2.5) were the spread of coverage and composition of vegetation (e.g. abundance of certain
plant species). These two indicators are viewed by herders as a source of cheap feed for their
flocks and are important for reducing the costs of feed bills. The two indicators are easily
grasped by herders, easy to collect and interpret and can be used at local scales for monitoring
of grazing resources. For range managers, the vegetation cover represents biomass production
and gives an idea about soils vulnerability to erosion. The composition of vegetation is viewed
by range managers as forage quality which can be used to predict the nutritional status and
28
performance of grazing animals. Since range managers are mainly interested in “the proper
stocking rate or grazing capacity”, it is important for them to improve and refine the two bio-
indicators (coverage and composition) into grazable biomass or potential number of grazing
days which easily grasped by herders.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Overall situation of sampled rangeland sites The visited rangeland sites showed good stand of healthy vegetation. Notably, the rainfall of
this year (2014/2015) was exceptional which was translated into good vegetation coverage and
species diversity on rangelands. In other words, what we have observed in the field is viewed
as the maximum potential productivity of rangeland regardless of the prolonged history of
irrational uses, especially over- grazing, of these lands. This issue should be taken into
consideration in case of valuation of rangeland forage productivity. In years of moderate and low
rainfall, estimates of rangeland forage production can be around 50 and 25% of the 2014/2015
forage production, respectively.
6.2. Potential interventions for sustainable production of rangelands The potential interventions in the visited rangeland sites can be grouped into four areas: water
harvesting, rangeland productivity, productivity of grazing animals, and livestock supporting
services. The interventions detailed below are based on the findings of field visits conducted to
potential rangelands in addition to lessons learned from the rangeland rehabilitation projects
that were conducted in the country such as Jordan Arid Zone Productivity Project known as
JAZPP, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agro-biodiversity Project (Agrobiodiversity),
Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands Project (SUMAMAD), Restoration of Terrestrial
Ecosystems in Jordan Badia Program (BRP), Communal Management and Optimization of
Mechanized Micro-catchment Water Harvesting for Combating Desertification in the East
Mediterranean Region (Vallerani Water Harvesting Project), and Conservation and Sustainable
Use of Dry Land Agrobiodiversity Project in West Asia.
6.2.1. Harnessing surface runoff
Depending on the size of rangelands and the characteristics of precipitation (amount,
distribution…), several scenarios are possible for harnessing surface runoff such as:
i) Construction of stock ponds (hafeers) and earth dams in Badia rangelands, receiving less
than 100 mm of annual rainfall in the form of thunder storms, to collect the water of flash floods
to provide water for roaming sheep and goat flocks for several months. In areas where soils are
29
suitable, the collected water can be used for small scale production of feed/forage crops. This
option is possible for Al-Hussinieieh rangeland and Wadi Al-Fraisheen rangelands.
ii) In mountainous and hilly rangelands receiving more than 200 mm of annual rainfall,
construction of cisterns with capacity of 10-20 m3 proved to be effective in providing adequate
water for animals during grazing season. This option is possible for Iyra range reserve and Hima
Bani Hashem.
Iii) Construction of water spreading structures in wadies of Badia area where precipitation is low
and flash floods funneling through wadies. Spreading of water will increase the size of wetted
areas and create more favorable conditions for the establishment and growth of native plant
species. At the same time, soil erosion by flash floods is expected to be reduced.
6.2.2. Increasing rangeland forage production
Depending on soil properties and amount of annual rainfall, forage productivity can be achieved
by several approaches:
i) Exclusion of grazing for at least two years on rangelands with good soil and receiving an
annual rainfall more than 250 mm. This option is applicable for Iyra range reserve (upper part)
and Hima Bani Hashem.
ii) Exclusion of grazing for at least two years and application of phosphate fertilizers on
rangelands with good soil and receiving an annual rainfall more than 250 mm. This option is
applicable for Iyra range reserve (upper part) and Hima Bani Hashem.
iii) Delaying grazing until near the end of spring season on rangelands dominated by annual
plants and receiving 150-200 mm of annual rainfall. This option is applicable to areas located in
the middle of Iyra range reserve.
iv) Plantation of fodder/forage shrubs in highly degraded rangelands receiving an annual rainfall
between 100-150 mm and protecting the plantation for two years before grazing animals on
these planted areas. This option is applicable to lower areas of Iyra range reserve, some parts
of Al-Hussinieieh and Wadi Al-Fraisheen rangelands.
6.2.3. Increasing animal productivity
The common pastoral animal production in Jordan especially in the Badia is the ewe-lamb
production system where the sales of young (newly weaned lambs and kids) and milk yield are
the main sources of income. The newly weaned lambs and kids are usually fattened for 3-4
months in feedlots and fed formulated ration until reaching the market weight of 30-40 kg.
Improving the productivity of animals raised in feedlots through better management (nutrition,
veterinary services and marketing) is expected to increase the livelihoods of pastoral
communities and creates jobs for the community.
30
6.2.4. Supporting services for animal production
Investment in the supporting services such as trucking of water and feedstuffs, veterinary,
shearing of wool, processing of wool, feed mills, and milk processing is important for facilitating
the operations of the pastoral animal production. This will help in strengthening the pastoral
animal production and creates more jobs for local communities.
