Kazbegi Project ANNEX of the DRAFT FINAL REPORT Feasibility Study

GEORGIA

Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources (MEPNR)

Agency for Protected Areas (APA)

Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project

ANNEX of the DRAFT FINAL REPORT Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project ANNEX German Financial Cooperation with Georgia

1 April 2010

Deutsche Forstservice GmbH AGEG Consultants eG GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 1

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 Situation Analysis

Annex 1.1: List of Contacts

Annex 1.2: Biophysical Framework

Annex 1.3: List of Plant Species

Annex 1.4: List of Vertebrates of Kazbegi District (excl. birds)

Annex 1.5: List of Birds

Annex 1.6: List of Mammals of Kazbegi Region

Annex 1.7: List of Endangered Species

Annex 1.8: Summary List of Village Profiles

Annex 1.9: Report on the Tourism Sector of the Kazbegi Region

Annex 1.10: Waste Management State and Environmental Pollution

Annex 1.11: Legal Framework Analysis Biosphere Reserve

Annex 1.12: Stakeholder Analysis

Annex 2 Options for Meeting Goals and Objectives

Annex 2.1: Decision Support Tool Discussion Biosphere Reserve vs. National Park and Support Zone

Annex 3 Proposed Project Area and Zoning

Annex 3.1: Gudauri SWOT Analysis

Annex 3.2: Setting Site-Based Conservation Priorities

Annex 4 Proposed Project

Annex 4.1: Logframe

Annex 4.2: Midterm Report: Quick-Start Measures and Priority Interventions

Annex 4.3: Recommendations on the Waste Management

Annex 4.4: Recommendations on the Toursm Sector Development

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 2

Annex 4.5: Other Proposed Interventions

Annex 4.6: Co-Management Structure

Annex 5 Project Implementation

Annex 5.1: Project Executive Agency (MEPNR) and Project Implementation Agency (APA

Annex 5.2: Implementation Schedule

Annex 5.3: Draft Budget

Annex 5.4: Flow of Funds

Annex 5.5: Caucasus Protected Area Fund

Annex 6 Reports and Minutes of Meeting

Annex 6.1: Inception Report

Annex 6.2 Minutes of Meeting:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 3

Annex 1.1:

List of Contacts

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 4

LIST OF CONTACTS

Institution Unit Person Position Phone Date Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Agency of Protected Areas Mariam Mrevlishvili Deputy Head 832752356 05.окт Resources Forestry Department Papuna Khachidze Head of Department 895167777 07.окт Department of Policy and Ninko Tkhilava Head of Department 832727250 08.окт International Relations Head of Biodiversity Environmental Inspectorate Maia Chkhobadze 832727271 07.окт Control Division Biodiversity Protection Division Soso Kartsivadze Head of Department 895119795 21.окт Ministry of Econonmic Department of Tourism and 83220222 or Natalia Partskhaladze Deputy Head 09.окт Development Resorts 895117477 6-Oct, E- Department of Transport Mamuka Vatsadze Head of Department 832991108 mail Department of Natural Nino Kvernadze Chief Specialist 832991125 09.окт Resource Licensing National Agency of Public Manager, Head of Ministry of Justice Eka Meshkhidze - 28.окт Registry Internal Dvision Ministry of Regional Department of Reforms and Development and David Chichinadze Head of Department 832282334 07.окт Innovations Infrastructure Project Associate (Environment and Tamar Pataridze 832250041/92 06.окт International Cooperation of Regions)

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 5

Institution Unit Person Position Phone Date Department of Regional Ministry of Agriculture Omar Tedoradze Head of Department 832961934 29.окт Management Georgian National World Ministry of Culture Irakli Metreveli President 895260110 06.окт Heritage Committee Office of State Representative - Governor Nunu Mgebrishvili Deputy of Representative 832244552 16.окт in Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region Marina Zurabishvili State Advisor 899290062 12.окт 244553 or Dato Tabatadze Specialist 16.окт 244552

Kazbegi Municipality Gamgeoba Gocha Malania Gamgebeli 824552489 16.окт

Georgian Academy of Tbilisi Botanical Garden and Prof. Dr. George Principal Scientist 899114034 19.окт Sciences Institute of Botany Nakhutsrishvili Head of Department of Dr. Otar Abdaladze High Mountain Plant - 19.окт Ecology Ilia Chavchavadze Tbilisi Dr. Alexandre Institute of Zoology Associate Professor 899496552 10.окт State University Gavashelishvili

Ivane Javakhelishvili Tbilisi Prof. Dr. Tengiz MAB National Committee Vice Chair 832290807 20.окт State University Urushadze Border Police, Land Border Ministry of Internal Affairs Koba Bochorishvili Director 832381501 19.окт Defense Department Commanding Officer Mindia Arabuli - 11.окт Kazbegi District

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 6

Institution Unit Person Position Phone Date

UNDP Energy and Environment Team Mariam Shotadze Team Leader 23.окт Programme Office for the IUCN Ramaz Gokhelashvili Director 832473070/71 09.окт Southern Caucasus NGO Georgian Center for the Conservation of Nata Dolidze Managing Director 893932568 09.окт Wildlife Regional Environmental Mountain Programme Nina Shatberashvili Manager 877748392 28.окт Centre for the Caucasus

NGO NACRES Irakli Shavgulidze Director 832537125 08.окт Transboundary Joint Secretariat for the Mike Garforth Director 832225263 08.окт Southern Caucasus NGO ELKANA Mariam Jorjadze Director 832536485

NGO CENN Kakha Bakhtadze GIS Expert 832751903 20.окт

NGO Sustainable Tourism Vano Vashakhmadze Board Member 899578449 07.окт Centre 11/20/2009, NGO CUNA Georgica Udo Hirsch Director 832774811 Email NGO People in Need Georgia Office Pavel Pinkava Head of Mission 832986039 09.окт Dr. Nugzar WWF Caucasus Programme Office Conservation Director 832330154/55 08.окт Zazanashvili Dr. Gogi Sanadiradze Director 8323301454/55 07.окт South Caucasus Regional KfW Carsten Kilian Director 832776109/10 21.окт Office

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 7

Institution Unit Person Position Phone Date Levan Tsitskishvili Local Project Coordinator 832776109/10 27.окт Nino Shanidze Local Project Coordinator 832776109/10 27.окт Regional Office South Dr. Gabriele GTZ Office Director 832201800 09.окт Caucasus Böhringer Frank Flasche Programme Head 895745107 09.окт Energy and Environment USAID Mariam Ubilava Programme Officer 832544174 04.ноя Section US Department of the International Technical Paata Shanshiashvili In-country Coordinator 899572184 21.окт Interior Assistance Program 12/5/2009, SDC Derek Mueller Director - E-mail EC Delegation to Georgia Michal Nekvasil Second Secretary 832943763/68 21.окт

Philippe Bernhard Project Manager 832943763/68 21.окт Georgian National Committee Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ketevan Kandelaki Secretary General 899551215 28.окт for UNESCO Country Coordination Asian Development Bank Georgia Resident Mission Giorgi Kiziria 895512244 22.окт Officer Georgian Tourism Soso Mekvrevrishvili Project Coordinator 897298297 30.окт Association NGO Spectri Keti Tskhakaia Director - 30.окт

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 8

Annex 1.2:

Biophysical Framework

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report

BIOPHYSICAL FRAMEWORK OF KAZBEGI DISTRICT

Introduction Kazbegi region (Khevi) situated on Kavkasioni ridge was called Tsanareti in Middle Ages. In chronicle “Moktsevai Khartlisai” (IX century) is mentioned “Khevi Tsanaretisa” (Khevi of Tsanareti) when describing events of sixth (VI) century. Later the name “Tsa- nareti” was not used and remained general name “Khevi”. At the same time “Tsaneri- ans” are now called as “Mokhevians”.

Description of Kazbegi Region Physical-Geographical location of Khazbegi (Khevi) region is the north slope of Cauca- sus Mountains ridge, between the central and the east Caucasus, near the beginning of the river Tergi. The whole size of the region is 1081, 9 km2. The regional centre Stephantsminda (Kazbegi) (coordinates: north latitude - 42039/40,53//; east longitude - 44038/37,54//) and 45 villages (26 villages among them are abandoned) belong to the region. Distance from Tbilisi to Stephantsminda is 152 km.

From north and north-east sides Russian Federation borders Kazbegi region; from south and south-east sides – Dusheti region and from south-west – Java and Akhalgori regions. The geographical coordinates of the borders are:

Border North latitude East longitude

West 42038/42,66// 44030/48,55//

North 42045/05,89// 44030/55,15//

East 42036/02,29// 44051/09,66//

South 42028/44,62// 44029/57,48//

The south border of Khevi landscape follows top of Great Caucasus ridge from Zilgaik- hokhi mountain to Bursachiri pass; the west border follows Ardon-Tergi watershed from Zilgaikhokhi mountain to Siverauti mountain and separates Khevi from South Osetia (Dvaleti cave).

The north boarder coincides with top of Khokhi and other massifs of Caucasus lateral ridge. It follows Siatisi, Jimara and Mkhinvartsveri mountain peaks, crosses Dariali rock (between the villages of Gveleti and Larsi (Russia)), then follows the mountain peaks of Mgvirgala, Shavana and Gvelis Mta.

The east border follows the watershed of rivers Tergi and Khevsureti Aragvi from the mountain Gvelis Mta passing by Chaukhi mountain to Bursachiri pass.

GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 10

The physical and geographical characteristics of Kazbegi (Khevi) region are very developed high mountainous relief; existence of old granite outlets and young volcanic constructions; significant glaciations and glacier regime of rivers; great number of mineral waters; comparatively dry climate; and full lack of forests in high mountainous ravines. The described characteristics make distinguish very much Kazbegi relief from neighboring regions.

Relief Great Caucasus and lateral ridges and their braches, as well as three large flat- bottomed ravines of Khevi, Truso and Sno constructed built young river sediments make the relief of Kazbegi.

Khokhi ridge Khokhi ridge is one of the great massifs of Caucasus lateral ridge. It borders the region only with its east side. It is connected to main ridge with cross-cut hill where the Thruso pass is located (3150 m). On this ridge, from west to east Midargrabini pass and Siv- erauti (3785 m), Suatisi (4480 m), Jimara (4777 m), Maili (4622 m) and Mkhinvartsveri mountains are located. (the highest peak of Khokhi ridge is at 5047 m). An axial zone is constructed with diorites and dolerites.

The mountains group of Khda The mountains group of Khda is located at the east of meridional section of Tergi ravine and at the north of Sno ravine. It is a part of the lateral ridge. From its slopes begins the right tributary of the river Tergi – called “Khdis Tskali” (Water of Khda). This group includes three meridional ridges: Khuro, Shavana and Kidegani. Their east ends are connected with each other longitudinally.

Khuri ridge is the watershed of the river Tergi and Khdis Tskali, where the peak of Khuro mountain (4091 m) and mountain Shino are located.

Shavana (Shana) ridge is the watershed of Khdis Tskhali and Armkhi (Ingushetia). It is higher than Khuro ridge. The highest peak of Shavana ridge is at 4430 m.

On the Kidegani ridge bordering Khevsureti mountains Kideganis Maghali (4219 m) and Gvelis Mta (3881 m) are located.

Above motioned three ridges are constructed with clay shale of early Jurassic period and saturated with quartz veins. On the both slopes of Shavana ridge and east slope of Khuro ridge there are several hanging and circular glaciers.

At the longitudinal hill connecting the three ridges mentioned above there are two sad- dle-like lowlands – Khibe (staits) and Samtrekhloghele passes. Through the paths they connect the Sno ravine to Khda and Armkhi ravines.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 11

The main hydro artery of the region is the river Tergi. It begins in Thruso ravine, follows narrow places till the village Kobi, sharply turns to the north and flows to the border of Georgia to Russia.

Description of ravines of the region Thruso ravine Thruso high mountainous ravine is located from the beginning of the river Tergi to the the village Kobi, between the main and Khokhi ridges and is directed to the south-east. Its altitude at the village Kobi is 1950 m, at the village Abano – 2200 m and at the out- fall of the river Siverauti – 2450 m.

According geomorphologic features Thruso ravine can be divided in four parts. From the beginning to the Siverauri outlet (7 km) it has U-like form. A bit lower the ravine is directed to the south-east, widens and has a large bottom covered with plane alluvion. The length of this plane hill is over 15 km and the width – about 1-2 km. Ever more low begins Kasari erosive rock. Its creation is related to the volcanic eruption of Kharisari. The length of these narrow places is about 3-4 km. The right side of the river is constructed with lava outflow rocks, and the left side – with schist. After the Kasari narrow places the ravine widens again and has a large bottom covered with plane alluvion. Travertine accumulated by mineral waters is well represented at the upper end of Ka- sari narrow places, in the ravine of the river Suatisi, near the village Okhrokhana and other places. Thickness of travertine is about 12 m.

Sno ravine Like Thruso ravine, Sno ravine is a longitudinal cave. It is mainly constructed with clay shale and sand rock layers of early and middle Jurassic periods. They make isoclinal lines system moved forward to the south direction like scales. Dolerites make certain island at south-east of the main ridge, between the passes of Bursachiri and Sadzelis- ghele.

Geo-morphological formation of Sno water basin is influenced by normal erosion and accumulation processes. It appears that at the beginnings of the river and its tributaries significant role played the mechanical work of quaternary glaciers that was resulted in formation of different forms (Trog, Tsirk, Kar, Morine forms).

The whole lower part of Sno ravine, oriented to north-west from Nadarbazevi to Tergi tributary, is represented with large hill. The right tributaries of the river Snos Tskhali are: Shinos Tskhali, Khoras Tskhali, Jortkhorkha; the left tribitaries are: Khorkhi, Khve- namtis Tskhali and Chaukhis Tskhali.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 12

Khevi ravine Khevi ravine is the part of Tergi ravine from the village Kobi to Staphantsminda. It is directed to the east and formed in Lias schist. Some places at the left side of the ravine are covered quaternary lava coming from Mkhinvartsveri (lava outflows of Mna, Pkhel- shi, Arshi and Chkheri). The large, plane bottom of the ravine is filled with cobble- stones and sand rocks, formed though accumulation of Ckheri lava outflow.

Tkharcheti lava outflow and fossil (buried) forest is the unique for Khevi ravine. There are two barriers in Tergi ravine (Sioni-Goristsikhe and Stephantsminda-Gergeti) that make narrow ways. From Stephantsminda begins antecedent part of Tergi called Dariali ravine. On its way of 11 km length it is lowering on 1000 m, cuts Caucasus axial zone and lateral ridge with rocky corridors. There is no soil and plant cover in most part of steep precipices of Tergi.

Khde ravine The river Khdis Tskhali begins from the Kibe glacier and flows to north-west direction. Khde ravine is surrounded by Shavana and Khuro ridges and represents the kingdom of rocks, glaciers, alpine meadows and waterfalls. The upper part of the ravine is stepped woodless place with marshland and watersheds. Due to full absence of wind the ravine is rich with butterflies. During winter period there are many aurochs living in the form of herds. The middle part of the river Khdis Tskhali enters in the erosive ravine, cuts the Dariali granite massif and creates continuous steps of 4 km length. Dis- tance between the steps is 300 m.

The main river in Kazbegi region begins from glaciers. That’s why inundation occurs in summer and low level of water is observed in winter period. The rivers are maintained through underground water, snow and rain water. Small marshlands are observed in bottomlands of the river Tergi. The main tributaries of Tergi are: Suatisi, Mna, Bidara, Snos Tskhali, Chkheri, Devdoraki, Khde, ect.

Climate In the lower zone of Kazbegi region (altitude 2000 m) the climate is moderately damp. Winter is comparatively dry and cold and the summer is prolonged and cool. The average temperature in January is between -3˚C and -8˚C; in July – between 14˚C and 19˚C; Atmospheric precipitations – between 650 mm and 1000 mm a year (maximal – in May and minimal – in January). Snow cover exists during 3-4 months.

At the zone of 2000 – 2600 m altitude the climate is moderately damp. Winter is comparatively dry and cold and the summer is short and cool. Snow cover exists during 3-4 months. The temperature is higher than 10˚C only for 1-3 months and higher than 5˚C only for 4-5 months. The temperature of the warmest month is about 10-14˚C. Winds are characteristic for mountains and gorges. Atmospheric precipitations are between 1000 mm and 1200 mm a year. Snow cover exists during 5-7 months.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 13

At the zone of 2600 – 3600 m altitude the climate is moderately damp. There is no real summer. The average temperature in winter is between -11˚C and -15˚C; in July – less than 10˚C.

At the zone higher than 3600 m there is mountainous moderately damp climate, permanent snow and glaciers. The average temperature in January and February is 13- 15˚C; in July and August – positive temperature. Precipitates are mainly snow. West- erly winds predominate.

Geology Kazbegi region is characterized with complex geological structure. The oldest rocks in Tergi ravine are Paleolithic (330 million years) granites of Gveleti and Dariali. Sediment rocks are mainly of Jurassic period and are represented with early, middle and upper Jurassic period. Early Juristic period starts with Kistink layers transgressively laying on Dariali and Gveleti Granites and are represented with small-grained grey quartzite, sand rocks, siltstones and black phylites. Often dolerite dykes (5-6 m) cut the layers. The power of Kistink layers is 1500 m. It gradually transforms in Tsiklauri layer that is represented with silk-like sparkling dark Aspidic schist sometimes with quartz-like sand rock and tuff inclusions. Dolerite dykes (5-6 m) cut the layers. The power of the layer is 2500 m. Kistink and Tsiklauri layers belong to Sinemalic-Plinsbakhic layers.

Tsiklauri layer is followed by Kazbegi layer, represented with dark grey clay shale and grey quartz-like sand rock. They often alternate with each other and give the layer stripy look. Quartz viens and pyrite cubic crystals as well as dolerite dykes are frequently observed. Their number decreases at the Tsiklauri layer. The power of Kazbegi layer is 1500 m.

Kazbegi layer is followed by Ghudushauri layer, represented by dark grey/black clay shale. Sometimes small-grained grey sand rocks intermediate layers occur. The power is 1500-1700 m.

Ghudushauri layer is followed by Shevardeni layer, represented by dark grey shale and sand rocks. The power is 200 - 400 m. Kazbegi, Gudushauri and Shevardeni layers belong to Toarsik-Alenic layers.

