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