Forest Dependency in Rural Executive summary

Based on results of the study in , , and regions

Tbilisi, October 2016

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content, findings, interpretations, and conclusions of this publication are the sole responsibility of the FLEG II (ENPI East) Program Team (www.enpi-fleg.org) and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Implementing Organizations.

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Rationale: The importance of a Forest Dependency Study in Georgia ...... 4 3. Methodology ...... 5 4. Study Areas ...... 6 5. Study results ...... 9 5.1 Main economic activity and income according to sources ...... 9 5.2. Use of forest resources ...... 12 5.3 Relative forest income (RFI) ...... 14 5.4 Use of firewood ...... 17 5.5 Attitudes toward general condition of forests ...... 18 5.6 Forest use, regulations and management – timber production ticket ...... 19 5.7 Forest use, regulations and management – license holders ...... 19 6. Conclusion ...... 20 References: ...... 21

2

1. Introduction Georgia, located in the Caucasus Region is bounded by the Black Sea to the west, by Russia to the north, by and to the south, and by to the southeast. The largest city in Georgia is the capital of . The total population of Georgia is approximately 3,720 million people. Forests are one of the most valuable natural resources in Georgia. Georgian forests provide shelter and migration routes for many animal species, thereby facilitating the maintenance of biodiversity. Georgia lies in one of the Earth’s most biologically rich regions. The Caucasus region covers one of WWF’s (World Wide Fund for Nature) 35 “priority places.” Moreover, Georgia is located within the two “biodiversity hotspots” – the Caucasus and -Anatolia - from the 34 “biodiversity hotspots” identified by Conservation International as the richest and most threatened reservoirs of plant and animal life. The remaining forest massifs in the Georgian mountains are the last untouched forests in the moderate climate zone of the Earth, thus they have a significant global importance. Georgia is a mountainous country. The total area of land covered by forests is approximately 2.8 million hectares, which is approximately 40% of the country’s territory. The total timber resources in the Georgian forest are estimated at 451.7 million cubic meters. 97% (2915.8 hectares) of the forests in Georgian are located on mountain slopes, the remaining 3% are low-lying and flood plain forests in the Kolkheti region located in the western part of Georgia. 95-98% of Georgian forests are native. Characteristics such as composition, size, growth and development, etc. create a rich biological diversity – up to 400 tree and shrub species are registered in Georgian forests. The large number of endemic timber tree species indicates a high diversity of dendroflorai. Among the endemic species, 61 species are endemic to Georgia and 43 are endemic to the Caucasus Region. The tree species are distributed as follows: Beech make up 1060 thousand hectares (46.6 %), Fir make up 161.5 thousand hectares (7.1 %), Pine make up 91.0 thousand hectares (4.0 %), Oak make up 241 thousand hectares (10.6 %), Alder make up 125.1 thousand hectares (5.5 %), Chestnut make up 72.8 thousand hectares (3.2 %), Hornbeam make up 220.6 thousand hectares (8.8 %), Spruce make up 102.0 thousand hectares (4.5 %) and other species make up 220.6 thousand hectares (9.7 %). The distribution of forest cover is unequal in Georgia. While some regions are densely populated with forests (e.g. , , , Racha, gorge, and other regions), other regions (e.g. Dedoplistskaro, , Akhalkalaki, , , Kazbegi, etc.) are more sparsely populated, with a forest cover percentage below 10%. The Georgian forest is owned by the state. The National Forest Agency, a legal entity under public law under the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia, oversees the management of the forest. The Agency manages the State Forest Fund, regulates forest use, and facilitates forest maintenance and rehabilitation. The Agency is also responsible for issuing tickets for timber production and forest use.