Shevardeni layer is followed by Byrsachiri layer, represented by black clay shale and sand rocks. Pyrite and siderite concretions are also observed. The power is 1000 – 3000 m. Belong to Buyosic-Bathik layers.

Bursachiri layer is followed by clay-shale layer. It is under the upper Juristic carbonate flysch. It is represented with grey marly and small-grained carbonate sand rock. Some- times limestone is observed. The power is 600 m.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 14

Clay-shale layer is followed by Kasara layer, dark grey shale with black marly. Some- times grey limestone and black clay shale is met. The power is 500 m. Shale – sand rock and Kasara layers belog to Kaloviar and Oxford layers.

The following is the Kimerijic Dumatskho layer, represented by pseudo-oolite, oolite and sand rock limestone, conglomerate middle layers. The power is 150 – 200 m.

Dumatskho layer is followed by lower limestone layer, represented by homogenous dark grey sandy limestone and shale marly, often pyrite concretions are met. The power is 350-400 m. The layer belongs to Titonic layer.

Tectonics In the region from the north to the south complex tectonic elements are met: I . Anticline of lateral ridge II. Syncline of Bejitini III. Anticline of main ridge IV. Chiauri (Gudamakhari zone) syncline

I. In structure of lateral ridge anticline in important role plays compressed isoclinic wrinkles. They are inclined at the south and complicated with frequent breaks. The breaks have a regional character are observed in the core. Dykes and ledges are related to it. In anticline core Gveleti and Dariali granites and gneiss are striped. They have tectonic contact with Kistinka and Tsiklauri layers at the north and south. At the village Tsdo strong break is observed, where Plinsbackhi layer lays on Tuarsik one and is called Adaikom-Kazbegi break.

II. Bejineti syncline is represented with strong shale layers from Kazbegi and Gudushauri layers. At the south of syncline, near the village Sioni, Ameli break is located. Here Kazbegi layer lays on Gudushauri layer.

III. The main ridge anticline represents the narrow stripe of early and middle Juristic metamorphic-terrigenous rocks. At the north side Bejinta syncline and at the south – Thruso break borders it. At this place anticline is lowering significantly.

IV. Chiauri (Gudamakhari zone) syncline is characterized with asymmetric and over- turned wrinkles with small breaks.

The geological development history of the region we can consider as the following: In early and middle Juristic periods the geo-syncline pit was located here. It was filling with sandy and clay sediments. Movement inducing formation of wrinkles and partial upheaval of the territory is related to the prekalovial phase of wrinkling that caused the appearance of underwater upheavals and chain of islands in the central part of the pit and formation of two independent pits at the north and south. Evidently dolerite dykes are related to this wrinkling phase. From the beginning of Malm till late Eocene sub-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 15 platform sediments were accumulated in the north pit, and flysch sediments – in the south pit.

The main wrinkling of the south pit took place at the enc of Eocene. From the beginning og Oligocene upheaval of divided pits started and the land was united. But the high mountainous relief was not formed yet. During the late orogenesis (recent phase) the central upheaval significantly raised and high mountainous relief was formed. Volcanic activities were expressed in multiple volcanic explosions and multiple glaciations.

There are several layers of minerals in the region: copper-polymetallic layer in Devdoraki, Elia antimonite (St) layer, small crystal layers in Khde and building stone layers (dolerite, granite, diorite, andesite and travertine). There are also many inert materials. From the above mentioned resources only Devdoraki copper-polymetallic layer had an industrial importance, managed by Belgians in 1900 years.

The region is also rich with mineral waters. In certain circumstances their output is very big. For example, the mineral water near the village Khetrisi is rich with calcium hydro carbonate and its output is 25-30 million liters a day (24 hours). Mineral lake of Abano is raised from accumulated spring water enriched with carbon dioxide. It belongs to calcium-hydro carbonate-sulfate type. Daily output of this spring is 2,5 million liters. Also Fansheti and Goristsikhe mineral waters are known.

Quaternary (recent) sediments Khevi is very diverse in point of view of geo-morphological characteristics. The background of high mountainous tectonic-erosive relief is complicated with glacier, volcanic, karst and other forms.

On the territory of the region diverse quaternary (recent) sediments are widely spread. Alluvial, proluvial and deluvial sediments are observed. Alluvial sediments in Tergi ravine makes four terraces. In high mountainous places Alluvial sediments are aggregated with fluvioglacial lake-glacier and morenic forms. In Kazbegi and Kheli volcanic regions there are quaternary period volcanic eruption products of different ages: lava outflow, pyroclastic accumulations, andesite-dacite and andesite-basalt.

There are many dead volcanoes in the region, among them are: • Mkhinvartsveri (5047 m) – the best-known is Caucasus. It has a complicated structure. It was developing more than one million years, from late Pliocene to Holocene. Its central part is the caldera situated from the west to the east. There is an upheaval of the central two peak cone on it, constructed with dacite lava. If we count its height from Jurassic period pedestal, the west side is raised on 600 m, and the east – on 1500 m. The east peak is at 5047 m and the west – at 5025 m. Mkhinvartsveri volcano has three craters, from where the outflows took place in different periods. At present volcano is not active.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 16

• Tkharsheti (3431 m) – is located at the left bank of the river Tergi and is represented with threefold dome of Holocene age. In Tergi ravine Andesite period lava streams of 7 km length are presented. At present volcano is not active. • Khabarjina (3140 m) – is located at the right bank of the river Tergi. It has a complicated structure of middle and upper Pleistocene andesite-dacite strato-volcano. The main peak is at 900 m height. Volcano is deformed with young breaks. Vol- cano is not active.

There are also some young volcanoes on the main ridge, at the north-west and north- east of Jvari pass. Among them is Small Kharisari located at the noth-west and represents a volcanic cone with crater. At the north the very beautiful lava stream of 8 km length is located and borders the right side of the river Tergi in lower part of Truso ravine. More higher is Big Kharisari volcano cone extrusion. It is characterized with absence of lava outflows. At the north-east are located the following volcanoes: a) Sa- kokhe, Sadzele, lava stream of which is directed to the south, to Mtiuleti; b) Miliona, making lava stream of 3 km length in the ravine of the river Narovani; c) Tsiteli (red), which is situated at the left side of the river – Artkhmos Tskali. Artkhmos Tskhal is the left tributary of the river Snos Tskhali.

Glaciers in the region According to some authors the total number of glaciers is about 104. The main glaciers are met at the main and lateral ridges of Great Caucasus. The height of the main ridge is over 3500 m. The lateral ridge consists with some mountain massifs and has its own name: Kazbegi-Jimarai and Khuro-Shani. Most of the glaciers in the region have the door-like and hanging form. Most of them have north-west, north-east and south-west exposition. The longest glacier of the basin is Gergeti glacier (7,1 km). The broadest are glacier is Suatisi (10,2 km2); The average lenth of glaciers is 1,3 km. Devdoraki glacier is known with its catastrophic destructions caused by intensive movement of the glacier. It is located at the north slope of Mkhinvartsveri. The length is 5,1 km, size – 7,13km2. The glacier tongue (ice stream) goes downward till 2260 m altitude.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 17

Table 1: Glaciers complex in Kazbegi-Jimarai ridge 1 Altitude Name of Basin of Morphological Length Size the Exposition 2 Glacier the river type (km) (km ) Lower Upper glacier snow point point line

Chata Amali Hanging - ravine North-east 3,2 2,8 3230 3660 4430

Devdoraki Amali Hanging - ravine North-east 7,3 7,0 2260 3260 5047

Abano Chkheri Hanging - ravine South-east 4,1 2,0 2950 3700 5047

Gergeti Chkheri Hanging - ravine South-east 8,5 8,3 2870 3650 5047

Denkra Mna Hanging - ravine South-west 2,3 2,4 3500 3770 4230

Mna Mna Hanging - ravine South-east 4,1 4,6 2860 3480 4600

East Suatisi Hanging - ravine South-west 5,4 10,2 3000 3500 4580 Suatisi

Middle Suatisi Hanging - ravine South 4,7 2,5 2850 3520 4760 Suatisi

West Suatisi Hanging - ravine South-west 3,5 2,4 3070 3600 4460 Suatisi

The main landscapes of the region

1) Canyon-like ravines with rock plants and washed out soils; 2) Middle mountains with pine-tree and birch wood, and with brown forest soils; 3) Landscape of mountains and ravines with forest/meadow plants and alluvial soils; 4) Subalpine forests and meadows, with mountain-forest and mountain-meadow soils; 5) Glaciers and rocks with weakly developed plant cover and soils.

Important monuments of non-organic nature requiring special care and protection: • “Bethlemis Beri” – column of 12 m height situated at the beginnings of the river Chkheri; • Khde ravine – Example of first-born nature; • Lava outlet and buried forest of Tkharsheti; • Ramura cave under “Lava Organ” – Andesite columns of beautiful shape; • Kharisari volcanic outlet – Classical form of lava stream; • Thruso travertine;

1 Besides the listed above the complex of glaciers also include 6 small glaciers with total size of 5 km2

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 18

• Abano mineral lake; • Mineral voclus of Khetrisi

Short history of Khevi and main monuments The old historical “Tsanareti Khevi” was the organic part of Georgia since ancient times. It had a great strategic importance for security of Khartly Kingdom, protecting from nomadic people living in North Caucasus. “Tsanareti Khevi” was always under special care of zGeorgian government.

The road connecting the south Caucasus to the north Caucasus crossed Dariali ravine since ancient times. The strategic importance of the ravine caused existence of fortress system. During centuries Khevi by its political and administrative status had been subordinated to the kingdom governance, besides the period when it was subordinated to Aragvi Eristavies (from 20th of XVII century till 1742 – the year of cancellation of Aragvi feudal unit – “Saeristavo”). In XVIII Khevi was divided in Stephantsminda, Sno, Fan- sheti and Mne administrative units (Samourao).

Mokhevians actively participated in 1804 Mtiuleti uprising against Russian politics.

Architectural monuments existed in Khevi are: Garbani church of IX-X century, Sioni basilica, Thruso Archangel church, basilica of village Akhaltsikhe, monastery complex of Betlemi, constructions of Middle Ages – Sno, Arshi and Dariali castle; Gergeti temple of XIV century, etc.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 19

Annex 1.3:

List of Plant Species

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 20

PLANT SPECIES OF KHEVI – KAZBEGI REGION

Based on Gia Nakhutsrishvili, Otar Abdaladze, Archil Kikodze (2005).

The flora of the Khevi region numbers more than 1100 species of vascular plants, while there are about 6350 species registered in the whole Caucasus, and 4130 of them occur in Georgia. Most of the genera and species of the Khevi flora belong to the family Aseraceae. Floral diverse is also emphasized by the presence of 6 of 11 Caucasian endemic genera: these are: • Agasyllis Hoffm., • Symphyoloma C. A Mey., • Cladochaeta DC. (the existence of the genus in the region has become dubious recently), • Dolichorrhiza (Pojark.) Galushko, • Trigonocaryum Trautv., • Pseudovesicaria (Boiss.) Rupr.

The following endemic species of the Georgian flora must be mentioned: • Heracleum latifolium, • Arabis kazbegi, • Campanula darialica • Gladiolus tenuis, • Lilium georgicum, • Heracleum osseticum, • Jurinea exuberans, • Scorzonera charadzeae, • Isatis reticulata, • Vicia sosnowskyi, • Ranunculus baidarae, • Alchemilla laeta, • Rosa ermanica, • Rosa marschalliana, • Sorbus buschiana.

Gradually are extincting the species: • Delphinium caucasicum, • Primula bayernii, • Eritrichium caucasicum,

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 21

• Glanthus platyphyllus from the Kazbegi region raises particular alarm

Such Caucasian endemic species as Cladochaeta candissima, Primula darialica and Lilium georgicum have also become rare.

The vegetation of rocks and scree predominate there. Principal species are the following: Pinus kochiana, Juniperus hemisphaerica, Heracleum liskowii, Campanula sarmatica, etc.

Communitis of the Caucasian endemic species Campanula bellidifolia described from Kazbegi are very interesting floristically. The endemic of Georgia Astragalus kazbeki described from the same region is also worth mention. Two endemic varieties, Hera- cleum roseum var. latilobum beghi, occur only in the Kazbegi region.

The Kobresia capilliformis meadows and the Dryas caucasica communities characteristic of the Truso region (the Truso gorge) are of special interest.

Biotopes of woody plants: • Salix kazbekensis 1. Biotop type: Birch forest (Betula • Rhododendron caucasicum litwinowii) • Vaccinium myrtillus Characteristic species: • Anemone fasciculata • Betula radeana • Swertia iberica • Salix caprea • Aconitum nasutum • Heracleum roseum • Calamagrostis arundinacea • Aconitum nasutum • Dolichorrhiza renifolia • A. orientale • D. caucasica • Swertia iberica • Cicerbita racemosa • Geranium silvaticum • Cephalanthera longifolia • Campanula latifolia

• Dolichorrhiza caucasica 3. Biotop type: Rose bay shrubbery • Senecio propinquus (Rhododendron caucasicum) • Aquilegia caucasica Characteristic species: • Vaccinium myrtillus • Vicia balansae • V. vitis-idaea • Lathyrus roseus • Empetrum caucasicum • Cephalanthera longifolia • Daphne glomerata • Platanthera chlorantha • Pyrola minor 2. Biotop type: Elfin birch forest • P. rotundifolia Characteristic species: • Anemone fasciculata • Sorbus caucasigena

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 22

• Ephedra procera 4. Biotop type: Shrubbery with the • Spiraea hypericifolia dominant Rhododendron luteum • Bromopsis biebersteinii Characteristic species: • Brachypodium silvaticum • B. riparia • Calamagrostis arundinacea • Stipa tirsa • Melissa officinalis • Artemisia sosnovskyi • Geranium silvaticum • Thymus collinus • G. palustre • Agropyron gracillinum • Rhynchocorys elephas • Scutellaria leptostegia

• Linea borealis Biotopes of herbaceous plants: • Anemone caucasica 1. Biotop type: Subalpine tall herba- • Senecio propinquus ceous vegetation. Characteristic species: 5. Biotop type: Low scrub with the • Heracleum sosnowskyi dominant Dryas caucasica Characteristic species: • Aconitum nasutum • Deschampsia flexuosa • A. orientale • Daphne glomerata • Cephalaria gigantea • Vaccinium vitis-idaea • Angelica tatiannae • Selaginella helvatica • Cecerbita macrophylla • Primula amoena • Seneceio rhombifolius • Polygonum viviparum • Agasyllis latifolia • Leontodon danubialis • Doronicum macrophyllum • Parnassia palustris 2. Biotop type: Meadowes with the

dominant Bromopsis variegata 6. Biotop type: Scrub withe the Characteristic species: dominant Juniperus hemisphaerica Characteristic species: • Agrostis tenuis • Artemisia sosnovskyi • Anthoxanthum odoratum • Astragalus kazbeki • Festuca ovina • Festuca ovina • Koeleria luerssenii • Pulsatilla violacea • Trifolium ambiguum • Veronica petraea • T. trichocephalum • Carex buschiorum • Ranunculus oreophilus • Iris taurica • Alchemilla sericata • Leontodon hispidus 7. Biotop type: Elfin birch forest • Lotus caucasicus Characteristic species:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 23

• Platanthera chlorantha 5. Biotop type: Cold dry meadows with the dominant Kobresia capilli- 3. Biotop type: Dry meadows with formis: the dominant Agrostis tenius Characteristic species: Characteristic species in the subalpine belt: • Kobresia persica • Bromopsis variegata • Alchemilla elisabethae • Festuca ovina • Thalictrum alpinum • Phleum phleoides • Polygonum vivaparum • Koeleria luerssenii • Carum caucasicum • Helictotrichon asiaticum • Campanula biebersteiniana • Pedicularis chroorrhincha • Ranunculus oreophilus 6. Biotop type: Humid broadleaved meadows with the dominant Trollius • R. caucasicus ranunculus • Trifolium ambiguum Characteristic species: • Alchemilla sericata • Veratrum lobelianum • Gymnadenia conopsea • Dactylorhiza euxina • Coeloglossum viride • Poa alpina • Swertia iberica Characteristic species in the alpine • Deschampsia flexuosa belt: • Pedicularis crassirostris • Poa alpina

• Phleum alpinum 7. Biotop type: Broad-leaved meso- • Carum caucasicum philous meadows with the dominant • Taraxacum confusum Anemone fasciculata • Sibbaldia semiglabra Characteristic species: • Trollius patulus 4. Biotop type: Dry meadows with • Geranium ibericum the dominant Festuca varia • Scabiosa caucasica Characteristic species: • Betonica macrantha • Calamagrostis arundinacea • Veratrum lobelianum • Oxytropis cyanea • Polygonum carneum • Betonica macrantha

• Inula orientalis 8. Biotop type: Dry meadows with • Polygonum carneum the dominant Astragalus captiosus • Pyrethrum roseum Characteristic species: • Campanula bellidifolia • Carex buschiorum • Thymus collinus

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 24

• Sempervivum pumilum • Trisetum flavescens • Festuca ovina • Trifolium trichocephalum • Chamaesciadium acaule 12. Biotop type: Dense-turf steppe 9. Biotop type: Dense-turf meadows meadows with the dominant Festuca withe the dominant Nardus stricta ovina Characteristic species: Characteristic species: • Agrostis tenius • Carex buschiorum • A. planifolia • Bromopsis riparia • Luzula pseudosudetica • Pulsatilla violacea • Anthoxanthum odoratum • Koeleria caucasica • Trifolium trichocephalum • Medicago glutinosa • T. ambiguum • Alchemilla tephroserica • Leontodon danubialis • Stipa tirsa • Phleum alpinum • Artemisia sosnowskyi

• Poa alpina 13. Biotop type: Dense-turf steppe • Sibbaldia semiglabra meadows with the dominant Festuca • Hieracium pilosella vallesiaca • Carum caucasicum Characteristic species: • Dactylorhiza euxina • Koeleria caucasica • K. luerssenii 10. Biotop type: Rare-turf dry mead- • Stipa tirsa ows with the dominant Trisetum fla- • Artemisia chamaemelifolia vescens • Teucrium nuchense Characteristic species:

• Festuca ovina 14. Biotop type: Mesophilous rare- • Bromopsis variegata turf meadows with the dominant • B. riparia Calamagrostis arundinacea • Medicago glutinosa Characteristic species: • Onobrychis petraea • Agrostis planifolia • Salvia tesquicola • Deschampsia flexuosa • Scrophularia variegata • Geranium ibericum • Anemone fasciculata 11. Biotop type: Dry rare-turf meadows withe the dominant Brachypo- dium pinnatum 15. Biotop type: Mesophilous mead- Characteristic species: ows with the dominant Hordeum • Bromopsis riparia violaceum Characteristic species: • Agrostis tenuis

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 25

• Festuca pratensis Characteristic species: • Phleum praense • Cobresia capilliformis • Ph. phleoides • Thalictrum alpinus • Trifolium ambiguum • Poa alpina • T. repens • Gnaphalium supinum • Agrostis planifolia • Nardus stricta • Ranunculus caucasicus • Luzula spicata • R. elegans • L. multiflora • Heracleum asperum • Festuca supina • Carum carvi • Antennaria caucasica • Cerastium arvense • Polygonum viviparum • Pastinaca armena • Alchemilla caucasica • Pedicularis chroorrhincha • Campanula saxifraga. • Centaurea cheiranthifolia 2. Biotop type: Dense-turf meadows • Anthriscus nemorosa with the dominant Festuca supina • Seseli transcaucasica Characteristic species: • Kobresia capilliformis 16. Biotop type: Swamp meadows • K. persica with the dominant Deschampsia caesptosa • Thalictrum alpinum Characteristic species: • Antennaria caucasica • Blysmus compressus • Sibballia semiglabra • Calamagrostis pseudophragmites • Polygonum viviparum • Phragmites australis • Astragalus supnus • Equisetum palustre • Alchemilla caucasica • E. arvense • Leoydia serotina • Juncus articulatus • J. bufonius 3. Biotop type: Dense-turf xerophi- lous meadows with the dominant • Parnassia palustris Festuca varia • Gladiolus caucasicus Characteristic species: • Ligularia siberica • Korbesia schoenoides • Dactylorhyza euxuna • Carex tristis • D. urvilleana • Alopecurus dasyanthus • Anthoxanthum odorarum subsp. Alpine belt biotopes: • Alchemilla caucasica • Festuca ruprchechtii 1. Biotop type: Dense-turf meadows • Bromopsis riparia with the dominant Carex tristis

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 26

• Polygonum carneum • Primula amoena 6. Biotop type: Secondary carpet-like alpine meadows • Chaecrophyllum roseum Characteristic species: • Helictotrichon asiaticus • Alchemilla retinervis • Podospermum alpigenum • A. caucasica • Cerastium purpurascens • A. elisabethae • Betonica macrantha • Plantago caucasica

• P. saxatilis 4. Biotop type: Snowbed carpet-like alpine meadows • Poa alpina Characteristic species: • Nardus sticta • Veronica gentianoides • Sibbaldia semiglabra • Pedicularis crassirostris • S. parviflora • P. nordmanniana • Taraxacum confusum • Taraxacum porphyranthum • Veronica gentianoides • T. stevenii • Carex medwedewii • Poa alpina • Trifolium ambiguum • Gnaphalium supinum • T. trichocephalum • Ranunculus oreophilus var. • Trollius patulus pumilus • Sibbaldia semiglabra Biotops of rocks and scree: • Phleum alpinum 1. Biotop type: Biotope of dry rocks • Alchemilla rigida Characteristic species: • A. caucasica • Saxifraga juniperifolia • Cerastium cerastoides • Campanula bellidifolia • Minuartia aizoides • C. petrophila • Primula algida • C. sarmatica • Antennaria caucasica • Astragalus kazbeki • Asperula albovii 5. Biotop type: Snowbed carpet-like • Oxytropis albana alpine meadows on skeleton sub- • Sempervivum pumilum strates Characteristic species: • Minuartia bieberseinii • Sibbaldia semiglabra • Onosma caucasica • Alchemilla caucasica 2. Biotop type: Biotope of moist • A. retinervis rocks • Taraxacum porphyranthum Characteristic species: • Plantago saxatilis • Parietaria micrantha

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 27

• P. judaica • Silene ruprechtii • Campanula sosnowskyi • Thymus collinus • C. Hypopolia • Pulsatilla violaceae • Diphasium alpinum • Festuca ovina • Cryptgamma crispa • Koeleria caucasica • Polypodium vulgare • K. luerssenii • Woodsia fragillis • Carex vuschiorum • Dryopteris pumila • Sedum oppositifolium • Primula darialica 5. Biotop type: Riverside biotope 3. Biotop type: Biotope of marly and with Trisetum rigidum slaty scree Characteristic species: Characteristic species: • Erigeron caucasicus • Silene lacera • Medicago lupulina • Erysimum ibericum • Trifolium repens • E. substrigosum • T. fontanum • Linaria vulgaris • Taraxacum officinale • L. meyeri • Poa compressa • Thalictrum foetidum • Sedum acre • Salvia verticillata • Agrostis tenuis • Scutellaria leptostegia • Ziziphora puschkinii • Thymus collinus • Blysmus compresus • Bromopsis riparia • Asragalus captiosus • B. biebersteinii 6. Biotop tipe: Rock pinetree biotope • Trigonocaryum involucratum Characteristic species:

4. Biotop type: Biotope of stones Not known due to the inaccessibility of Characteristic species: the place. • Sempervivum pumilum • Campanula bellidifolia

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 28

Annex 1.4:

List of Vertebrates of Kazbegi District (excl. birds)

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 29

LIST OF VERTEBRATES OF KAZBEGI DISTRICT (EXCL. BIRDS)

№ Latin name Georgian name English name National RL International RL Category Category

1. Talpa levantis mcire Txunela Small Mole LC LC

2. Sorex raddei rades biga Radde's Shrew NT NT

3. Sorex satunini kavkasiuri biga Caucasian Shrew DD LC

4. Sorex vilnuchini volnuxinis biga Volnuchin's Shrew NT LC

5. Neomys teres kavkasiuri wylis biga Caucasian Water Shrew NT LC

6. Crocidura gueldenstaedtii grZelkuda kbilTeTra Caucasian White-Toothed Shrew LC LC

7. Crocidura leucodon TeTrmucela kbilTeTra Bicoloured White-toothed Shrew LC LC

8. Myotis mistacinus ulvaSa mRamiobi Whiskered Bat DD LC

9. Pipistrellus pipistrellus Cia Ramori Common Pipistrelle LC LC

10. Pipistrellus kuhlii kiulis Ramori Kuhl's Pipistrelle LC LC

11. Plecotus auritus ruxi yura Brown Long-eared Bat LC LC

12. Eptesicus serotinus megviane Ramura Serotine LC LC

13. Vespertilio murinus Cveulebrivi Ramura Parti-coloured Bat DD LC

14. Sicista kazbegica yazbegis Tagvana Kazbegian Birch Mouse VU EN

15. Dryomys nitedula tyis Zilguda Forest Dormouse LC NT

16. Cricetulus migratorius nacrisferi zazunela Grey Hamster VU LC

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 30

№ Latin name Georgian name English name National RL International RL Category Category 17. Prometheomys schaposchnikovi promeTes memindvria Long-Clawed Mole-Vole VU NT

18. Arvicola terrestris wylis memindvria Water Vole LC LC

19. Tericola majori buCqnaris memindvria Bush Vole LC LC

20. Tericola daghestanicus daRestnuri memindvria Daghestanian Vole LC LC

21. Microtus arvalis Cveulebrivi memindvria Common Vole LC LC

22. Chionomys gud gudauruli memindvria Gudauri Vole LC DD

23. Chionomys roberti mcireaziuri memindvria Robert's Vole LC DD

24. Sylvaemus uralensis mcire tyis Tagvi Lesser Wood-Mouse LC LC

25. Sylvaemus fulvipectus kavkasiuri tyis Tagvi Caucasian Wood Mouse LC LC

26. Mus musculus saxlis Tagvi House Mouse LC LC

27. Lepus europaeus evropuli kurdReli European Hare LC LC

28. Canis lupus mgeli Wolf. LC LC

29. Vulpes vulpes mela Red Fox LC LC

30. Ursus arctos mura daTvi Brown Bear EN C2(aI) LC

31. Martes martes tyis kverna Common Marten LC LC

32. Martes foina kldis kverna Rock Marten LC LC

33. Mustela nivalis dedofala Weasel LC LC

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 31

№ Latin name Georgian name English name National RL International RL Category Category 34. Mustela erminae yaryumi Stoat LC LC

35. Meles meles maCvi Badger LC LC

36. Lutra lutra wavi Common Otter VU NT

37. Felis silvestris tyis kata Wild Cat LC LC

38. Lynx lynx focxveri Lynx CR C2 (aI) LC

39. Panthera pardus jiqi Leopard CR D1 NT

40. Capreolus capreolus evropuli Sveli European Roe Deer LC LC

41. Capra cylindricornis daRestnuri jixvi East Caucasian Tur VU NT

42. Rupicapra rupicapra arCvi Chamois EN A2a LC

43. Anguis fragilis boxmeWa Slow worm LC LC 44. Lacerta medis saSualo xvliki Giant green lizard NT LC 45. Lacerta agilis mardi xvliki Sand lizard LC LC 46. Darevskia caucasica kavkasiuri xvliki Caucasian lizard LC LC 47. Darevskia rudis qarTuli xvliki Spiny-tailed lizard LC LC 48. Natrix natrix Cveulebrivi ankara Grass snake LC LC 49. Natrix teselata wylis ankara Diced snake LC LC 50. Pelias ursini velis gvelgesla Orsini’s viper LC LC 51. Bufo viridis mwvane gombeSo Green toad LC LC 52. Hyla arborea Cveulebrivi vasaka European tree frog LC LC

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 32

№ Latin name Georgian name English name National RL International RL Category Category 53. Rana ridibunda tbis bayayi Eurasian marsh frog LC LC 54. Rana macrocnemis mcireaziuri bayayi Long-legged wood frog LC LC 55. Salmo trutta trutta evropuli kalmaxi Brook trout VU A1d LC

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 33

Annex 1.5:

List of Birds

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 34

LIST OF BIRDS

SPECIES SC Ciconiiformes yaryatisnairni Ardea cinerea ruxi yanCa M Grey Heron Ardea purpurea wiTuri (qarci) yanCa M Purple Heron Ardeola ralloides yviTeli yanCa M Squacco Heron Anseriformes batisnairni Anas platyrhynchos gareuli ixvi M Mallard Anas strepera ruxi ixvi M Gadwall Anas crecca stvenia ixvi (Wikvara) M Common Teal Anas querquedula WaxWaxa ixvi (ixvinja) M Garganey Anas acuta bolosadgisa (kudsadgisa) ixvi M Northern Pintail Anas clypeata ganierniskarta ixvi M Northern Shoveler Falconiformes Sevardnisnairni Milvus migrans Zera M Black Kite Accipiter nisus mimino YR-R Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter gentilis qori YR-R Northern Goshawk Buteo buteo Cveulebrivi kakaCa YR-R Common Buzzard Buteo rufinus velis (grZelfexa) kakaCa M Long-legged Buzzard LC VU Pernis apivorus krazanaWamia (irao) M European Honey-Buzzard Hieraaetus pennantus Cia arwivi M Booted Eagle Aquila heliaca beqobis (TeTrmxreba) arwivi M Imperial Eagle VU VU Aquila clanga didi myivani arwivi (didi TeTrlaqebiani arwivi) M Greater Spotted Eagle VU VU mcire myivani arwivi (mcire TeTrlaqebiani Aquila pomarina arwivi) M Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila nipalensis velis arwivi M Steppe Eagle Aquila chrysaetos mTis arwivi YR-R Golden Eagle LC VU Neophron percnopterus faskunji BB Egyptian Vulture EN VU Bearded Vulture (Lammer- Gypaetus barbatus batkanZeri (wveriani svavi, yajiri, kraviWamia) YR-R geier) LC VU

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 35

SPECIES SC Cinereous Vulture (Eurasian Aegypius monachus svavi SV Black Vulture) NT EN Gyps fulvus orbi YR-R Eurasian Griffon Vulture LC VU Circus aeroginosus Waobis Zelqori (Waobis bolobeWeda) M Western Marsh Harrier Circus cyaneus mindvris Zelqori (mindvris bolobeWeda) M Hen (or Northern) Harrier Circus macrourus velis Zelqori (velis bolobeWeda) M Pallid Harrier Circus pygargus mdelos Zelqori (mdelos bolobeWeda) M Montagu's Harrier Falco peregrinus Savardeni BB Peregrine Falcon Falco subbuteo marjani M Eurasian Hobby Falco columbarius alali M Merlin Falco vespertinus wiTelfexa Savardeni M Red-footed Falcon NT EN Falco tinnunculus Cveulebrivi kirkita BB Common Kestrel Galliformes qaTmisnairni Tetrao mlokosiewiczi kavkasiuri roWo YR-R Caucasian Blackgrouse NT VU Tetraogallus caucasicus kavkasiuri SurTxi YR-R Caucasian Snowcock Alectoris chukar kakabi YR-R Chukar Coturnix coturnix mwyeri BB Common Quail Gruiformes werosnairni Grus grus ruxi wero M Common Crane LC EN Rallus aquaticus laina M Water Rail Crex crex RalRa BB Corn crake Charadriiformes meWvaviasnairni Charadrius dubius mcire wintala BB Little Ringed Plover Tringa ochropus Savi menapire M Green Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Cveulebrivi meqviSia (meborne) BB Common Sandpiper Gallinago media didi Cibuxa (goWa) M Great Snipe Gallinago gallinago Cibuxa M Common Snipe Columbiformes mtredisnairni Streptopelia turtur Cveulebrivi gvriti M Eurasian Turtle-Dove Streptopelia decaocto sayeloiani gvriti YR-R Eurasian Collared-Dove

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 36

SPECIES SC Cuculiformes gugulisnairni Cuculus canorus guguli BB Common Cuckoo Strigiformes busnairni Bubo bubo zarnaSo YR-R Eurasian Eagle Owl Strix aluco tyis bu YR-R Tawny Owl Caprimulgiformes ufexurasnairni Caprimulgus europaeus ufexura M Eurasian Nightjar Apodiformes namgalasnairni Apus apus namgala BB Common Swift Apus melba mekiria (anu TeTrmucela namgala) BB Alpine Swift Coraciiformes yapyapisnairni Merops apiaster oqrosferi kvirioni M European Bee-eater Coracias garrulus yapyapi M European Roller Alcedo atthis alkuni M Common Kingsfisher Upupa epops ofofi BB Eurasian Hoopoe Piciformes kodalasnairni Picus viridis mwvane kodala BB Eurasian Green Woodpecker Dendrocopos major didi Wreli kodala YR-R Greater Spotted Woodpecker Jynx torquilla maqcia M Eurasian Wryneck Passeriformes beRurasnairni Eremophila alpestris rqosani torola YR-R Horned (or Shore) Lark Calandrella brachydactyla didi mokleTiTa torola M Greater Short-Toed Lark Lullula arborea tyis torola M Wood Lark Alauda arvensis mindvris torola M Eurasian Skylark Hirundo rustica soflis mercxali BB Barn Swallow Ptyonoprogne rupestris kldis mercxali BB Crag-Martin Riparia riparia menapire mercxali BB Sand Martin Delichon urbica qalaqis mercxali BB Northern Hause-Martin Anthus trivialis tyis mwyerCita BB Tree Pipit

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 37

SPECIES SC Anthus pratensis mdelos mwyerCita BB Meadow Pipit Anthus cervinus wiTelgula mwyerCita M Red-Throated Pipit Anthus spinoletta mTis mwyerCita BB Water Pipit Anthus campestris mindvris mwyerCita M Tawny Pipit Motacilla alba TeTri boloqanqara BB White Wagtail Motacilla cinerea ruxi boloqanqara BB Grey Wagtail Motacilla flava yviTeli boloqanqara M Yellow Wagtail Motacilla citreola yviTelTava boloqanqara M, BB? Citrine Wagtail Lanius minor SavSubla RaJo M Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius collurio Cveulebrivi RaJo BB Red-backed Shrike Prunella modularis tyis Wvintaka YR-R Dunnock Prunella collaris alpuri Wvintaka YR-R Alpine Accentor Sylvia communis didi TeTryela aspuWaka BB Greater Whitethroat Sylvia curruca mcire TeTryela aspuWaka M Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia nisoria miminosebri aspuWaka BB Barred Warbler Sylvia atricapilla SavTava aspuWaka BB Blackcap Phylloscopus collybita Cveulebrivi WivWavi (yarana) M Eurasian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus lorenzii kavkasiuri WivWavi (yarana) BB Caucasian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus nitidus momwvano WivWavi (yarana) BB Greenish Warbler Regulus regulus yviTelTava narCita (RabuaCiti) BB Common Goldcrest Regulus ignicapilus wiTelTava narCita (RabuaCiti) ? Firecrest Muscicapa striata ruxi buziWeria (mematlia) BB Spotted Flycatcher Ficedula parva wiTelyela (mcire) buziWeria (mematlia) M Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula semitorquata naxevrad-TeTryela buziWeria (mematlia) M Semi-Collared Flycatcher Saxicola torguata SavTava ovsadi BB Common Stonechat Saxicola rubetra TeTrwarba (mdelos) ovsadi BB Whinchat Monticola saxatilis kldis Wreli SaSvi BB Rufous-tailed Rock-Thrush Oenanthe oenanthe Cveulebrivi meRorRia BB Northern Wheatear Oenanthe hispanica Savyura meRorRia M Black-eared Wheatear Phoenicurus ochruros Savi bolocecxla YR-R Black Redstart