6.3. Indicators and users The vegetation attributes (e.g. coverage and composition) used by herders in the selection of
grazing locations are suitable qualitative indicators (e.g. site forage grazability) for monitoring of
vegetation at the site or local scale. For range managers, this site forage grazability should be
refined and quantified through combining the main vegetation attributes (cover, composition and
biomass) of each vegetation zone to be applicable at a larger scale. Forage grazability as a
quantitative indicator at site and zone scales are easily grasped by herders, range managers
and decision makers. In addition, this forage grazability indicator facilitates the valuation of
grazing resources of each grazing site or vegetation zone which helps decision makers in
planning and allocation of needed resources at the site and zone scales.
31
7. References Abu-Zanat, M. 2005. Demonstration of Mechanized Micro-Catchment Water Harvesting for
Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands. Communal Management and Optimization of Mechanized Micro-catchment Water Harvesting for Combating Desertification in the East Mediterranean Region Project (Vallerani System Project). Swiss Agency, ICARDA and National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer, Amman, Jordan.
Abu-Zanat, M. 2011. Community-based Grazing Management for Al Barrah Grazing Area
(Barrat Dana Biosphere Reserve). Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands Project (SUMAMAD). The Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature, Amman, Jordan.
Abu-Zanat, M., G. B. Ruyle and N.F. Abdel-Hamid. 2004. Increasing range production from
fodder shrubs in low rainfall areas. J. of Arid Environments, 59: 205-216. Al-Bakri, J. 2015. Using geo-spatial techniques for selecting high potential rangeland sites for
investment. Sustainable Dryland Landscapes: Closing the Knowledge-Policy Implementation Project. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-ROWA).
Albert, A., Petutschnnig, B. and Watzka, M. 2003. Zur Vegetation und Flora Jordaniens. In:
Waitzbaur, W., Albert, R., Petutschnnig, B. and Aubrecht, G. (eds.): Reise Durch Die Natur Jordaniens. Biologiezentrum der Oberosterreichen Landesmuseen, J.-W-Klein-Str. 73, 4040 Linz, Austria.
DoS (Department of Statistics, Jordan). 2010. A report on Poverty in Jordan based on
household income survey in 2010. DoS, Amman, Jordan.
32
8. Appendices
Appendix A
DANIDA Project, IUCN
Sheet-Format for Field Pilot visits
1. General Information
Watershed
Name: Area (ha):
Sub-watershed
Name: Area (ha)
Location
Name: Coordinates: Area (ha): Relative area of the location to the sub-watershed (%): Ownership (treasury, cooperative, private, others): Slope gradient (%):
Topography
Main features: Special land marks:
Soils
Surface: Texture:
Local Community:
Name: Population: Population of sheep and goats:
Notes:
2. Vegetation Attributes:
33
Structure (number and type of strata):
Vegetation type:
Coverage (%):
Key species:
Vegetation Status:
Main uses of the location:
Threats:
Investment:
Notes:
34
Appendix B
Agenda of Field Visits (January-March, 2015)
Activity Date Locations Team Submitted-reports
Pilot Field Visits
14 January Wadi Al-Farasheen from Al-Kharaneh Palace to Al-Shoumari Nature Reserve
Abu-Zanat, Al-Bakri, Al-Rashdan, Amer
1st PR
(D1)
15 January Hima Bani Hashem Abu-Zanat, Al-Bakri, Amer
21 January Al-Mohammadeyeh, Al-Qatraneh and Al-Hussienieh
Abu-Zanat, Al-Bakri, Al-Rashdan, Amer
10 February Wadi Shuaib and Iyra Range Reserve Abu-Zanat, Al-Bakri, Al-Rashdan, Amer
Community Meetings
17 February Hima Bani Hashem Abu-Zanat, Al-Rashdan
2nd
PR (D2)
24 February Iyra and Yarqa herders Abu-Zanat, Al-Rashdan
26 February Wadi Al-Farasheen Abu-Zanat, Al-Rashdan
12 March Al-Hussienieh Abu-Zanat, Al-Rashdan
Monitoring Vegetation
17 March Al-Hussienieh Abu-Zanat 3
rd PR
(D3)
19 March Hima Bani Hashem Abu-Zanat 24 March Iyra Range Reserve Abu-Zanat 28 March Wadi Al-Farasheen Abu-Zanat
35
Appendix C
Client: International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Project: Sustainable Dryland Landscapes: Closing the Knowledge-Policy Implementation Consultant: Dr. Mahfouz Abu-Zanat
Questionnaire Selection of Key Grazing Areas by Herders
Location name: Residency
Herder name: Flock size
Tribe: Flock composition
Age: Daily distance travelled (km)
Years of experience Family size
1. Why you are grazing your flock in this area?
2. How long you have been grazing your flock in this area?
3. What are the other grazing areas you visited this year?
4. What are the other grazing areas you visited last year?
5. When you graze your flocks during the year? Spring (from to ) Summer (from to ) Winter (from to )
6. Do you follow a traditional mobility each year?
7. If yes, name the locations
8. What are the key indicators for a good or preferable grazing location?
9. How many herders graze their flocks in this area?
36
10. Compare the present situation of this grazing location with that before 5 or 10 years?
11. What you think that the Government should do in this area?
37
Photo 4: Ferula communis, a poisonous plant commonly found in Shaumari area.
Photo 5: Chicorium sp. a poisonous plant in Hima Bani Hashem.
38
Photo 6: Prosopis, a thorny introduced dwarf tree at Iyra Range Reserve.
Photo 7: A herder from Jahaleen tribe grazing his flock at the borders of Iyra Range Reserve.
39
Photo 7: Patches of Trigonella stellata (locally known as nafal) in Wadi Jurdaneh, Al-Hussienieh, Maan
Governorate.
Photo 8: Regrowth of Artemisia siberi (shaih) from overgrazed stumps in Wadi Abo-Safa
top related