The Forest within the boundaries of the Protected Area is managed by the Protected Areas Agency within the same Ministry. 3 According to official statistics, 61.3% of the population of Georgia is self-employed, mostly through the agricultural sector. About 55% of the total population is employed by the agricultural sector, despite the fact

that the agricultural sector only makes up 9.3% of the country’s GDP. (National Statistics Office in Georgia - www.geostat.ge) The Georgian population depends heavily on their surrounding resources for subsistence use. Georgia’s forests provide timber for industrial and household use, as well as non-timber resources such as medicinal plants. For the population living in areas with rugged terrain and tough climatic conditions, where agriculture is less reliable, access to forest and environmental resources is especially important to support their livelihoods. Georgian forests meet various demands of the national economy and support rural populations by providing necessary forest resources. They provide timber for industrial and household use, as well as non-timber resources such as medicinal plants. But most importantly, the forests fulfill environmental and social functions such as water regulation, soil protection, climate regulation, balneologicalii, sanitary-hygienic, aesthetic, recreational, and other useful services, all of which have a great significance for the State. Georgian forests not only preserve the unique biological diversity of the region, but also ensure the continuous provision of vital direct or indirect benefits and resources to the population. This in turn facilitates the development of various industries, supports the wellbeing of the population, assists in poverty alleviation and creates favorable conditions for the sustainable development of the country.

2. Rationale: The importance of a Forest Dependency Study in Georgia The Georgian forest plays a critical role in the economic and social structure of the country. The rural population depends greatly on their surrounding resources for subsistence use to support their livelihoods. Georgia’s forests provide timber for industrial and household use, as well as non-timber resources such as medicinal plants. The welfare of the population in Georgia, as in many other countries, is largely dependent on access to natural resources. Access to these resources is particularly important in areas where it is difficult to support a business for two main reasons, namely the hiring system and the lack of proper infrastructure. For the population living in areas with difficult terrain and climatic conditions, where agriculture is less viable, access to forest and environmental resources are especially important to support their livelihoods. A study conducted by IUCN in 2012 on forest resource dependence in rural communities in Georgia revealed that when it comes to energy sources for heating and cooking, the local population is primarily dependent on timber forest resources. The same results were found in a study on the economic and social impact of unsustainable forest practices and illegal logging on rural populations in Georgia, carried out during phase 1 of the ENPI FLEG program by the Vasil Gulisashvili Forest Institute. This study provides opportunities to evaluate the dependence of the local population on access to forest resources. The study was designed to determine the economic status of the rural population, major challenges, income structure, access to markets and other important aspects related to forest resource dependence and access. The research is also important in terms of identifying the factors that hinder the 4 welfare and development of rural forest dependent populations. Further, the survey results and the information obtained will support central and local authorities’ efforts to

promote the wellbeing of the population that is significantly dependent on forest and environmental resources. Additionally, there is a substantial lack of data and information available in Georgia related to local population dependence on forest resources. This data is a key factor in supporting decision-makers in planning the forest sector development in a way that satisfies local needs while ensuring sustainability. This study, which provides the most recent and accurate data on the matters stated above, will serve as a baseline for decision-making processes. The Forest Dependency Study has been carried out within the frame of the European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument East Countries Forest Law Enforcement and Governance II Program (the “Program”). , which aimed at implementing improved forest governance mechanisms through the effective implementation of the main priorities set out by the St. Petersburg Ministerial Declaration and Indicative Plan of Actions for the Europe and North Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (ENA-FLEG) process. This Program specifically covers seven countries of the ENA Region, including six members of the European Neighborhood Policy Instrument (ENPI) – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation. The Program supports selected pilot activities to be implemented with the active involvement of governments, civil society and the private sector. The main goals of the forest dependency study in Georgia were to document the factors and reasons that may determine drivers of sustainable forest management in forest dependent communities, in order to measure the true value of forests for rural communities. Further, the study aims to provide quantifiable information for the use of decision makers to improve governance.

3. Objectives and Methodology The study had the following goals:

• Document factors and reasons that may determine sustainability between communities and their forest base;

• Measure the true value of fully-functioning forests for rural communities;

• Provide quantifiable information for decision-makers to improve governance;

• At the local level: identify the socio-economic conditions, define the main directions influencing the development of the local population in the selected regions and identify/analyze the level of dependence of poor residents on forest, other natural resources and other products, cattle breeding, etc. Taking the abovementioned goals and objectives into consideration, the study design was developed and research methodology was defined. In order to obtain the most valid and comprehensive information, desk, quantitative and qualitative research methods were used.