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 38

SPECIES SC Phoenicurus phoenicurus bolocecxla BB Common Redstart Güldenstädt's (or White- Phoenicurus erythrogaster wiTelmucela bolocecxla YR-R winged) Redstart LC VU Erithacus rubecula gulwiTela BB European Robin Turdus merula SaSvi YR-R Eurasian Blackbird Turdus torquatus TeTrgula SaSvi YR-R Ring Ouzel Turdus viscivorus CxarTvi YR-R Mistle Thrush Aegithalos caudatus Toxitara YR-R Long-tailed Tit Parus ater mcire wivwiva (wiwkana) YR-R Coal Tit Parus major didi wivwiva (wiwkana) YR-R Great Tit Parus caeruleus molurjo wivwiva (wiwkana) YR-R Blue Tit Tichodroma muraria frTawiTeli kldecocia YR-R Wall-creeper Certhia familiaris Cveulebrivi mglinava YR-R Eurasian Tree-creeper Troglodytes troglodytes WinWraqa (RobemZvrala) YR-R Winter Wren Cinclus cinclus wylis SaSvi YR-R White-throated Dipper Miliaria calandra mefetvia (anu mindvris grata) BB Corn Bunting Emberiza cia kldis grata BB Rock Bunting Emberiza melanocephala SavTava grata M Black-headed Bunting Emberiza hortulana baRis grata M Ortolan Bunting Fringilla coelebs skvinCa (niblia) YR-R Chaffinch Carduelis carduelis Citbatona YR-R European Goldfinch Carduelis chloris mwvanula YR-R European Greenfinch Carduelis flavirostris mTis Wvinta YR-R Twite Carduelis cannabina Wvinta (mekanafia) BB Eurasian Linnet Pyrrhula pyrrhula stvenia BB Eurasian Bullfinch Rhodopechys sanguinea frTawiTeli koWobura ? Crimson-winged Finch Serinus pusillus wiTelSubla mTiula YR-R Red-fronted Serin Carpodacus erythrinus Cveulebrivi koWoba BB Common Rosefinch Carpodacus rubicilla didi koWoba YR-R Great Rosefinch LC VU Loxia curvirostra niskartmarwuxa YR-R Common Crossbill

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 39

SPECIES SC Passer domesticus saxlis beRura YR-R Hause Sparrow Montifringilla nivalis meTovlia YR-R White-winged Snowfinch Sturnus vulgaris SoSia (SroSani) M Common Starling Sturnus roseus vardisferi SoSia (tarbi) M Rose-coloured Starling Oriolus oriolus molaRuri M Eurasian Golden Oriole Garrulus glandarius Cxikvi YR-R Eurasian Jay Pica pica kaWkaWi YR-R Black-billed Magpie Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax wiTelniskarta maRrani YR-R Red-billed Chough Pyrrhocorax graculus yviTelniskarta maRrani YR-R Yellow-billed Chough Corvus corax yorani YR-R Common Raven Corvus frugilegus Wilyvavi YR-R Rook Corvus corone cornix ruxi yvavi YR-R Hooded Crow

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 40

Annex 1.6:

List of Mammals of Kazbegi Region

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 41 LIST OF MAMMALS OF KAZBEGI REGION

№ saxeobis laTinuri saxeobis qarTuli saxeobis inglisuri dasaxeleba Saqar IUCN wiTeli dasaxeleba dasaxeleba Tvelos wi nusxa Telo nusxa 1. Talpa levantis mcire Txunela Small Mole LC LC 2. Sorex raddei rades biga Radde's Shrew NT NT 3. Sorex satunini kavkasiuri biga Caucasian Shrew DD LC 4. Sorex vilnuchini volnuxinis biga Volnuchin's Shrew NT LC 5. Neomys teres kavkasiuri wylis biga Caucasian Water Shrew NT LC 6. Crocidura gueldenstaedtii grZelkuda kbilTeTra Caucasian White-Toothed Shrew LC LC 7. Crocidura leucodon TeTrmucela kbilTeTra Bicoloured White-toothed Shrew LC LC 8. Myotis mistacinus ulvaSa mRamiobi Whiskered Bat DD LC 9. Pipistrellus pipistrellus Cia Ramori Common Pipistrelle LC LC 10. Pipistrellus kuhlii kiulis Ramori Kuhl's Pipistrelle LC LC 11. Plecotus auritus ruxi yura Brown Long-eared Bat LC LC 12. Eptesicus serotinus megviane Ramura Serotine LC LC 13. Vespertilio murinus Cveulebrivi Ramura Parti-coloured Bat DD LC 14. Sicista kazbegica yazbegis Tagvana Kazbegian Birch Mouse VU EN 15. Dryomys nitedula tyis Zilguda Forest Dormouse LC NT 16. Cricetulus migratorius nacrisferi zazunela Grey Hamster VU LC 17. Prometheomys promeTes memindvria Long-Clawed Mole-Vole VU NT schaposchnikovi 18. Arvicola terrestris wylis memindvria Water Vole LC LC 19. Tericola majori buCqnaris memindvria Bush Vole LC LC 20. Tericola daghestanicus daRestnuri memindvria Daghestanian Vole LC LC 21. Microtus arvalis Cveulebrivi memindvria Common Vole LC LC

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 42

22. Chionomys gud gudauruli memindvria Gudauri Vole LC DD 23. Chionomys roberti mcireaziuri memindvria Robert's Vole LC DD 24. Sylvaemus uralensis mcire tyis Tagvi Lesser Wood-Mouse LC LC 25. Sylvaemus fulvipectus kavkasiuri tyis Tagvi Caucasian Wood Mouse LC LC 26. Mus musculus saxlis Tagvi House Mouse LC LC 27. Lepus europaeus evropuli kurdReli European Hare LC LC 28. Canis lupus mgeli Wolf. LC LC 29. Vulpes vulpes mela Red Fox LC LC 30. Ursus arctos mura daTvi Brown Bear EN C2(aI) LC 31. Martes martes tyis kverna Common Marten LC LC 32. Martes foina kldis kverna Rock Marten LC LC 33. Mustela nivalis dedofala Weasel LC LC 34. Mustela erminae yaryumi Stoat LC LC 35. Meles meles maCvi Badger LC LC 36. Lutra lutra wavi Common Otter VU NT 37. Felis silvestris tyis kata Wild Cat LC LC 38. Lynx lynx focxveri Lynx CR C2 (aI) LC 39. Panthera pardus jiqi Leopard CR D1 NT 40. Capreolus capreolus evropuli Sveli European Roe Deer LC LC 41. Capra cylindricornis daRestnuri jixvi East Caucasian Tur VU NT 42. Rupicapra rupicapra arCvi Chamois EN A2a LC 43. Anguis fragilis boxmeWa Slow worm LC LC 44. Lacerta medis saSualo xvliki Giant green lizard NT LC 45. Lacerta agilis mardi xvliki Sand lizard LC LC 46. Darevskia caucasica kavkasiuri xvliki Caucasian lizard LC LC 47. Darevskia rudis qarTuli xvliki Spiny-tailed lizard LC LC 48. Natrix natrix Cveulebrivi ankara Grass snake LC LC

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 43

49. Natrix teselata wylis ankara Diced snake LC LC 50. Pelias ursini velis gvelgesla Orsini’s viper LC LC 51. Bufo viridis mwvane gombeSo Green toad LC LC 52. Hyla arborea Cveulebrivi vasaka European tree frog LC LC 53. Rana ridibunda tbis bayayi Eurasian marsh frog LC LC 54. Rana macrocnemis mcireaziuri bayayi Long-legged wood frog LC LC 55. Salmo trutta trutta evropuli kalmaxi Brook trout VU A1d LC

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 44

Annex 1.7:

List of Endangered Species

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 45

LIST OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

Animal species listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species or the Red List of Georgia that occur in Kazbegi.

Latin name English name IUCN Georgian RL

Sicista kazbegica Kazbegian Birch Mouse EN VU Cricetulus migratorius Grey Hamster LC VU Prometheomys schaposchnikovi Long-Clawed Mole-Vole NT VU Ursus arctos Brown Bear LC EN

Lutra lutra Common Otter NT VU

Capra cylindricornis East Caucasian Tur NT VU Rupicapra rupicapra Chamois LC EN Salmo trutta trutta Brook trout LC VU Buteo rufinus Long-legged Buzzard LC VU Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle VU VU Aquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle VU VU Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle LC VU Neophron percnopterus Egyptian Vulture EN VU Gypaetus barbatus Bearded Vulture LC VU Aegypius monachus Cinereous Vulture NT EN Gyps fulvus Eurasian Griffon Vulture LC VU Falco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon NT EN Tetrao mlokosiewiczi Caucasian Blackgrouse NT VU Phoenicurus erythrogaster Güldenstädt's Redstart LC VU Carpodacus rubicilla Great Rosefinch LC VU

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 46

Annex 1.8:

Summary List of Village Profiles

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 47

SUMMARY REPORT OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

The following report includes the social and economical development concept of Kazbegi region taking into consideration environmental and gender-related aspects. In the report is described the information obtained from different target groups of Kazbegi population, government representatives and other stakeholders, as well as from other available materials about the region.

During the working process the following methodologies were applied: Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) – the umbrella methodology that involves a certain assortment of different approaches and methods; Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA); Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA); Participatory Action and Learning Methodology (PALM); Participatory Action and Research (PAR); Farmer Systems Research (FMS); etc. The basis of all mentioned approaches is the full participation of the population in the process of revealing own needs and possibilities, decision-making and action.

Participatory evaluation is a creative approach to study the issue of taking care after the poor inhabitants, action planning and evaluation of development activities. It enables to analyze the knowledge of population and avoid mistakes. The main goal of applying visualization, interviewing and group working methods is to increase the level of interactive learning, knowledge sharing and flexible semi-structured analysis. These methods proved their high value in many situations in both North and South countries. It enables to mobilize local population for joint efforts and activities.

This methodology helps to make close contacts between the target and working groups through conversation with inhabitants, semi-structured interviews and field works, to develop the common vision, to obtain the realistic information – maximally acceptable for target group. The mentioned methodology provokes open and warm relationship between the local population and the working group. It maximally increases involvement of population in the ongoing process.

The working group members: 1) Alexandre Bagdadze – Specialist of PLA methodology – Tbilisi; 2) Iago Kazalishvili – Geologist – Kazbegi.

The report is consisted with the following: • Introduction • Short overview of the region • Analysis of obtained information • Conclusions and recommendations • Attachements

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 48

Short overview of the region Kazbegi region is situated on the north slope of Kavkasioni mountain ringe, between the central and East Kavkasioni, near the beginning of the river Tergi. The whole size of the region is 1081, 9 km2. The geographical coordinates of the borders are:

Border North latitude aRmosavleT West 42038/42,66’’ 44030/48,55’’ East 42036/02,29’’ 44051/09,66’’ North 42045/05,89’’ 44030/55,15’’ South 42028/44,62’’ 44029/57,48

Kazbegi region is a high mountainous zone. Its average altitude is 1800 m. The lowest village Gveleti is situated at 1400 m at sea level, and the altitude of the highest place Juta is 2170 m. Mkhinvartsveri is also belongs to Kazbegi region. There are 25 settlements in the region. The total size of the settlements equals to 14 000 hectares. The skiing health resort Gudauri is also under the governance of the region. It actually comprises two villages, Khumlistsikhe and Gudauri itself. The regional centre is the borough Kabuki.

According the official statistical data of there are 47 settlements in the region, 2981 households and 6254 inhabitants. These data were obtained in 2005 and are not updated since then and probably they did not reflect the real situation at present. For example, after closing the border with Russia in 2005, the inhabitant left the settlements in Truso gorge and only one person lives there for this time. Furthermore, about 500 pensioners are registered in Russian territorial units: Dzaugi and Orjonikidze (before the rose revolution due to pension related problems some inhabitants preferred to register in Russia). Because of these circumstances, it is impossible to obtain exact demographic data. Only talk with local population gives general impression of the situation:

At present in Kazbegi region there is 1400 permanent households with 3000 inhabitants. In summer period, about 600 families of nomadic and summer residents are added.

Among the permanent inhabitants, 45% are capable of working, 37% pensioners and 18% schoolchildren. Half of the population has high education and only 3% - incomplete secondary education.

Among the population capable of working 60% is self-employed in their own farms. 7% have private business, 7% are temporarily employed, and the rest 26% are servants.

Kazbegi region is mainly populated with Mokhevians. During centuries, Khevi was the north entrance of Georgia and was populated by free peasants. Each village had its leader – Khevisberi. Khevisberi together with elders of the village made decisions that were fulfilled in participation of the population. We can say that in the region there is a

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 49 good potential for creation of powerful Community Unions and for active participation of the population in improving their livelihoods and future.

Traditionally animal husbandry is well developed in Kazbegi region. During the Soviet period there were about 400 000 heads of sheep in the region (half in private sector and half in government sector) that affected the ecosystem. Overgrazing induced gradual elimination of herbage and respectively number of ecologically threatened places increased. During the last decades, after destroy of Soviet system, the economic crisis and inaccessibility to Kizlari winter pastures sharply decreased the number of sheep. At present only about 20 000 head of sheep is remained in the whole region. As a result, the number of trees and herbage has been increased during the last decades.

At present, 80% of population is involved is animal husbandry – the main field of agriculture in the region. The total number of animals at present is the following: 15 000 heads of sheep and 5 000 heads of cattle. 80% of sheep and 40% of cattle is nomadic. At the end of October, the owners move their sheep and cattle to the pastures of Kakheti and Kartli regions (Due to the lack of winter pastures they hire pastures in different regions. Only some of cattle-breeders have own pastures on Iagluja field in Kvemo Kartli region. Some of them have the houses in suburbs of Dusheti, Tbilisi and Rustavi and winter their cattle in nearby areas). In May they return back in Kazbegi. It is important that Arabian businesspersons are interested in Georgian sheep. They buy sheep because of its low price and high quality and take in Arabian countries. For the last period, several thousand heads of sheep have been sold only in Kabuki region.

Due to the development of animal husbandry in the region, there are good resources of veterinary personnel. Government programs are implemented against anthrax and malanders, but due to poor financial resources, it is not possible investigate distribution of brucellosis – disease that is very frequent in the region and sometimes occurs among inhabitants.

Because of shortage of agricultural lands, lifestyle of local population and climatic conditions arable farming is less developed and represented only with potato growing. Only a small part of population grows potato for sale. Others use it for own consumption. In the yards there are some fruit trees: apple, pear, plum and wild plum. (In one of the villages we also found vine). Average plot size per one household is 0,43 hectares that include farmstead (0,03 hectare), plot for potato growing (0,08 hectare), mowing land and pasture. At the territory of the region there are many medical plants such as sea-buckthorn, bilberry, barberries, sweetbrier, field-ash, pit, raspberries, broad-leaved garlic, yellow daisy, touch-and-heal, marjoram, caraway, thyme, etc. Local population mainly uses sea-buckthorn, raspberries, bilberry, sweetbrier, caraway, thyme and broad-leaved garlic.

Transcaucasian gas pipelines cross the territory of the region. The pipeline supplies Armenia and partially Georgia with gas from Russia. Gas supply in the region was free

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 50 of charge and greenhouse farms were well developed. Most of inhabitants of the villages situated nearby the military road had their own greenhouses (totally over 500 greenhouses in the region). They generally cultivated cucumber and supplied not only the region but also the North Osetia. In order to destroy the greenhouse infrastructure according to the government decision compensation per 30 GEL on 1 square meters was paid to the greenhouse owners in 2005. After this arrangement, the volume of free of charge gas was limited to 700 cubic meters for local population. The institutions pay the whole tax for gas they use.

One more additional income for employees in high mountainous regions was bonus on salary of 25 % of rate of wages. According to the government decision in 2007 this bonus was also canceled.

The military road connecting Georgia with Russia had a great impact on economical situation in Georgia. When the road was open, transit infrastructure was well developed. Easy market access enabled local population to gain certain income. At present they can sell their products only via dealers, mostly through swapping (barter).

In economical activities, the duties of men and women are partially different. Man performs hard work, such as mowing, transportation of hay, looking after the sheep. The work of a woman is not so hard: looking after and milking the cattle, homework. Agricultural works such as potato growing they do equally. There are no differences in rights and obligations between man and woman.

There are serious problems related to infrastructure. The roads are destroyed and need repairing throughout the region. The level of atmospheric precipitations is high during summer period. Snow slips are frequent. Due to this fact the settlements (for example the village Jupta) is isolated from the region the whole summer. Accordingly, arrangements for cleaning the roads from landslips and snow slips are carried out each spring. Especially hard situations are in the village of Khanobi and in the villages situated at Sno ravine.

The problem of dumpsites is also a serious problem throughout the region. In Stephantsminda and Gudauri this problem is partially solved, but in other villages there are alarm conditions. The waste is disposed in ravines near riversides and distributed in the whole territory of ravine when the river level rises. Only in the village of Jufta, as inhabitants say, waste is collected and burnt or buried. The problem related to sewerage system is less in Stephantsminda and Gudauri.

Another serious problem in the villages of the region is a tax of electricity. Electricity meters are not installed, damages of electric cables is frequent during summer period. Cost for repairing of the system is covered by local inhabitants.

There are several layers of minerals in the region: copper-polymetallic layer in Devdoraki, Elia antimonite layer, crystal layers and building stone layers (dolerite,

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 51 granite, diorite, andesite, travertin). There are also many mineral waters. Dirung the Soviet period Mineral Water Plant was functioning in the borough Kazbegi. This recourse is unused at present.

The fist great negative economic impact for the population was the loss of winter pastures during the destroy of Soviet Union. In parallel about 500 greenhouse farms were destroyed in 2005. The border with Russia was closed at the same year. According to the government decision this bonus on salary was canceled in 2007.

Unemployment, complicated access to market, insufficient veterinary service, long and severe winter, complicated wintering for animals, population orientation on monocultures, incomplete infrastructure of agriculture are the problems causing hard social and economic conditions of the population.

Besides these problems, there are good capacities in the region that will enable local population to improve their living conditions and transform the region in economically stable and sustainable one.

Among the capacities of the region are the unique location and the beautiful sights for development of diverse types of tourism: rafting on mountain rivers; school of alpinism in the village of Gveleti; it is possible to arrange hunting farm in Devdoraki ravine (that in case of good management will support to growth in number of aurochs and chamois). In Khda and Devdoraki ravines it is possible to arrange specialized geological tours; in Dariali ravine it is possible formation of so called “bird watching” infrastructure (there are many endemic bird species on the ravine territory: blackgrouse, eagle, etc.). In the villages of Khanobi and Khurtisi there is a possibility for development of extremal tourism. It is possible to develop horse riding tourism from Kobi and Almasiani to the direction of Truso ravine where there are many travertines with mineral waters and beautiful sights. The mentioned infrastructure includes also family guesthouses and nourishment places. Horse riding tourism and family guesthouses is a good perspective also for the village Juta.

Development of this infrastructure will be economically profitable for the whole region and for the population, but due to the political instability, focusing only on the development of this field contains a certain risk.

As it was already mentioned, the traditional field of agriculture in the region is animal husbandry (cattle breeding and sheep farming). During the last period due to the political instability, the issue of winter pastures is complicated. Number of animals in the region is sharply decreased. Only a small number of inhabitants have the possibility of mowing animals during winter period nearby Dusheti, Tbilisi, Rustavi and Sagarejo territories. Only some have their own winter pastures on Iagluja fields.

For correction of current situation, it is recommended to establish branch unions of sheep farmers and cattle breeders that will enable to better organize wintering of

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 52 animals and improve veterinary service. It desired to promote mowing crops in the region that will increase hay volume and decrease the problem of wintering.

Selling of the products is also a serious problem. Creation of small processing enterprises (milk processing, cheese packaging) will enable local population to sell their products directly via shops instead of the dealers that will significantly increase their income.

The analogous situation is in the field of bee-keeping. Wintering of bees is difficult in the conditions of severe winter. So only a small part of population is involved in this field. Analogous branch unions will promote to development of bee-keeping in the region as honey produced here has unique characteristics.

The main field of crop farming is potato growing. Agro technical arrangements exclude application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that is valuable in ecological point of view. Weight of one potato equals to 1300 g, but due to realization problems, population does not cultivate potato for marketing purposes.

Before 2005 there were 580 greenhouse farms in the region. Most of them were destroyed, but remained ones give us possibility for recovering of this field. Additional investigation is needed to find out perspectives of biogas for greenhouses in local winter conditions taking into consideration the number of animal existed here. In case of positive results of the study, biogas installation will be an important tool for economical development of the region. In other case biogas can be used for cultivation of greens in greenhouses.

We have also to mention that in some villages we have found fruit tree varieties: apple, peer, cherry, sweet cherry. In the village Sno we also found vine. These plants are brought in from Meskheti region, climatic conditions of which are alike to climatic conditions in Kazbegi region. Accordingly there is a possibility for the development of fruit farming. At present on the demonstration plot of “Elkana” in the village Tsnisi of Akhaltsikhe region endemic apple and peer varieties are available. These varieties are well adapted to the local climatic conditions. Accordingly, they will be well adapted to the climate of Kazbegi region too. The characteristics of these varieties (maximal height 3-4 m) decrease the risk of their damage during the high levels of snow. It is possible to buy the plantings of these varieties and advertise them among the local population; At the same time – to arrange nursery garden (vill Sno – Ioram Gudushauri), where besides the mentioned fruit tree varieties other plantings will be also cultivated that will be used in the regions having high risk of snow slips and landslips.

In the villages of Sno and Goristsikhe a small part of population cultivates strawberries, which is distinguished with special tasting quality. Harveting period is a bit late in comparison with other regions of Georgia. We can also focus on popularization of this plant.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 53

There is also a good recourse for persons involved in traditional handicraft activities. In case of sustainable development of sheep farming the resource of wool will be sufficient for establishment of small processing enterprise. Through support of already existed Women Handicraft Centre it will be possible to distribute wool thread among the population, that willpartially decrease the unemployment problem of women during the long winter period. Local handicrafts will be advertised and sold to the tourists.

There are many medical wild plants in the region. Especially sea-buckthorn is well distributed in Tergi ravine, villages Achkhoti and Stephantsminda. Collecting of the plant fruit and establishment of a small processing enterprise for sea-buckthorn will be also a good income-generating activity.

For fishery development, very perspective places are the whole territory of Sno ravine from Achkhoti to Karkuchi. Focus should be taken on endemic trout variety because feeding and looking after the other varieties of trout is related with high expences. For trout farming is also ideal the territory nearby the river Tergi, between the villages of Kobi and Kanobi. At the lakes in the village Khanobi it is possible to arrange fishery farm for tourists. It will be also economically profitable for the village population.

Nearby the borough Kazbegi their is a mineral water that is alike to popular “Likani” with its tasting qualities. Development of its production will be very important for popularization of the region and for income generation for the population.

There are sufficient water resources in the region for building of micro hydroelectric stations on the mountain rivers. The villages: Juta, Sno, Karkucha, Akhaltsikhe and Khoseli stay without electricity during summer periods. Recovery of old hydroelectric station in the village Sno and construction of new one in Juta will solve this great problem. The problem of electrical supply is also in the village Tsdo. There is no river here, but due to geographical situation there is a possibility for construction of wing generator.

As it was mentioned above, there is a good perspective for creation of community- based organizations due to the traditional lifestyle in the region. Only the mentality of local population should be taken into consideration. During centuries, most of outside newcomers tried to subordinate the local freedom-loving people. Accordingly the natural doubt can be appeared in the population against novelty and newcomers. For unification of population and formation a common vision it is very important maximal flexibility of the information, definition of goals clearly and participation of community members in planning and implementation process. Only in this case it will be possible to create strong community organizations capable to solve the infrastructural problems existed in their villages through their own forces, to develop household farms and carry out activities for environmental protection.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 54

If mobilize and use local civil initiatives with close relation of local eparchy and government, through participation of population it will be possible to create community, branch agricultural unions and small processing enterprises. During several years currently, existed problems will be solved in the region. Local people will realize that they are owners of the region and will carry our infrastructural and environmental activities for the sustainable development of the region.

Alexandre Baghdadze Community mobilization and rural development consultant

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 55

SUMMARY LIST OF VILLAGE PROFILES

Agriculture

Teritories Ha N Villages Average on Non agricul- number of Total Government Private family tural Agricultural owners 1 Sioni 662,95 530,83 132,12 0,39 515,73 147,22 341 2 Garbani 101,82 27,28 74,54 0,50 0,08 101,74 149 3 Arsha 46,226 3,746 42,48 0,21 4,454 41,77 202 4 Vardisubani 17,98 1,3 16,68 0,52 0 17,98 32 5 Kobi 341,399 298,099 43,3 1,08 0,6 340,799 40 6 Phansheti 33,68 0,08 33,6 0,37 0,08 33,6 91 7 Qoseli 5,78 0 5,78 0,14 0 5,78 41 8 Almasiani 1227,32 1147,82 79,5 0,50 0,491 1226,83 159 9 Toti 20,86 0 20,86 0,67 0,5 20,36 31 10 Gaiboteni 13,29 0 13,29 0,37 0 13,29 36 11 Gergeti 60,35 0,10 60,25 0,20 0,28 60,07 303 12 Tcdo 8,82 0 8,82 0,21 0 8,82 42 13 Gveleti 10,04 0 10,04 0,42 0 10,04 24 14 Djuta 126,21 77,1 49,11 2,14 0 126,21 23 15 Karkucha 34,696 0,096 34,6 0,27 0,096 34,6 128 16 Akhaltsikhe 29,5 0 29,5 0,22 0 29,5 134 17 Sno* 1553,58 1241,04 312,5 0,29 0,163 1553,41 1077 18 Achkhoti 135,36 63,86 71,5 0,24 1,058 134,302 297 19 Goristsikhe 47,35 0,576 46,774 0,25 0,576 46,774 187 20 Khurtisi 79,497 28,402 51,095 0,40 0,102 79,395 127 21 Khanobi 59,45 17,052 42,398 0,38 0,052 59,398 112

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 56

22 Gudauri** 405,58 299,36 72,318 0,17 38,26 367,3 433 23 Tkharsheti 31,61 3,824 27,786 0,31 0,424 31,186 90 24 Stephantsminda 9027,3 8877,7 149,6 0,25 8879,2 148,1 600 25 Phkhelshe 50,84 0 50,84 0,35 0 50,84 145 all total 14131,485 12618,2705 1479,313 0,43 9442,1425 4689,3225 4844 Sno*-part of private lands 172,3ha is eparchy property and church Gudauri-Qumlischikhe**-part of private lands 33,12ha is property of persons from ather regions

Agricultural diversites

N Villages Cattle perma- Sheep/goat perma- Beehives fami- Agriculture nent/herder nent/herder lies/hives ha all ha permanent herder permanent herder families hives potato hay horses viri pig potato 1 Sioni 400 0 100 0 3 8 0,04 0 4 0 15 5,6 2 Garbani 480 0 40 0 4 52 0,03 0 1 0 10 3,45 3 Arsha 290 0 500 2500 0,06 0 30 15 25 8,4 4 Vardisubani 30 0 20 0 0 0 0,08 0 0 1 3 0,8 5 Kobi 26 0 0 0 0 0 0,04 1 15 1 0 0,2 6 Phansheti 42 50 25 100 0 0 0,04 0 1 1 8 0,6 7 Qoseli 0 12 0 0 0 0 0,06 0 0 0 0 0,06 8 Almasiani 14 100 0 0 0 0 0,03 0 3 1 3 0,3 9 Toti 10 Gaiboteni 11 Gergeti 247 0 850 700 4 0,04 0 45 6 4,8 12 Tcdo 9 0 0 0 0 0 0,035 0.14 0 0 0 0,21 13 Gveleti 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Djuta 210 100 10 0 1 45 0,15 2 14 3 0 2,1 15 Karkucha 27 20 8 30 0 0 0,08 0 0 2 0 1,04

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 57

16 Akhaltsikhe 60 100 0 600 0 0 0,06 0 6 10 15 0,9 17 Sno* 450 35 100 800 1 45 0,08 0 30 15 60 12,8 18 Achkhoti 208 0 24 0 0 0 0,08 0 0 4 7 9,6 19 Goristsikhe 110 80 130 120 0 0 0,08 0 0 4 25 6,8 20 Khurtisi 25 28 280 0 2 43 0,07 0 4 0 12 0,84 21 Khanobi 200 0 60 0 1 100 0,08 0 15 85 2,8 22 Gudauri** 40 0 25 1300 0 0 0,03 0 0 0 0 0,93 23 Tkharsheti 82 90 30 50 2 6 0,04 0 0 2 0 0,6 24 Stephantsminda 458 0 79 5700 3 30 0,03 0 5 0 15 7,71 25 Phkhelshe 45 125 25 1000 2 30 0,08 0 18 0 42 3,6 all total 3481 740 2306 12900 23 359 0,053 0 191 50 325 74,14

Human Resources

Families Demography N villages Seasonal Persons 0-18yars 18-59yar 60 and more Permanent summer All Family Herders Women man all Women man All Women Man All Women Man All resident size

1 Sioni 140 90 0 230 145 131 276 28 23 51 55 75 130 62 33 95 1,97 2 Garbani 115 50 0 165 107 95 202 21 17 38 47 51 98 39 27 66 1,76 3 Arsha 140 35 1 176 161 155 316 40 30 70 54 76 130 67 49 116 2,26 4 Vardisubani 10 9 0 19 18 11 29 4 1 5 3 3 6 11 7 18 2,9 5 Kobi 5 0 0 5 4 5 9 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 2 6 1,8 6 Phansheti 15 7 5 27 21 23 44 2 3 5 11 15 26 8 5 13 2,93 7 Qoseli 1 0 5 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 8 Almasiani 10 0 4 14 14 7 21 4 1 5 3 4 7 7 2 9 2,1 9 Toti 0 6 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Gaiboteni 0 16 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Gergeti 120 60 0 180 165 89 254 18 16 34 85 35 120 62 38 100 2,12

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 58

12 Tcdo 6 6 0 12 4 3 7 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 4 1,17 13 Gveleti 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 14 Djuta 14 0 9 23 17 24 41 0 2 2 5 14 19 12 8 20 2,93 15 Karkucha 13 6 1 20 31 27 58 5 3 8 12 15 27 14 9 23 4,46 16 Akhaltsikhe 15 10 15 40 21 16 37 4 3 7 6 5 11 11 8 19 2,5 17 Sno* 160 40 0 200 143 161 304 28 24 52 53 87 140 62 50 112 1,9 18 Achkhoti 120 15 0 135 80 83 163 6 8 14 42 51 93 32 24 56 1,36 19 Goristsikhe 85 10 15 110 60 48 108 10 8 18 21 14 35 29 26 55 1,27 20 Khurtisi 12 0 13 25 17 13 30 3 2 5 1 5 6 13 6 19 2,5 21 Khanobi 35 30 1 66 59 56 115 10 6 16 32 38 70 17 12 29 3,29 22 Gudauri** 31 0 0 31 24 37 61 5 9 14 14 19 33 5 9 14 1,967742

23 Tkharsheti 15 22 8 45 26 26 52 6 4 10 6 11 17 14 11 25 3,5 24 Stephantsminda 257 63 0 320 453 311 764 87 90 177 186 129 315 180 92 272 3,0 25 Phkhelshe 45 0 30 75 39 29 68 9 6 15 17 14 31 13 9 22 1,5 All total 1366 475 114 1955 1609 1353 2962 290 256 546 654 666 1320 665 431 1096 2,22

Business Education N villages Employed self employed Outside Workers own business Secondary Graduate Students Women Man Women Man Women Man Women Man school 1 Sioni 8 7 43 58 2 5 2 5 86 127 12 2 Garbani 8 9 38 42 0 0 1 0 76 78 10 3 Arsha 17 12 31 60 0 0 6 4 11 165 70 4 Vardisubani 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 7 5 12 5 Kobi 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 6 Phansheti 0 1 10 13 1 1 0 0 31 8 0 7 Qoseli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 Almasiani 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 1 15 1 0

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 59

9 Toti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Gaiboteni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Gergeti 7 12 75 16 2 5 1 2 178 35 7 12 Tcdo 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 13 Gveleti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 14 Djuta 1 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 32 2 15 Karkucha 1 0 11 15 0 0 0 0 42 8 0 16 Akhaltsikhe 2 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 18 7 5 17 Sno* 15 20 27 47 7 18 4 2 82 150 20 18 Achkhoti 3 18 39 22 0 9 0 2 28 112 9 19 Goristsikhe 2 8 18 3 1 3 0 0 41 45 4 20 Khurtisi 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 20 3 2 21 Khanobi 3 11 28 25 1 2 0 0 21 70 8 22 Gudauri** 6 8 4 8 0 0 4 3 19 28 0 23 Tkharsheti 2 2 4 9 0 0 0 0 27 15 0 24 Stephantsminda 58 74 78 15 12 24 38 16 209 345 33 25 Phkhelshe 3 2 14 12 0 0 0 0 35 12 6 All total 138 204 432 360 26 67 58 35 809 1249 200 342 792 93 93

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 60

Infrastructure

N villages church school kinder sewage garden Gym potable water disposal tourism Cars 1 Sioni 1 secondary 1 0 0 All families 0 2 8 2 Garbani 1 beginning 0 0 0 Needs rehabilitation 0 0 30 3 Arsha 1 secondary 1 0 1 All families 0 4 78 4 Vardisubani 0 0 0 0 0 All families 0 0 7 5 Kobi 0 0 0 0 0 Water valve in sectors 0 0 0 6 Phansheti 0 beginning 0 0 0 Upper sector hasn't 0 0 3 7 Qoseli 0 0 0 0 0 no 0 0 0 8 Almasiani 1 0 0 0 0 not all families 0 0 0 9 Toti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Gaiboteni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Gergeti 1 beginning 1 0 0 most families have 0 2 15 One spring in middle of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Tcdo village 13 Gveleti 0 0 0 0 0 Water valve in sectors 0 0 0 14 Djuta 0 beginning 0 0 0 no 0 0 3 Just one draw well in the 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 Karkucha middle of village 16 Akhaltsikhe 1 1-9years 0 0 0 Debit is non adecquate 0 0 1 17 Sno* 2 secondary 1 1 0 Needs rehabilitation 0 4 10 18 Achkhoti 1 beginning 1 0 0 All families 0 1 5 19 Goristsikhe All families, but the debit is 0 secondary 1 1 0 0 0 10 non adequate 20 Khurtisi 1 0 0 0 0 Upper sector hasn't 0 0 2 21 Khanobi 1 1-9years 0 0 0 not all families 0 0 1

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 61

Gudauri** All families, but the debit is secondary 1 0 100 7 18 22 non adequate 23 Tkharsheti 1 beginning 1 0 0 All families 0 0 5 secondary 5 and gymna- 1 2 1 All families 80% 32 90 24 Stephantsminda sia 25 Phkhelshe 0 0 0 0 0 Water valve in sectors 0 0 4 All total 19 8 5 2 54 290

Incomes

Income N villages milk cheese oil meal potato hay salary social subsidies 1 Sioni 5 25 5 20 20 2 15 8 2 Garbani 5 25 5 22 20 2 15 6 3 Arsha 8 20 3 20 15 3 25 6 4 Vardisubani 0 16 0 16 30 3 25 10 5 Kobi 0 8 0 15 12 5 30 30 6 Phansheti 0 25 5 20 15 10 15 10 7 Qoseli 0 0 0 0 40 60 0 0 8 Almasiani 0 8 0 15 12 5 30 30 11 Gergeti 7 17 5 15 18 8 20 10 12 Tcdo 0 5 0 10 15 25 25 20 13 Djuta 0 20 5 15 10 15 30 5 14 Karkucha 0 10 0 10 10 5 25 40 15 Akhaltsikhe 0 20 5 20 15 10 18 12 16 Sno* 5 23 7 20 10 5 20 10

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 62

17 Achkhoti 5 25 3 22 15 5 15 10 18 Goristsikhe 2 20 5 17 16 5 20 15 19 Khurtisi 3 12 5 15 20 18 17 10 20 Khanobi 0 15 5 15 20 18 17 10 21 Gudauri** 9 15 2 14 15 7 35 3 22 Tkharsheti 0 24 5 25 10 1 20 15 23 Stephantsminda 8 17 5 15 15 5 25 10 24 Phkhelshe 0 25 5 20 20 5 15 10 average in region 2,0 15,0 3,0 10,0 20,0 10,0 25,0 15,0

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 63

Annex 1.9:

Report on the Tourism Sector of the Kazbegi Region

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 64

REPORT ON THE TOURISM SECTOR OF THE KAZBEGI REGION

1 General overview 1.1 Historical overview Kazbegi region, historically called “Khevi” in the middle-ages was one of the most stra- tegically important regions in the country. Kazbegi is the gateway region on the north through the Caucasus mountain range. The landscape, nature and easy access ability from the north, played significant role in tourism development process. The region became famous tourism destination during soviet times at the end of the 1960ies. During that time in Kazbegi was build “Intourist” Hotel that was the only hotel in the region.

Already before the Second World War big attention and military interest was focused to development of mountaineering sport activities in south Caucasus, mainly in Kazbegi area. From 1930ies until the end of 1980ies several mountaineering and rock climbing bases were build in the region.