Desk research – all potential secondary information about villages, disasters, infrastructure and forests was

obtained within the scope of the study. Sources of information included strategic plans of local municipality 5 governments, other information available to the municipalities, as well as information posted on various web sites.

Quantitative research – in order to achieve 95% reliability, 500 households in total were inquired using a random selection method. To select the respondents, the study used a multi-stage cluster sampling with in advance stratification conducted in advance. Households in the villages were selected on randomly selected streets. The starting point of each street was the beginning of the street. Every third household was selected. The main respondent in the household was the permanent resident of the selected settlement and the most informed family member.

Qualitative research – 27 focus group discussions were held in the selected municipalities. One discussion was conducted in each village and one discussion was conducted with the representatives of Tianeti, Chokhatauri, Akhaltsikhe and governments. 10 respondents participated in each focus group. The age and gender of the respondents was not equal.

4. Study Areas

The study areas were selected in close cooperation with the Biodiversity and Forest Policy Department and the National Forestry Agency of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia. The following municipalities were selected for the study:

Akhalkalaki municipality – situated in southern Georgia, the municipality is located in the historical part of Samtskhe-. Its administrative center is the city of Akhalkalaki. The municipality consists of 64 villages. The total area of Akhalkalaki district is 1234.8 sq.km (1.8% of Georgia and 23.5% of the southern region). A large part of the district territory includes the mountainous plateau of Akhalkalaki. Its surface is relatively homogenous but varies from 1600 m in the northwest to 2100 m in the southeast in altitude.

Akhaltsikhe municipality – situated in the southern Georgia, the municipality is located in the historical part of Samtskhe-Javakheti. and Borjomi municipalities bound to the north, by Borjomi and to the east, and the southern border aligns with the Georgia-Turkey state border and municipality to the west. The municipality includes 48 villages in total.

Chokhatauri municipality – situated in the southwest of Georgia in the region. Chokhatauri is bounded by and to the north, by Vani to the east, by and Adigeni to the south, and by Ozurget and municipalities to the west. The total area of the municipality is 82,509 hectares.

Tianeti municipality – is situated in the high mountain region of east Georgia. Its administrative center is the borough Tianeti, which is located 1,100 meters above sea level. Tianeti municipality is bordered by (to the west and northwest), Akhmeta (to the east and northeast) and . Borough Tianeti is 78 km from Tbilisi. The municipality consists of 2 towns and 81 villages. The population of the municipality is 13,108, 4,568 of which live in towns and 8,540 live in villages. The average population density is 15 persons per square km. 98.3% of population is Georgian, 1% is of Ossethian descent. The rest of the population belong to various other ethnic groups.

Taking the study goals into consideration, villages of the selected municipalities were chosen according to 6 the pre-determined criteria: 1. Distance from forest and access of local residents to forest resources;

2. Social-economic condition of village residents; 3. Infrastructure and distance from local markets; 4. Distribution of population and level of migration; 5. Access to a gas supply. Taking these criteria into consideration, 23 villages were selected in four municipalities. (See map N1).

7

Map N1 – municipalities and villages covered within the study

8

5. Study results

5.1 Main economic activity and income sources The main economic activity in all four municipalities covered by the study region is related to agriculture. Growing crops and livestock husbandry are the activities carried out by almost all able-bodied households. (See figure N1)

Figure N1 – Fields of activity according to municipality Akhaltsikhe municipality