After Stalin’s era, before the break down of Soviet Union the centralized “intourist” network was operating the tours around the Union. According to the official statistics at the end of 1980ies tourist traffic in Georgia per year was 6-7 million. Soviet citizen traveling in Georgia was not considered as foreign tourist. According to the same official statistics, yearly 40% of the foreign tourists (non-soviets) traveling in Soviet Union used to visit Georgia. As a matter of fact, the travel costs in soviet Georgia was subsidized by the state. For example, recorded in 1989 the official rate of 1 day service (accommodation in twin room, 3 meals, transportation of the luggage and guiding) was 10 USD.

After the breakdown of Soviet Union, “Intourist” system collapsed and Kazbegi hotel finished functioning. During the 1990-1995 only climbing camps continued their subsistence. Because of the limited connection and terrible road conditions, only very limited number of travelers used to visit the region by the end of 1990ies. According to 1998 tourism product analysis report from Tacis, Mtskheta-Mtianeti region counted 2500 bed capacity.

Main income of the local families was connected to the greenhouses, heated with gratis natural gas. After collapse of the system, crushed the model of sustainable development of the region. Only income source was alien employment in Russian Federation, or hope for the tourism development in the region. Very soon the family houses were transformed to guesthouses and finally in 1999 in center of Kazbegi Hotel “Stephantsminda” was build with capacity of 20 rooms. Yearly the number of family guesthouses has been rising, reaching capacity of 600 beds.

1.2 Accessibility in General: The main connection center for international travelers is Tbilisi international Airport. Tbilisi Airport has direct connections with the following cities: Amsterdam, Astana, Ath-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 65 ens, Baku, Dubai, Frankfurt, Istanbul, Kiev, London, Minsk, Munich, Odessa, Paris, Riga, Tel Aviv, Vienna and Yerevan.

New airport terminals operated by a Turkish company, TAV Holdings, opened in 2007 in Tbilisi and Batumi, both of which are expected to be increasing domestic and international service. Georgia and Turkey have signed an agreement whereby Batumi Air- port is considered part of Turkey’s domestic network. Regional airports and domestic air service are key elements in improving the tourism infrastructure within Georgia. The airports of Tbilisi and Batumi are both under-utilized, capable of increased service. Currently, charter flights are minimal, but as Batumi grows, there is increased potential for more regional connections, as well as domestic service.

Reduced air fares should result from increased access and competition, which will increase the number of visitors to Georgia. The advantage of Kazbegi region in comparison with the other mountainous regions of Georgia is the distance from Tbilisi to Kazbegi (150Km). The region is accessible by public transport. During high season one can reach Kazbegi in 3 hours with shuttle bus, available 3 times a day and costs 15Gel(7€). It is significant benefit for domestic travelers, offering cheap transportation option. Accessibility in general is limited, but acceptable. In comparison with the past years the road has been repaired constantly and is still under construction. But again the access is limited. The first 115 kilometers up to Resort Gudauri is in good conditions, the rest 25 kilometers needs to be fixed. Therefore it is impossible for the large buses with 35-45 travelers to cross “Cross Pass” and reach Kazbegi, although there are several stretches still needing repair and difficult or closed for period of time in winter.

1.3 Overall statistic figures Official figures are hard to indicate, the lack of overall statistics is apparent. There are several sources on hand; the ministry of internal affairs is calculating the foreign entries on the border checkpoints; Department of Tourism and Resorts of Georgia is ordering to the private research organizations an airport exit survey in the duty free zone at Tbilisi international Airport, interviewing 500 foreign visitors about travel experience in Georgia; also DOTR regularly runs in-house insource field researches in different top destinations and resorts of Georgia for the capacity and service development; APA also is regularly publicizing the statistic figures about the visitor’s activity dynamics in the national parks. Have to admit that emerging from consultations with local tour operators and the local stakeholders, the research reports cast doubts. For example, according to the official report of 16.11.2009 Kazbegi National Park was visited by 11,006 visitors. Considering recent status and capacity of the National park administration, the figures are hard to believe in.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 66

Figure 1: Visitor’s Quantity in Kazbegi National Park according to the months. (APA)

Figure 2: The entries of foreign visitors to Georgian border checkpoints in 2007 and 2008. (Ministry of Internal Affairs)

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000 1051752 Entries 600000 1280107 Entries 400000

200000

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 67

Figure 3: Type of travel, research in Duty Free zone in 2007 (BCG private research company)

1.4 Destination description Kazbegi region offers traveler several natural sights: • Truso Gorge • North-West gorge from village Kobi. Interesting middle aged stone architecture, very interesting ethnographical site. In Truso gorge there are available few hiking trails, but due to the ecent Georgian-Russian conflict access to the border areas is prohibited. • Sno Gorge • It is one of the famous and internationally well-known travel destination, including Chauki mountains in 20 kilometers from the main road and the climber’s camp at the foot of Chaukhi cliffs. As well as international also Georgian travelers cross Chaukhi pass and trek from khevi region to Khevsureti and back. This is one of the well-known and easy trekking route. • Sameba (Holy Trinity) church • Sameba is an active monastery complex on the Western hill of Kazbegi. This is the most visited destination in Kazbegi region • Mt. Kazbek • Mt. Kazbek has become a symbol of the region and international representation of Gergia. According to the official statistics of DOTR, in 2007 approximately 2000 travelers attempt to climb the summit. On 3700 meters there is former Me- teorological Station, building used for the mountaineer’s shelter. Overnight costs 20Gel (9€) per person and does not include any additional service. It is possible

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 68

to hire local guides and porters in Kazbegi; guiding to the summit costs 450€. The rescue unit does not exist and the safety regulation is not available. • Climbing camp Gveleti • Gveleti climbing camp is very active area in summer, includes several wooden huts privatized after the break down of Soviet Union. Accommodation is used for Georgian climbing clubs. Additional serviced not available. • Area is also very popular for its waterfalls, which are one of the highlights of Dari- ali gorge. Tourism infrastructure in general is good. Local NGO “Mountaion House” has installed small bridge on the river, and marked the trail leading up to the waterfalls. Information board is installed on the conjunction of the main road. Maps are also available in Kazbegi. • Devdoraki glacier • Glacier is situated in the neghboure gorge of Gveleti camp. Trail is marked; information boards and maps are available for sale, unfortunately free maps does not existing so far. Trail is leading along former mine route. Approximately 2 hours trek leading travelers up to panorama spot at the foot of Devdoraki glacier. • Khde gorge • On the northern edge of Dariali gorge along the border line to Russia is situated Khde gorge. Right at the border checkpoint is the entrance to the gorge. Near the border station monastery complex is under construction. Gorge is a popular destination for young mountaineers. For last few years access to the gorge was prohibited or limited due to the Russian-Georgian conflict.

2 Overall picture 2.1 Overview Kazbegi is well developed for home stays, with a wide range of offerings throughout the village. Intourist Hotel is no longer operational and appears to sit dormant. The relatively new hotel “Stephantsminda” is satisfactory for groups. It is located on the main square of Kazbegi, with western facilities and an open air dining area. In 2007 the international team has worked on the web project and created website Kazbegi.info, offering the very basic travel information about the region. One can also find contacts of the local guesthouses and family houses. Currently the page is run by the Kazbegi municipality. There is a very limited choice of restaurants and cafes in Kazbegi. A few restaurants offer their service, with very low service quality. There are some efforts to offer tourists more recreational options, including horseback riding tours arranged by Hotel “Stephantsminda”. The biggest numbers of travelers visit the area only for one day excursion without overnight because of lack of accommodation and entertainment. Another major target group is active travelers, arriving in Kazbegi and passing through for a night in transit up to Mt. Kazbegi or to different hiking areas.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 69

It is said that there are local guides and porters that can be hired to assist with the climb up Mt. Kazbeg, what in reality is almost impossible for foreign speaking visitor. The biggest problem is limited foreign languages skills of the local population. On the main square is located local tour operator “Mountain Travel Agency”, offering wide choice of services, but the agency is very young and requires professional assistance.

Proper tourism information center is required, although there are several institutions distributing information free of charge. DOTR has planned to build the center in 2010 which will improve communication between costumers and service suppliers. Near the central square is situated “Mountain House”, NGO supplying information and services for the travelers. This is one of the most active NGO, cooperating intensively in term of the regional development projects with donor organizations and governmental institutions. Small and medium Enterprises hardly exist. Together with Tourism Information Center has to be established associated guide’s group, banked with highly qualified, experienced and trained guides. There are several handicraft groups in the region, but all of them are much unorganized and require good management.

2.2 Target Groups In order to indicate target groups, is very important to consult with tour operators and analyze the picture according to the bookings in previous years. Also exchanging information with local guesthouse owners allowed us to differentiate following target groups. The highest number of travelers visiting Kazbegi region are 1 day visitors and group travelers. Usually the average age of the costumers is above 50 years old. In order to benefit from this particular target group the services have to be adapted to the needs of the costumers. The highlight of daytrip to Kazbegi is the visit of Sameba church, but in average only 20% of the group members decide to walk up to the church. Tour operators usually hire several local 4WD vehicles to arrange the transfer for the group. At the same time safety standards of the vehicles are very poor. The costumers, who do not will to drive or walk up to the church, have to wait in the bus because of the lack of cafes. Mountaineering is another specific issue that has to be mentioned. Only NGO “mountain house” offers travelers limited equipment rental which is not enough on the high season. This is also important subject for hikers and trekkers. As a bonus, especially for active travelers is essential to develop low budget hot tubing and Sauna spots for evening relaxation after the trekking tours. Cheap accommodation options are required for the backpackers, and again only “mountain house” is offering hostel service. Small café style fast food spots are needed to offer packed lunch boxes to backpackers, trekkers and family travelers. For development of inbound travel business very important segment is family trips on weekend and public holidays. Currently nature is the only attraction for this type of travelers. Kazbegi has to offer additional family oriented services, to attract more cus- tomers in the region.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 70

Important tourism product which has big potential, but requires fundamental training and management skills is development of agro tourism. This segment is attractive for various target groups.

2.3 Seasonal aspects Considering geographical location of the region, weather is the most important element in tourism product planning process. The tourism season in Kazbegi area begins in spring, when the first birdwatchers arrive for wild life observation. Active season lasts usually until the end of October. In winter major part of the region is isolated because of the snow. Most of the villages are abandoned. Very limited number of travelers visit kazbegi region in winter, this are mostly mountaineers. Combination of winter activities with gudauri ski resort gives the region opportunity to stay active in winter also. Winter product packages have to be developed. APA in cooperation with DOTR and strong support of the local communities and NGOs can play major role in developing this kind of products.

3 Infrastructure The Road condition up to Gudauri is good. More than half of the road from Tbilisi is newly paved and expanded, reducing the drive time to 2 hours. From Gudauri next 25 kilometers needs to be repaired. Solid Waste management is disastrous. Garbage pit was made in Kazbegi which is not used. The waist is thrown into Tergi River. “Mountain House” has arranged several clean-up campaigns, distributing information about the new dumpsite, but so far the bridge over Tergi River is still popular garbage disposal place. The sewage water goes to the river Tergi. Water and energy conservation program does not exist at all, especially since tourism is a major consumer of energy and water resources. Emergency service is in the remote villages is limited. Only one hospital provides medical service to the whole region. If a traveler wants to withdraw money from Credit Card, there are no ATMs to use. Central post service is very poor; officially it exists but does not function. Main communication source is GSM mobile communication system. Considering the landscapes of the region, GSM coverage is very good. The region has very limited number of shops. It is impossible to buy additional outdoor equipment. In comparison with other mountainous regions in Georgia, signage in Kazbegi region is the most organized.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 71

4. SWOT Analysis The following SWOT Analysis of tourism development in Kazbegi region is result of numerous field visits, consultations with official representatives of governmental organizations, the local population and representatives.

4.1 Strengths 4.1.1 Attractions and Product Offers

• Important attraction element is the nature of Kazbegi region, high mountains, glaciers, waterfalls, bio diversity, endemic species of flora and fauna. Under- utilized potential of eco and active tourism of the region. • Hospitality of the local people and traditional lifestyle experience are the attractions which have to be imported in the tourism products and offers. • Traditional Georgian cuisine of the mountains. Exploring and discovering middle- aged traditions and food receipt. • Georgian interpretation of ancient Prometheus mythos and the parallels between the cultures.

4.1.2 Infrastructure and Services

• Local service quality is low, but at the same time is compensated by professional tour operators from Tbilisi

4.1.3 Human resource capacity

• Participation in trainings courses and cooperation of local NGO and SMEs with international donors is a step forward in service quality improvement.

4.1.4 Investment Climate

• The International Finance Corporation (IFC) noted in a recent assessment that “Georgia was the leading reformer” in three specific areas. Reforms in these areas are positive developments for tourism: • Dealing with licenses: The report looks specifically at construction licenses and permits, and this year Georgia created a one-stop shop for building permits. Shorter time limits for the issuance of permits were introduced, and several un- necessary procedures were eliminated. • Enforcing contracts: Georgia established specialized commercial sections in the courts. Also, the Supreme Court can now decide which cases to review. Previ- ously, it dealt with every case sent by the lower courts. In addition, Georgia has been striving to reduce corruption in the courts by increasing judges’ salaries and more aggressively investigating corruption and taking disciplinary measures against judges.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 72

• Employing workers: The new labor code eases restrictions on the duration of term contracts and overtime work. The new law provides for one month’s sever- ance pay, replacing complex rules requiring varying notice periods and the involvement of labor unions and the Ministry of Labor. Georgia also reduced the social security contributions paid on wages by businesses from 31% to 20%. To- gether, these changes make Georgia the sixth easiest place to employ workers globally (after the Marshall Islands, United States, Singapore, Tonga, and the Maldives). (Doing Business, http://www.doingbusiness.org/ “In addition, Georgia made strides in increasing the ease of starting a business. Georgia reduced the minimum capital required to start a new business from 2,000 lari to 200 (US$85). As a result, business registrations rose by 55 percent from 2005 to 2006, reflecting both the creation of new businesses and the registration of companies formerly operating in the shadow economy. In the area of getting credit, Georgia also has made some legislative changes to facilitate the exchange of credit information, and a private credit bureau began to support the exchange of information among banks.”)

4.2 Weaknesses These following issues serious weaknesses that reduce the quality of a tourist’s experience:

4.2.1 Attractions and Product Offers

• Waste management at every historical or natural sight is very poor. • Sanitary norms in the local restaurants are not protected. • Despite of number of camping spots in the region, public toilets and garbage spots are not available. • Guesthouses and family houses are inadequate for foreign groups and visitors. Shower-toilet combination became standard problem in almost every guesthouse. A minor upgrading would bring this up to an international standard. • Lack of shopping opportunities – apart from a few traditional souvenir stands, there is minimal choice available. • Abandoned buildings and post soviet ruins almost in every village, especially the skeletons of former greenhouses. • Impossible to find small cafes, in order to rest and spend few minutes, drinking tea or coffee, enjoying the view on the mountains.

4.2.2 Infrastructure and Services

• Transportation and Accessibility. It is impossible to find information about the regular shuttle traffic and prices. • Road quality and safety – some road sections on the northern side of the Cross Pass are very dangerous in bad weather.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 73

• Lack of the road signage on the way to Kazbegi indicating Restaurants, and panorama spots. • Lack of domestic air service infrastructure in Kazbegi. Natakhtari airport is offering small charter plane service for 250€ per hour, but there is no airplane field in Kazbegi.

4.2.3 Public Services

• Active proliferation of garbage and absence of receptacles –A pile of garbage in the foreground of a beautiful landscape almost in every village by the river. • Lack of clean modern toilets. (This is not the problem only for Kazbegi region, picture is similar around the country

4.2.4 Marketing and market research

• Local ways of marketing the tourism products. It is almost impossible to find information about local products and offers. Almost every website about Kazbegi available in internet needs synchronization or does not function at all. • There is very limited number of printing materials available even on Georgian language. • Lack of free tourism maps. • Neither APA, nor DOTR have done proper marketing research for Georgian mountain regions. Consequently, there is no marketing plan to guide expenditures on marketing and promotion.

4.2.5 Human resource capacity

• There is a lack of understanding about what tourists expect as minimum standards in accommodations, service and sanitation. • English language skills are minimal in the regions.

4.3 Opportunities 4.3.1 Attractions and product offers

• kazbegi has various product opportunities in adventure and nature-based tourism for businesses of all sizes. Network of eco lodges and mountain huts can be developed. • Different directions can be addressed: Mountaineering and ice-climbing, Hiking, Bird-watching, Ski mountaineering and touring, Trail-riding, mountain biking, kay- aking, rafting, Sightseeing

4.3.2 Infrastructure and Services

• It is essential for APA to address and launch sewage and waste management issues as well as water and energy conservation program.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 74

• Privatization and development of local energy supply system.

4.3.3 Marketing and market research

• Run active research campaign in frame of agro and eco tourism development.

4.3.4 Human resources

• Encourage local communities for participatory approach, cooperation between NGOs and private enterprises.

4.4 Threats 4.4.1 Attractions and product offers

• Tourism sector in Kazbegi, and overall in mountain Regions of Georgia is facing strong international competition with higher quality standards. • The winter tourism segment is also faced with competition from the west, especially in those destinations where ski mountaineering is well developed and offered.

4.4.2 Infrastructure and Services

• According to all official reports waste management, the lack of sewage treatment is one of most serious infrastructure issues.

4.4.3 Marketing and market research

• As mentioned above, the lack of market research is a serious weakness. It is also a potential threat if not addressed immediately.

4.4.4 Human resources

• Tourism is heavily dependent on human resources. The tourism schools are relatively new and, according to the Swiss Hotel School audits, are not ready to provide the necessary human resources for international standard tourism services. • One of the biggest threat is political instability in different regions of Georgia, especially in the neighbor areas like South Osetia.

5. Socio-economic effect The base of socio-economic development for Kazbegi is poverty alleviation through the economic growth and support of sustainable income-generation activities. The recommended mechanism to achieve tangible results is development of best practices of community based mountain tourism and through that creation of related job’s in the areas with limited agricultural potentials.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 75

Kazbegi area is well known destination and national highlight both for domestic and for international visitors. However, the socio-economic impact of tourism needs to be carefully assessed during the project implementation process.