Farmer 35% Farmer 51% Housewife 24% Housewife 28% Pensioner 11%

4% Engineer 7% Pensioner

Driver 5% Public sector 3%

Worker 4% Trade 3%

School 1% I/E 2%

Dentist 1% Service 2% Clerk 1% Nurse 2%

Tractor 1% driver Electrician 1% 1%

Nurse 1% Guard 1%

Cook 1% Soldier 1%

0.3 Guard 1% % Worker Operator 0.3 % Tractor driver 1% 0.3 Nanny % 0.3 Investigator 0.3%

Distributor % iii Midwife Other 0.3% 8% Manager 0.3%

9

Akhalkalaki municipality Tianeti municipality

Farmer 52% Farmer 55%

Housewife 30% 18.0 Housewife %

Pensioner 9% Pensioner 9.0%

Engineer 2% Public sector 7.0%

Guard/Security 1% Transport 2.0%

Head of enterprise 1% Guard (non-forest sector) 2.0%

1% Nurse Service industry 2.0%

School assistant 0.3% 1.0% Housework

Librarian 0.3% 1.0% Handyman I/E 0.3% Carpenter 1.0% Nanny 0.3% 1.0% Fishery

Clerk 0.3% Midwife 0.5%

Other 4% Other 1.0%

Despite the fact that the main economic activity in all four municipalities is related to agriculture, it is not the main source of income in all municipalities. The main source of income for local residents of Chokhatauri Municipality is state allowances, pensions and assistance, including money transfers from abroad. The most frequently named source of income in Tianeti Municipality is livestock husbandry. As for Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki municipalities, the main source of income is related with agriculture, primarily growing crops. The share of income received from timber and non-timber resources is generally low in the villages of the municipalities covered in the study. Based on the results of the study, we can conclude that the main forest product gathered and used by households is firewood. (See figure N2)

10

Figure N2 – sources of income according to municipalities Chokhatauri municipality Akhaltsikhe municipality

Other incomes Income from agriculture 37% 38.9%

Income from agriculture 32.5% Assets and incomes from 21% livestock

Income from livestock products 12.5% Income from livestock 19% products

Assets and incomes Other incomes 16% from livestock 10.8%

Salary Salary 4.8% 3%

Income from forest Income from forest 0.3% 2%

Income from commercial Income from activity commercial activity 2% 0.2%

Other income might include state allowances, pensions and assistance, including money transfers from abroad.

11

Akhalkalaki municipality Tianeti municipality

Livestock Income from 27.7% 24% agriculture products

Assets and incomes 27.6% Salaries 23% from livestock

Income from livestock 24.6% Agriculture 18% products

Other incomes 14.2% Forest 14%

Salary 5.8% Business 2%

Income from forest Income from 0.1% Livestock -3% commercial activity husbandry

0.0% Other 22%

5.2. Use of forest resources Despite the fact that Chokhatauri municipality is rich with forests, the index of gathering and using forest resources by the residents is very low. Only timber products are gathered in the forests. Main timber products gathered in the forests include firewood, branches and logs. Local residents gather firewood mostly in their own plots of land rather than in the forests. 100% of forest products gathered in the villages of Chokhatauri municipality are for household consumption rather than for sale.

Residents of villages in Akhaltsikhe municipality use timber and non-timber resources of local forests. Firewood, mushrooms and raspberries are the most frequently gathered products in the forests of the selected villages. Another frequently gathered product is snails. If we review gathered forest products in terms of their value, the most valuable product is firewood followed by mushroom and hay (which is gathered relatively less frequently). The majority of forest products are collected and used for consumption. The only exceptions are mushrooms and hay, as they are more valuable. 12

Residents of Akhalkalaki municipality are not dependent on forest resources. One of the main reasons for this is that forest coverage is very small in this municipality. Households gather mushrooms most frequently

in the local forests. 100% of forest products gathered in the forests are for consumption.

The most frequently gathered products in Tianeti municipality are firewood, mushrooms, blackberries and grass/hay for cattle. If we review gathered forest products in terms of their value, the most valuable product is grass/hay for cattle followed by firewood and ingredients for alcoholic beverages. The largest portion of gathered forest products is for consumption in Tianeti as well, and only a very small portion is sold. The most frequently sold products include alcohol, mushrooms and firewood (see figure N3 and N4).