5.1 Economic estimations: Having no statistic data, the market oriented approach is the only possibility to estimate gross tourism economic effect for local economy. This approach is based on visitor’s expenditure within the region calculated by number of visitors per target groups, day expenditure and length of stay. The increase of gross local earnings is directly depended on tourists expenditure made locally. The re-distribution of income through the service supply chain is the subject of additional investigation.

Domestic visitors: the major attraction for domestic and international visitors is Sameba Holly Trinity Church (often used as national symbol with background view on Mt.Kazbegi). The primary purpose of visit is pilgrimage and participation in traditional holidays. Therefore, estimations of visitors’ number can be based on number of visitors of Gergeti Sameba. According to the first estimates, the annual number of domestic visitors is about 30,000 day visits (estimations are confirmed by church service). In economic terms, those are mainly “low budget” overnight visitors (FRV, students, schools, etc), with average local daily expenditure about 20 GEL pers. day (incl. acco- modation, meal, transport). Accordingly, gross total local expenditure (assuming only day visits) is about GEL 600,000.

International visitors: International package tours program as usually includes visit to Kazbegi regions (overnight destination). Assuming that, the annual number of bad- nights of international “package tour” visitors is about 10.000 guest/nights (exception was 2008 because of war conflict). Groups are using mainly local family guesthouses (small and middle size groups) and few hotels (estimations are confirmed by lead inbound travel companies) or camps. Local expenditure full board (in guesthouse) per. overnight is about – 50 GEL. In total, gross local expenditure (assuming one overnight only) is about – 500.000 GEL. For groups interested with mountain trekking and adventure this is the core destination region, where visitors may spend from 1 to 3 overnights (camp, guesthouse). Therefore, presented estimates are quite realistic. The calculation is based on very preliminary estimates, nevertheless it’s clearly describing significant role of CBMT (community based mountain tourism) as alternative income generation source, not harming traditional rural lifestyle and concerned about environment preservation.

Considering, that Kazbegi municipal budget (including local taxes and central transfers) is about 2.2 mil. GEL (budget plan for 2009) and the fact that local enterprises are extremely weak; the economic value of tourism for the socio-economic development of the region is extremely high. Beside of subsistence agriculture activities the tourism can be the major cash income generation source. Accordingly the local and regional administration and simple community members are considering tourism as a major cash income generation source needed for livelihood stabilization.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 76

This sector has immense growth potential once the new nature attraction site, like BR or NP will be created.

Risks: On the other hand, the tourism development (particularly international) is very much depended on political stability and peace; therefore the major risk factor is conflict situation in the near border areas. Presented economic indicators will be met only under the precondition that conflicting situation between Georgia and Russia will be solved with peace resolution.

5.2 Employment impact Tourism is extremely complex sector of economy and therefore strengthening of part- nerships between all players of the “value-added-chain” is the baseline of success and sustainability. As for WTO estimations for rural tourism sector, one direct employment affects 4 in-direct temporary employments. Therefore, it makes strong multiply effect for employment generation. In this respect, the impact of community based mountain tourism in the poor remote areas like Kazbegi is extremely important factor for economic (cash flow) and social (employment) development.

Priority: The community based mountain tourism is a form of tourism most appropriate for mountain region sustainable development. The demand driven approach needs to be taken in the lead for selection of priority forms of activities to be supported by project. There are different types of local economic participation ranging from the passive re- ception of benefits to independent community-based enterprises. Currently, the most demanded services during the peak tourism season (3-4 months) are: accommodation, catering, transport, guiding. The local economic benefit is strongly depended on the competitive balance between demand and supply (provided by local communities for visitors). Here, the shortage of human capacity and available investment is the major bottlenecks to overcome.

Gender: Based on worldwide experience, the role of women is exceptional for the development of hospitality businesses in the rural areas. Women are driving force for small family based entrepreneurship, which is the service oriented activities – lodging, housekeeping, cocking meals, handcraft, etc. Another important employment segment is youth and adults (primarily men), skillful to provide guiding, porter and transport services. For the high mountain guiding the very specific training and experiences are required. Therefore, in order to involve locals in the professional guiding business, it is very important to make accesses to the professional training facilities, including mountaineering, guide and safety, rescue, language and communication skills. However, Tourism is a very competitive business, which is based on balance between demand and quality supply. Kazbegi region has great potential to increase tourism earnings, but to make it happen, the appropriate capacity and quality needs to be in place.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 77

The five main segments of services currently demanded in the area - accommodation, catering, transport, guiding and entertainment. The segments require specific improvement needs presented in the following table.

Table 1: Supply of goods and services demanded in the Kazbegi area:

Area of tourist Required goods and services for Local supplies and needs services improvement Accommodation Construction supplies for Local labor, craftsmen, materials (guesthouses / improvement of facilities and lodges) qualified labor. Furnishing Maintenance and Repair Craftsperson’s, materials, shops. Hospitality services Skilled local labor in overall management, housekeeping, cooking, other services. Improved entrepreneurship Lack of experience in accounting and enterprise operations. Financial instruments No start-up capital or soft loans. Very little collateral for credits guarantee and high risk. Catering Sanitation infrastructure and catering Public facilities need maintenance services equipment and equipment (toilet, rest-rooms, public transport). Fresh food, local products supply Produced locally (meat, cheese, batter, potatoes, herbs). Other products need to be purchased at the market. Cooking and serving Important source of income generation, but requires skills and trainings. Traditional cuisine and local USP Source of income, but needs to be (unique selling products). high ecological standards and stabile supply chain. Transportation Vehicle Local 4 wd and mini-bus services. Porter horses Porter services for mountain trekking and climbing expeditions. Riding horses Hors renting and coaching. Guiding Mountain guide Very well paid and respected job. Need professional training and national testing for certification system. site interpreter Often requested by visitors. Site interpreters’ needs to be trained by content, technique and language. Rescue and first aid Very important! System of mountain

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 78

rescue service needs to be established locally. Needs administrative and financial enforcement. Entertainment Cultural events Needs performance groups and & Traditional venue. Visitors often asking to festivals participate in the traditional events. Its commercial value has to be used through organizing accesses for visitors to participate. Craft shops / workshops It is a good source of income. No adequate supply. No shop, only few private home workshops.

3.5 Income distribution through “value added chain”. Case study example: In order to analyze local economic effect the distribution of tourists’ expenditures between local and national operators needs to be assessed. This local economic effect is different according to the distribution of service/costs ratio between national (from capital) and local service providers. Table below is reflection of re-distribution of visitors’ local expenditure in the region during the standard package tour.

Table 2: Example of “value added chain” in rural tourism (expert’s assessment): Component of service General situation by Expected increase by 2009 2012 Share in Service Share in Service the retail provider. the retail provider, price price Accommodation 25% Local 25% local (shelter, guest house, small hotel) Guide – site interpreters 10% Operator 10% local (English speaking) Local transport within the region 15% Operator 20% Local 5% local Entertainment-souvenirs-catering 5% operator 5% local Marketing 5% Operator 5% Operator Taxes 20% central 20% central income tax income tax Revenue (operator) 15% operator 15% operator Share of revenue distribution: Local services 30% 60% National operator 70% 40%

Assuming passive development scenario (no increase of visitors number), the local earnings can be doubled only by increasing local capacities for services. This should be the one important target for future project development in the focus regions.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 79

Creating of new market demands is quit costly exercise, therefore at the first stage of project development should be focused on existing market demands satisfaction. However, establishing of functioning nature destination site (BR or NP) will certainly increase visitors number and length of stay in the area.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 80

Annex 1.10:

Waste Management State and Environmental Pollution

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 81

REPORT ON WASTE MANAGEMENT STATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POL- LUTION IN KAZBEGI REGION

The submitted report is compiled as result of private meetings with representatives of local official authorities and non-governmental organizations, monitoring the target territory and an acquaintance with appropriate documentation of Kazbegi Municipality’s Sakrebulo. The target territory represents a regional center of Kazbegi – Staphantsminda borough and its bordering villages: Gergeti, Archa, Achkhoti, Sno, Sioni, Garbani and Vard- isubani.

Organization of waste collection on the target territory. There is engaged in waste collection and transportation the “COMUNALURI” Ltd., which is established with a 100% state share. The Company has not permanent staff, it just engages the season workers: on the base of an agreement there is carried out an engagement of personnel, usually since May 15 until October 15. The mentioned personnel are engaged in sanitation works of Stephantsminda borough. For example, in the current year of 2009 the Company has employed on the base of an agreement 6 yard-keepers and 2 workers. It is noticeable that because of low salaries and non- attractiveness of this labor it is difficult for Company to engage workers in such works. However, in 2009 there have been increased the wages that positively influenced on engagement of man power. So, taking the waste from population is actively carried out only in the summer, but in the winter the habitants themselves are getting rid of the rubbish and throwing it into the environment, particularly into the rivers.

Technical equipment of waste collection system The “COMUNALURI” Ltd which carries out the waste collection works has an out- moded autopark consisting of five trucks and besides it is completely depreciated and unable to answer the purpose. Consequently, for the rubbish collection purposes there is applying only one old truck (not dust-cart), which is possessed by the local government. It is noticeable that there is only one up-to-date dust-cart possessed by regional administration which is applying only for needs of skiing center Gudauri during the winter. The region does not possess the waste collecting containers. Consequently, the habitants are throwing the rubbish to the immediate streets and free areas that results in arising the illegal landfills. Only in Stephantsminda borough due to private initiative there have been succeeded in purchase 4 small-size containers and 6 litter-bins that in no way to resolve this problem

Location of rubbish For location of rubbish there is applying the landfills intended for these purposes. Par- ticularly, on July 2009 in Stephantsminda borough and 6 villages there have been dug the refuse-pits. One of the main landfill in Stephantsminda is a pit with 4 meter depth which is located on Terek River’s protected line. The mentioned pit is not fenced, there is not carried out inventory and control of received rubbish. All sorts of rubbish are

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 82 thrown into the pit as a whole. At regular intervals there is carried out the waste incin- eration. There is no watchman or other service personnel on the landfill. The landfill is not equipped with technical devices, in particular, with bulldozer and excavator. Before creation of a new landfill there was a landfill which was located immediately along the Terek River bank. At present, this landfill is closed by a decisión of local government, but some habitants are still throwing the rubbish in there. The territory of former landfill is not fenced and protected. There have not been executed the revegeta- tion works. It is necessary to finally forbid throwing the rubbish in there. The target territories are characterized with existence of illegal landfills at their points of entry. Besides, there are many illegal and spontaneous landfills in the centre of Kaz- begi region - Stephantsminda borough. It is particularly dangerous an existence of such landfills in river gauges (including Terek) and central territory of borough. The rubbish is accumulated during the years that negatively effects not only on environmental situation, but takes unpleasant form for viewers. It is necessary to note that region has a limited recourse of free territory. Consequently, it is necessary to search for such territory wherein should be built a new landfill in compliance with suitable standards.

Composition of waste arisen on target territory The compositions of waste arisen on these territories are different in accordance with seasons. In the summer, there are many tourists in the region, and the drinking water and soft drinks are in popular demand. Consequently, the most part in waste composition belongs to plastic bottles and bags (50-60% of total volume), glass bottles (approximately 10%). It is noticeable an existence of paper (up to 4-5%) and metallic cans (1-2%) waste. The compositions of waste in the winter is characterized with following: there is reducing the percentage of plastic waste (approximately to 20%), but increasing the quantity of glass jars (to 35-40%). In consequence of peculiarities typical for this region in composition of domestic waste thrown by habitants there are a large percentage of excre- ments and faces swept from domestic animals (pigs, hens) houses. Such sorts of waste are containing in especially large quantity in the rubbish during the winter. It is necessary to note that foods waste (essentially, of vegetable origin) are almost not throwing together with other rubbish since they are using for feeding of domestic animals. Consequently, such sorts of waste which are necessary for composting practically remain unused.

Volume of waste The waste is arisen on the target territories in following sites: • families; • shops and other trade points; • establishments; • schools; • hotels and tourist establishments; • as result of agricultural activities.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 83

Also in addition to this there are the sweepings from streets and litter-bins. There is no official statistical information about arising, quantity and composition of waste in Kaz- begi region. Therefore, for the approximate calculations of arisen waste quantity there have been applied the volume indices of the sanitation machine and in accordance with executed runs. In accordance with data of “COMUNALURI” Ltd in the summer the sanitation machine executes maximum 2 runs. During the each run this machine takes away maximum 4 m3 of rubbish. Every day there are accumulated 8 m3 of rubbish. Only during four days in a week there is carried out the rubbish collection works. Consequently, there is accumulated every week 32 m3 of rubbish from population. Besides, there is collected every day 1 machine’s volume of streets sweepings and litter-bins rubbish. Therefore, every week there is collected totally 16 m3 of such sort of rubbish In total during one week there is collected and taken to the landfills 48 m3 of rubbish, but monthly - 192 m3 of different sorts of rubbish. Consequently, in the summer over the territory of Stephantsminda borough there is collected up to 192 m3 of rubbish every month. There are included in this volume the quantity of waste thrown into illegal landfills by population. In the winter there is collected comparatively less volume of waste than in the summer. Also there is decreasing the plastic waste percentage in total volume of waste.

Sanitation financing There are existed three sources of sanitation financing: a) Sanitation tax collected from population; b) Revenues of organizations and enterprises; c) Local budget.

Actually, the main source for sanitation financing on the target territory is a local budget. In 2009 there were allocated from local budget for such needs 5000 Lari that even minimally does not meet existed demands. So, there have been allocated from the surplus fund additionally 20 thousand Lari and from President Fund – 15 thousand Lari. It is necessary to note that in 2008 the local budget did not envisage any expenses for such needs.

Local duties There are established by Kazbegi municipality the tariffs for sanitation duties collecting from organizations and legal entities. The domestic waste sanitation tariff for population comes to 0,4 Lari every day for each person. The tariff quantity does not reflect the actual expenses. There are foreseen the varied duties for organizations and legal entities (Kazbegi Municipality Resolution #25, 6.07.2007). It is necessary to note that due to existed social and economic conditions the most part of population are unable to pay established duties. For example, during 2008 totally in

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 84

Stephantsminda borough there have been collected such duties only of 45 Lari that is less than even 0.01% of projected revenue. The sanitation service has no case and any real mechanism to enforce as population, so organizations as well to pay duties since there is no any appropriate sanctions imposing system for persons littering the environment.

Legislative foundation and waste management strategy The Georgian legislative foundation and standards in force for waste management sphere mostly does not meet the contemporary requirements. There are not defined the rights, responsibilities and functions of waste manufacturers, persons engaged in waste concerning activities and governmental executive structures engaged in waste management. By now there is no any separate institution at all. There is no passed yet the national law on waste management that considerably com- plicates the regulation of waste management issues. Also, there is no existed the national plan of actions which should define strategy in this sphere. Taking the rubbish from the inhabited localities is regulated by various laws and statutory acts as at the governmental so at the local level. To present day at the national level there are existed the following laws important for waste management issues: • The Law on Environmental Protection. The article 34 of “Law on Environ- mental Protection” establishes the ecological requirements to waste. There is defined that subject is obliged to provide reducing, neutralization and location of industrial, domestic and other sorts of waste in compliance with environmental protection, sanitary and epidemiological standards and requirements. Also there is given in this Law the general instruction on fact that waste location and burying are permitted only on special sites and it is forbidden to locate any sorts of waste into the sea and other water objects. Besides, the Law comprises the statutory acts on pollution of atmospheric air caused by human activities. • The Law on Health Protection. The article 70 of “Law on Health Protection” defines that Ministry of Health Care develops and approves the sanitary-hygienic rules and standards and besides carries out the control of observance of them. Also there is specified that Georgian sanitary-hygienic rules and standards in force must meet the appropriate international requirements. On the base of this article of Law the Ministry has approved the standards for landfills and rules for health care waste management. The law comprises the statutory acts on pollution of atmospheric air and radio-active waste (matters) management as well. • The Law of Georgia on Local Self-Government. The Law defines the exclusive rights and duties of self-governmental unit. In particular, that includes the following activities: defining the rules and tariffs for housing catering; planning and implementation of domestic waste collection, taking away, location and recycling works and organization of municipal purchases on these activities.

Ecological awareness of population and involvement of them in environmental activities

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 85

The high pollution degree with waste on the target territory is directly depends on low ecological awareness of population. The representative examples for this are the existed illegal landfills and polluted rivers and territories.

There has not given the proper attention to environmental education of population and information of them about environmental issues. There still are not carried out the effective and resulting activities of non-governmental organizations in the direction of increase of environmental education of population. It is necessary to note that there are acting only two non-governmental organizations in Kazbegi region in the environmental sphere. Among them it is necessary to emphasize the non-governmental organizations “MTIS SAKHLI” (“Mountain House”) which has been established in 2007 with assistance of organization “People in need” from Czech Republic. The objective of this organization is to develop the mountaineering in Kazbegi region. It is actively involved in works on creation of not only tourist infrastructure, but effectively cares about environmental protection and clean the territories polluted with waste.

There have been organizad by members of the “MTIS SAKHLI” (“Mountain House”) one sanitation action which just lately was held in Stephantsminda borough. During this action there have been cleaned the Terek River gauges in the borough central part over the 300 meters of length. The action was carried out within two days and totally there have taken part 35 persons. It is necessary to note that mostly the action participants were the volunteers from Tbilisi. Unfortunately, the action has not been supported by indigenous population that once more shows the low ecological awareness of them

As result of carried out sanitation action there have been collected and taken away 650 sacks of rubbish with total weight of no less than 2000 kg. It is noticeable that the waste was accumulated on the territory during the years and consequently the territory has not been cleaned completely. The main part of the collected waste on the place of action consisted of plastics, glasses and cans. Essentially large percentage belongs to plastics and glasses.

In addition to sanitation action the “MTIS SAKHLI” (“Mountain House”) intends to install the billboard on the borough territory and mount the special plates with call on do not pollute the environment and river gauges with rubbish.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 86

Annex 1.11:

Legal Framework Analysis Biosphere Reserve

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 87

ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR ESTABLISHING AND FUNCTIONING OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN GEORGIA

Introduction This report has been prepared by Mr. Malkhaz Adeishvili as a consultant, Legal Framework Specialist, to the consortium led by DFS Deutsche Forstservice GmbH of Germany in cooperation with AGEG Consultants for the feasibility study of the KfW financed “Ecoregional Programme III, Kazbegi Project" in Georgia.