Figure N3 –Gathered forest products according to municipalities

Chokhatauri municipality Akhaltsikhe municipality Akhalkalaki municipality Tianeti municipality

5% 11% 15% 18% 25% 7% 26% 25% 7% 8% 7% 18% 50%

8% 9% 12% 70% 25% 9% 18% 11% 11%

Firewood Mushroom Brushwood Firewood Mushroom Firewood Firewood Branches Logs Raspberry Snail Mushroom Cornel Hay Blackberry Canker-berry Other Grass/hay Alcohol Canker-berry Cornel

13

Figure N4 – Value of forest products according to municipalities

Chokhatauri Akhaltsikhe municipality Akhalkalaki municipality Tianeti municipality municipality 2%

2% 7% 8% 13% 18% 4% 19% 13% 30% 2% 43% 11%

12% 6% 80 43% % 68% 1% 18%

Firewood Branches Logs Firewood Brushwood Firewood Mushroom Firewood Mushroom Mushroom Hay Blackberry Raspberry Grass/hay Snail Alcohol Logs Other Herbs Other

5.3 Relative forest income (RFI) Figure N5 demonstrates the distribution of consumed and sold forest products according to quintiles. Households are assigned to quintiles according to their total income, which is calculated based on the coefficients of adult family membersiv. Quintiles are ordered according to growth with the first quintile including households with the lowest income while the fifth quintile includes households with the highest income. The figure presents a curve of Relative Forest Income (RFI) which demonstrates the level of households’ dependence on forest resourcesv. Value of Relative Forest Income shows the extent to which the population depends on forest resources. An RFI that equals 1 means that the entire income of the households is received from forests. Figure N5 – Value of consumed and sold products and RFI

14

Tianeti municipality As the figure demonstrates, the profit received from forest resources makes up the most important part of total incomes in the first groups, which consist of the residents with the lowest income. This confirms that forest resources support the welfare of the poor population. As for the fifth quintile, which consists of the wealthiest portion of residents, the share of their forest activities is higher than the second and fourth quintiles because the population with the highest income has more economic opportunities in terms of accessibility to forests and forest resources (availability of production, transportation and trade). It is also worth mentioning that the relativity of the value of sold products to consumed products is the lowest in the first quintile meaning that the poorer population mostly uses forest products for their household needs.

Groups

Average price of sold Average price of personally Relative Forest Income forest productsforest products consumed forest products RFI

15

Akhaltsikhe municipality

As seen below, the curve trends downwards, which means that the level of dependence on forest resources reduces as income grows. Households within the first quintile are the most dependent on forest products and their dependence level is very high compared to other quintiles. However, the overall level of dependence on forest products is very low. The maximum value of the Relative Forest Income is 1, which means that the entire income of the households is based on the sale of forest products. We can conclude from this figure that the maximum value of RFI equals 0.06 in Akhaltsikhe. The figure also demonstrates that the volume of consumed and sold forest products differs according to quintile and are not distinguished by growth or reduction tendencies.

A v e r a g e

i n c o m e Average value of sold forest products Average income of personally consumed forest products Average RFI

Akhalkalaki municipality As long as forest resources are limited in Akhalkalaki district and it can be concluded that locals gathered forest products “for fun”, the maximum value of the RFI is lower than 0. 0025. As we see from the figures, the households that used and gathered forest products mostly belong to the group of population with medium and high incomes.

A v e r a g e

i

n 16 c o m e

Average value of consumed forest products Average RFI

Chokhatauri municipality Similarly to Akhalkalaki, gathering timber and non-timber resources from the forests is minimal in Chokhatauri municipality. As explained by the local residents, the local forests have poor resources and there are no paths in the forests, making them difficult to access.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 !"#$%&'(Average value of consumed forest products )*+)"&,-$.' /0'! 1&*2$3/,-'! !"4$".* 5'&,-$.,-" Average RFI!"4$".* ri

5.4 Use of firewood The populations in Akhaltsikhe, Chokhatauri and Tianeti municipalities are very dependent on timber resources. Because there is limited access to a gas supply, firewood is the main product used for heating and meeting household needs. The volume of firewood used in Chokhatauri municipality within the past 12 months is approximately 5.4 cubic meters per household. It is worth mentioning that households need 23-26% more firewood than they use during a year. (See table N1). Table N1 – use of firewood in Chokhatauri municipality Amount of Average firewood Used firewood Consumed Name of Used firewood number of they Total value per one HH on firewood per Gasification status village in cubic m. HH actually average capita members need

Tavpanta 31 40.3 590 3,4 3,4 1,0 Not gasified

Khevi 91 118.3 767 7,0 3,3 2,1 Not gasified 139.1 Ianeuli 102 1590 5,4 1,8 2,9 Gasified

Gogolesubani 141 189.8 2028 5,6 4,2 1,3 Not gasified

Bukistsikhe 95 123.5 1410 5,3 2,9 1,8 Not gasified

Tsipnari 84 114.4 1410 5,3 3,6 1,5 Not gasified 17

The picture is similar in Akhaltsikhe municipality. The average volume of firewood used per year equals 9.0 cubic meters per household. The households examined in Akhaltsikhe villages need 16% more firewood they use. (See table N2).

Table N2- use of firewood in Akhaltsikhe municipality Actually Average volume Gasification status Actually Consumed necessary of firewood per Name of village necessary Used firewood firewood in firewood in capita firewood % per one HH cubic m. cubic m. 2,8 Not gasified Julgha 9.2 119 136 12% 2,1 Not gasified Zemo Skhvilisi 8.1 105 137 23% Mikeltsminda 6.7 60.5 67 9% 2,8 Not gasified 3,0 Not gasified Sviri 11.7 211 260 19% 2,5 Not gasified Tsnisi 9.8 196 246 20% 1,8 Partially gasified Vale 8.4 244 280 13%

In general, the population in Akhalkalaki municipality is not as dependent on timber or forest resources. One of the main reasons is that the main part of the municipality has access to a gas supply and the process of gasification is continuing. Nevertheless, firewood is still important for village residents. It still remains an additional means of energy and helps people overcome harsh winters which is common for the region. (See table N3).

Table N3- use of firewood in Akhalkalaki municipality Actually Average volume Average price in GEL Gasification status Consumed necessary of firewood per Name of village Used firewood firewood in firewood in capita per one HH cubic m. cubic m. Gomani 2,6 47 1,6 52.8 Gasified 50 Azavreti 5,5 127,5 3,0 25.6 Not gasified 140 Azmana 3,9 27 35 1,2 27.6 Gasified Kartikami 1,4 36,5 0,3 49.1 Gasified 40 Kotelia 2,9 40 0,8 44 Gasified 45 Didi Samsari 3,6 43 0,8 54.4 Gasified 47

5.5 Respondents’ attitudes toward general condition of forests The residents of Akhalkalaki, Akhaltsikhe and Chokhatauri municipalities were asked to evaluate the change of general condition of the forests over the past 2 years. The results revealed that half of the population in Akhaltsikhe and Akhalkalaki municipalities and 78% of the respondents in Chokhatauri municipality believe that the condition of forests have not changed, i.e. the situation has neither improved nor worsened over the past 2 years. Improvement of the condition of forests over the past 2 years was the most noted by the residents of

Akhaltsikhe municipality. 18 As believed by the people surveyed, improvements in forest conditions are a result of strict laws, prohibition of illegal cutting, natural regeneration of forests, and the poor condition of access roads, which prevents illegal cutting.

A portion of the residents also noted the worsened condition of local forests. They believe that this is caused by a lack of attention to forest condition, which has resulted in overgrown and degraded forests, because sanitary cutting does not take place and reforestation activities are not carried out. It was also noted that illegal cutting still goes on in the forests which significantly damages the condition of forests as well.

5.6 Forest use, regulations and management – timber production ticket According to the study results, obtaining firewood on the basis of tickets is not available for everyone within the study municipalities. Only 39% of residents in Chokhatauri municipality villages, 51% of Akhaltsikhe residents and 8% of Akhalkalaki residents stated that this ticket is available for them to gather timber resources. The study sought to understand what prevents local residents from gathering firewood after receiving the ticket. The results reveal that poor access roads, unavailability of technical equipment and workers, belated delivery of the tickets (it was mentioned that tickets were issued in late autumn when the weather is bad), far distance of allocated forest parts and the density of forests/absence of paths tend to prevent local residents from gathering firewood.

5.7 Forest use, regulations and management – license holders 41% of households inquired in Chokhatauri municipality have no information at all about whether they have the right to enter the forest area to gather non-timber forest resources and 58% of them believe that residents are not allowed to enter those territories. Only 1% of the residents were informed that they have a right to enter the licensed territories and gather non-timber forest resources. Similar to Chokhatauri, a portion of the households (35%) inquired in Akhaltsikhe are not informed whether they have the right to enter the forest area to gather non-timber forest resources. 22% of the residents believe that people are not allowed to enter such territories. 43% of the households were informed and knew that they have the right to enter licensed areas and gather non-timber forest resources. On the question of whether it is allowed to gather non-timber forest resources within the licensed territories, the vast majority of the respondents inquired in Akhalkalaki municipality declared that they believe it is prohibited. This outcome can be explained by the absence of license holders in municipal forests of Akhalkalaki. Based on the results obtained it can be concluded that population’s level of awareness about forest use rights is very low.

19

6. Conclusion

As the results of the study demonstrate, the level of dependence on forest resources is rather high in the target villages of the municipalities studied. Forests are vitally important for these communities. As the study reveals, gasification processes have not been implemented and/or completed in all target areas, therefore, there are not alternative sources of energy at this point and firewood remains the main resource for heating and cooking. Even in the villages of Akhalkalaki municipality where almost every village is supplied with gas, firewood is used as a supplementary energy resource. If we take into account that villages of Tianeti, Chokhatauri and Akhaltsikhe are situated in mountainous region and winter is relatively longer compared to lowland villages, accessibility of timber forest resources is vitally important for local residents. The study results also indicated that the most prevalent economic activity in the target villages is agriculture, but it is not main income generating activity for all municipalities. As the study results demonstrated, the level of awareness among the population about forest use, management and regulations is low in the villages of the targeted municipalities. Forest and forest products are crucially important for the residents of the target territories. However, there are factors that prevent the use of these resources. These include poor conditions of forest roads, unavailability of technical equipment and an adequate workforce, various regulations and current practices of forest use, as well as low average income in the region which limits the population to gathering and purchasing timber products and other resources with their own finances. Additionally, illegal cutting of trees threatens entire forest resources and has greater effects on the ecosystem.

20

References: Web page of Akhaltsikhe municipal government - www.akhaltsikhe.gov.ge Adaptation to climate change and mitigation of the influence on local level, condition of Akhaltsikhe municipality- http://nala.ge/uploads/akhaltsikhe.pdf Web page of Socar - http://socargas.ge/ Web page of National Forestry Agency - http://forestry.gov.ge/

Web page of Chokhatauri municipal government - http://chokhatauri.ge/ Development Strategy for Guria Region in 2014-2021 Web page of agency “GuriaNews” - http://www.gurianews.com

Web page of Akhalkalaki municipal government - http://akhalkalaki.ge/ Web page of GeoStat - www.geostat.ge Program – institutionalization of mitigation measures of climate change and influence in Georgian regions - - http://nala.ge/uploads/akhaltsikhe.pdf

Web page of Tianeti municipal government http://tianeti.org.ge/ Center of Economic Politics Research – current condition of land market, 2013 http://www.csogeorgia.org/uploads/library/115/Report-geo.pdf Decree of Government of Georgia N46 10.01.2014 and N242, 20.08.2010- http://www.government.gov.ge/files/382_39863_409202_46100114.pdf National Environment Agency, NEA – results of geological processes development in Tianeti municipality Photo on title page – “Chokhatauri”, Elene Gakharia

i Dendroflora - Flora of wooded plants ii Balneology - the branch of medical science concerned with the therapeutic value of baths, esp. those taken with natural mineral waters iii Other - Combines answers with low frequency iv AEU – coefficient of adult HH member is calculated as follows: coefficient of the first HH member is 1, the rest of the HH members are given – 0,5, children under 14 – 0,3. Coefficient of HH is a sum of coefficients of HH members v RFI (RELATIVE FOREST INCOME) is calculated by relativity of incomes received from forests (calculated according to the coefficient of HH adult member) with entire income (is also calculated according to the coefficient of HH adult member). 21