Tasks of the consultant were to undertake the following: • Legal framework analysis related to the creation and management of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia; • Gap analysis with reference to legal framework; • Description and recommendations of steps needed to amend existing legislation to be in compliance with legal stipulations by UNESCO with reference to the establishment and registering of Biosphere Reserves; • Elaborate a proposal for the institutional setup of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia - description of key agency(ies) and proposed composition of Management Board of a biosphere reserve; • Legal establishment of the proposed institutional set-up.

These issues have been addressed in respective chapters of the report which was developed in the period of 9-30 November 2009. The study has used intensively the results of the earlier works related to Kazbegi biosphere reserve undertaken under the Transboundary Joint Secretariat, particularly the TJS Activity Plan on Biosphere Re- serves, Report to Prepare for the Establishment of Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2009 (TJS, 2009). UNESCO’s documents such as the Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network (UNESCO, Paris, 1996) and Guiding Principles for Projects on Biosphere Reserves (2002) have been used as reference materials for legal framework analysis and developing proposals related to the creation and management of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia. Consolations where held with representatives of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources and its Agency of Protected Areas, the major project beneficiaries in Georgia.

1 Legal framework related to the creation and management of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia

1.1 Legal acts related to establishment of biosphere reserves in Georgia Biosphere reserve is considered as a type of protected areas in Georgian legislation. Law on the System of Protected Areas adopted (7-th March, 1996. N 136-IIS) in 1996

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 88 by the Georgian Parliament provides currently the framework for establishing, functioning and management of biosphere reserves (BRs) in the country2.

Law on the Status of Protected Areas (22-nd November, 2007. N 5486-IIS) 3 is another legal document which has a relevance with respect to BRs as it establishes current legal status (categories), territories and boundaries of each of 16 protected areas (PA) created by Georgian authorities in different times. Some of these protected areas may form core and buffer zones for BRs that may be developed in future in the country. For instance, paragraph 6 of this law establishes Kazbegi National Park (with total area of 8707 hectares and boundaries with reference to the “Forestry Organization and Devel- opment Project for Kazbegi Nature Reserve for 1997-2007”) which is being considered currently as the core area of potential Kazbegi biosphere reserve.4

In accordance with the requirements of the Law on the System of Protected Areas and the Law on the Status of the PA a number of laws have been adopted regulating issue related to particular PAs in Georgia. At present there have been the following laws adopted: 1) Georgian Law on "Establishing and Management of Protected Areas of Imereti Caves" 2) Georgian Law on "Mtirala National Park" 3) Georgian Law on Tbilisi National Park 4) Georgian Law on "Establishing and Management of Kolkheti Protected Areas” 5) Georgian Law on "Establishing and Management of Tusheti, Batsara-Babaneuri, Lagodekhi and Vashlovani Protected Areas”. 6) Georgian Law on "Establishing and Management of Borjomi-Kharagauli Pro- tected Areas” (2007-07-11). http://www.parliament.ge/_special/kan/files/2684.pdf

More details related to the management of the protected areas are or have to be provided in respective management plans to be approved by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources (MEPNR). No special law or management plan has been adopted or approved yet related to Kazbegi National Park.

Some issues related to protected areas management are regulated by specific environmental laws, such as: The Forest Code of Georgia (June 22-nd 1999); Law on Envi-

2 Georgian official text of the law is available on the following web site of Georgian Parliament: http://www.parliament.ge/index.php?lang_id=GEO&sec_id=69&kan_det=det&kan_id=33; English version of the law is available at the following internet web site: http://www.dpa.gov.ge/index.php?site-id=27. 3 Georgian official text: http://www.parliament.ge/_special/kan/files/2771.pdf. 4 Neither this law nor any other legal document refers to Kazbegi BR. However Draft version of National Protected Areas System Development Strategy and Action Plan for Georgia (Draft, Tbilisi, 2008) envisages development (objective 1.5.1) of a plan for establishment of BR in Kazbegi by 2012. Medium priority is assigned to this objective and international donors funding is sought for this action.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 89 ronment Protection (December 10-th 1996); Law on Fauna (December 26-th 1996); Law on Water (October 16-th 1997). However provisions of these laws have little relevance for analyzing the legal framework for the creation and management of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia.

Agency of Protected Areas (APA), subordinate organization of the Ministry of Environ- mental Protection and Natural Resources, has a key role in planning and management of protected areas in the country. Details about the scope of authority, tasks and responsibilities of this agency and its territorial units directly responsible for the management of particular PAs are provided in the statutory documents: • Statute on the Agency of Protected Areas (January 28-th 2008) and • Typical Statute on PA Agency Territorial Administrations (January 28-th 2008).

1.2. Law on the System of Protected Areas and its provisions related to biosphere reserves 1.2.1 Objectives for development of the system of protected areas As mentioned above, the Law on the System of Protected Areas is the framework law which stipulates objectives, requirements, zoning, procedures, roles and responsibilities with respect to planning, establishment and management of protected areas in Georgia.

Main objectives of development of the system of protected areas, as stated by the law, are “to protect and, where possible, restore natural ecosystems, landscapes, live organisms, including threatened wild animals and wild plants, and maintenance of biological diversity in the country”. Conservation and protection of natural and cultural environment is a core objective of establishing protected areas in Georgia. Other objectives include creation of conditions in the “natural and historical-cultural environment” for scientific researche and education, recreation, health and tourism”. The law includes as an objective rehabilitation, protection and development of “traditional economic activities and folk art for the purpose of maintaining the original historical- cul- tural environment”. Reconciliation of biodiversity and biological resources with their sustainable use, which is a key objective for the concept of BR, is missing in the list of objectives for establishing protected areas in Georgian law on PA system.

The following paragraphs in this section provide details of this law with respect to biosphere reserves.

1.2.2 Categories of protected areas Paragraph 1 of article 3 of the law establishes the following categories of PAs: 1) Strict Nature Reserve (IUCN category I) 2) National Park (IUCN category II)

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 90

3) Natural Monument (IUCN category III) 4) Managed Nature Reserve (IUCN category IV) 5) Protected Landscape (IUCN category V) 6) Multiple Use Area (IUCN category VI)

Paragraph 2 of the same article stipulates that in addition to the above categories of PAs it is allowed to establish “categories, which are included in the international network of Protected Areas, such as the Biosphere Reserve, the World Heritage District and the Wetlands of International Importance”. The law considers and treats BR as a type of protected area. Hence, general provisions of this law pertinent to protected areas apply to BRs too. Furthermore, the law mistakenly refers to the “International Network of Protected Areas”. In fact, BRs form a worldwide network, known as the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves).

1.2.3 Biosphere Reserve Articles 4-11 provide definitions, objectives, requirements to and zoning for each type of protected areas. Among these, article 10 relates solely to BRs. Below is provided more information on the provisions of this article:

Definition/Objective: “Biosphere Reserves are established for the protection of nature, natural processes and biological diversity, maintenance of vital environment, global monitoring of environment, scientific researches, recreation and education activities”.

Requirement/criteria: “The Biosphere Reserve needs the area, where there are one or several natural and natural-anthropogenic objects of international value. These are as follows: • representative natural samples of biome; • areas of distinct importance covering particular natural formations; • harmonious landscape samples created in the historical process of traditional land use in the given biome; • such modified and degraded landscapes, restoration of which in natural conditions is yet possible”.

Approval of BR: “Selected area will be approved as a “Biosphere Reserve” as soon as it is recognized by the International Coordination Board of the UNESCO Program – the “Man and a Biosphere”.

Zoning and respective activities: Biosphere Reserve can comprise the following main zones:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 91 d) Core or a Natural Strict Protection Zone. Only scientific nonmanipulation observations are allowed in the Core or a Natural Strict Protection Zone; e) Natural Managed Protection (Manipulations) or a Buffer Zone. Research- investigation, environment protection and restoration activities are allowed in the Natural Managed Protection Zone; f) Restoration Zone. Protection and restoration of affected areas due to anthropogenization are allowed in the Restoration Zone; g) Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone. Traditional economic use of renewable natural resources is allowed in the Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone.

As stated in the law, one or several categories of Protected Areas (Strict Nature Re- serve (category I), National Park (cat. II), Natural Monument (cat. III), Managed Nature Reserve (IV), Protected Landscape (category V), Multiple Use Area (category VI) could be included in Biosphere Reserve.

1.2.4 Other articles pertinent to biosphere reserves Article 12. Property rights: This article the law establishes property rights in protected areas. With respect to BRs the law states the following: “The territory in the Core or a Natural Strict Protection Zone of the Biosphere Reserve and the natural resources in these territories are only of public property. It is impossible to transfer the natural resources in use in this Zone. The territory in the Natural Man- aged Protection Zone of the Biosphere Reserve and the natural resources including nomadic live organisms in these territories are of public property. The territories in the Restoration and Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zones of the Biosphere Reserve and the biosphere natural resources, natural-cultural and historical-cultural objects in these territories are of public property”. The law stipulates, that other forms of property are also allowed in accordance with current Georgian legislation.

Article 14. Establishment, Development and Cancellation of Protected Areas: It is the Georgian Parliament’s responsibility to establish by a law each specific PA. The law must, as a minimum, determine the protection category and territory of the particular protected area. In particular cases, the Parliament of Georgia can establish protected area with a temporary category, before elaboration of detailed management plan of the Protected Area and before identification of permanent category.

Article 15. Management Plan of Protected Areas: “The Agency of Protected Areas - Legal Entity of Public Law of the Ministry of Envi- ronment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia - elaborates the Management Plan, which identifies the precised borders of the Protected Areas, their territorial organization, as well as the integral development programs and budgets of Support (Buffer) Zone and protection, scientific research and monitoring, education, recreation, tourism, administration and other activities, and submits to the Ministry of Environment

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 92

Protection and Natural Resources at establishing of Protected Area and, in exceptional cases, (in case of urgent advisability of establishing of the Protected Area and a lack of the guaranteed budgetary funds, when there is a necessity to attract the funds of donor or other non-budgetary funds) – within 3 years since it is established”. The Management Plan has to be approved by the Minister of Environment Protection and Natural Resoutces of Georgia”.

Article 16. Support (Buffer) Zone: According to article 16 of the law, it is obligatory to establish Support (Buffer) Zones in the Biosphere Reserve. Support (Buffer) Zone should be established by using the category of Multiple Use Area and is aimed to carry out the measures of promoting of balanced activity of nature protection and sustainable development and for local financial resource generation. The law states that, if needed, “the development of zone management, actions coordination and allowed activities are being identified by special program, which is being approved by the decree of the President of Georgia”.

Article 18. Management of Protected Areas: Protected Areas are managed by the Protected Areas Agency. Protected Areas agency has the authority: a) to manage among other PAs Biosphere Reserves and, “in exceptional cases”, to manage it together with the other organizations; c) to control Multiple Use Areas; m) to cooperate with governmental and non-governmental organizations of relevant functions; n) to cooperate with the wide sections of the society; The Agency of Protected Areas carries out the management by means of territorial administrations. The scientific-advisory board can be established at administrations.

Article 21. Cooperation with Governmental and Local Self-Government Bodies: 1) The Agency of Protected Areas has a close cooperation with governmental institutions and nongovernmental organizations in the process of planning, projects implementation and management. 2) For cooperation with the interdepartmental and domestic self-governmental bodies a scientific-advisory board is created, the composition of which is approved by the Minister. 3) Rights and responsibilities, working rules and the agenda of the scientific- advisory board are defined by the typical regulations of territorial administrations of the Agency of Protected Areas. 4) The Agency of Protected Areas cooperates with governmental institutions and local self-government bodies via scientific-advisory board: a) in exceptional cases, for the management and control of Biosphere Reserves; b) for the regulation and control of Multiple Use Areas (Buffer Zones).

Article 22. Cooperation with Population and Communities:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 93

Population and representatives of social communities have the right to participate: in the activities of care and management of Protected Areas and Buffer Zones

2. Comparative analysis of Georgian legal framework and UNESCO Statutory Framework for establishing and functioning of biosphere reserves 2.1. Comparative analysis The table below presents a comparative analysis of Georgian legal framework and UNESCO’s concept on BRs Statutory Framework on Biosphere Reserves. More specifically, provisions related to objectives, functions, zoning, institutional arrangements and other requirements to BRs are compared as these are stipulated in the UNESCO’s Statutory Framework on Biosphere Reserves on the one hand and in the Georgian Law on the System of Protected Areas. Conclusions drawn from this analysis, including identified inconsistencies and gaps in terms of requirements to BRS in the two documents, are presented in the following subsection of this chapter.

UNESCO Georgian Law on PAS Definition Biosphere reserves are areas of terrestrial and Biosphere Reserves are established for the costal/marine ecosystem or a combination protection of nature, natural processes and thereof, which are internationally recognized biological diversity, maintenance of vital within the framework of UNESCO’s environment, global monitoring of environment, programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB) scientific researches, recreation and in accordance with the Statutory Framework. educational activities. World Network of Biosphere Reserves Biosphere reserves form a worldwide network, According to paragraph 2 of article 3 of the law, known as the World Network of Biosphere Biosphere Reserve is a “category” of PAs, Reserves, hereafter called the Network. which are included in the international network The Network constitutes a tool for the of Protected Areas”. conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components, thus contributing to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other pertinent conventions and instruments. Remark: According to UNESCO’s concept of BRs provided in the Statutory Framework and the Seville Strategy, Biosphere Reserves go beyond classical PAs in terms of their functions and goals, in terms of the methods and mechanisms that should be implemented and in terms of the qualities of territory they should comprise. Biosphere Reserves should be relatively large areas where human use should be developed according to the principles of sustainability. These areas could be without any PA status or such a status which would allow the existence of man and sustainable human interventions and respectful use of natural resources. Embedded in these areas there would have to be areas with PA status, safeguarding even strict legal protection where this would be necessary (TJS, 2009). As opposed to the UNESCO’ Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, Georgian legislation considers and treats BR as a type of PA. There is no clear definition of BR provided in Georgian Legislation. Instead, objectives for which BRs can be

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 94 established are stated. Conservation and protection of biological diversity and ecosystems are at the hart of both UNESCO and Georgian definition of BRs. However, objective related to sustainable use of the components of biodiversity is missing in Georgian legislation. Furthermore, the law on PAS mistakenly refers to the “International Network of Protected Areas”. In fact, BRs form a worldwide network, known as the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Functions of BRs In combining the three functions below, bio- Biosphere Reserves are established for: sphere reserves should strive to be sites of excellence to explore and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable - protection of nature, natural processes and development on a regional scale: biological diversity, maintenance of vital (i) conservation - contribute to the conserva- environment; tion of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation; (ii) development - foster economic and hu- - global monitoring of environment, scientific man development which is socio-culturally researches, recreation and education. and ecologically sustainable; (iii) logistic support - support for demonstration projects, environmental education and training, research and monitoring related to local, regional, national and global issues of conservation and sustainable development. Remark: Development function of BR which is a key function according to the UNESCO concept is missing in Georgian legislation. More emphasis has been made on functions typical to PAs such as conservation, research, monitoring and education. Criteria “General criteria for an area to be qualified for “The Biosphere Reserve needs the area, designation as a biosphere reserve: where there are one or several natural and 1. It should encompass a mosaic of ecological natural-anthropogenic objects of international systems representative of major bio- value. These are as follows: geographic regions, including a gradation of 1. Representative natural samples of biome; human interventions. 2. Areas of distinct importance covering 2. It should be of significance for biological particular natural formations; diversity conservation. 3. Harmonious landscape samples created in 3. It should provide an opportunity to explore the historical process of traditional land use in and demonstrate approaches to sustainable the given biome; development on a regional scale. 4. Modified and degraded landscapes 4. It should have an appropriate size to serve restoration of which natural conditions is yet the three functions of biosphere reserves…” possible”. Remark: Even though the two sets of criteria differ from each other, it seems there is no significant inconsistency or a controversy between them. Zoning BR “should include these functions, through “Biosphere Reserve can comprise the following appropriate zonation, recognizing: main zones: (a) a legally constituted core area or areas (a) Core or a Natural Strict Protection Zone. devoted to long-term protection, according to Only scientific non-manipulation observations the conservation objectives of the biosphere are allowed in the Core or a Natural Strict reserve, and of sufficient size to meet these Protection Zone. objectives; (b) Natural Managed Protection

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 95

(b) a buffer zone or zones clearly identified (Manipulations) or a Buffer Zone. Research- and surrounding or contiguous to the core area investigation, environment protection and or areas, where only activities compatible restoration activities are allowed in the Natural with the conservation objectives can take Managed Protection Zone. place; (c) Restoration Zone. Protection and (c) an outer transition area where sustainable restoration of affected areas due to resource management practices are promoted anthropogenization are allowed in the and developed”. Restoration Zone. (d) Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone. Traditional economic use of renewable natural resources is allowed in the Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone”. Inclusion of one or several categories of Protected Areas (Strict Nature Reserve, National Park, Natural Monument, Managed Nature Reserve, Protected Landscape, Multiple Use Area.) is possible within the frames of Biosphere Reserve.

Article 16. Support Zones (buffer zones) of protected areas: 1. It is obligatory to establish Support (Buffer) Zones in the Biosphere Reserve. 2. Support (Buffer) Zone should be established by using the category of Multiple Use Area and is aimed to carry out the measures of promoting of balanced activity of nature protection and sustainable development and for local financial resource generation.

Buffer zone as defined in other articles of the law: Article 10. Biosphere Reserve. Paragraph 3 A: Natural Managed Protection (Manipulations) or a Buffer Zone. Research, environment protection and restoration activities are allowed in the Natural Managed Protection Zone.

Article 12. Property rights. Paragraph 5: The territory in the Natural Managed Protection Zone (Buffer Zone) of the Biosphere Reserve and the natural resources including nomadic live organisms in these territories are of public property.

Article 9. Multiple Use Area: 1. Multiple Use Area is being established for renewable natural resources use-oriented economic activities which takes into account requirements of environment protection. 2. Multiple Use Area needs relatively large terrain area and (or) the seawater area, which are the natural bases necessary for water accumulation, forests and pastures productivity, hunting, fishing and beast-birds distribution, as well as for tourism. This area

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 96

can be modified and cover the settlements as well. Unique natural formations should not be met in this area. Multiple Use Area fits to the VI category of Protected Areas of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – Resource Management Protected Area. Remarks: UNESCO’s Statutory Framework on BRs requires existence of three zones, while the law on the System of Protected Areas allows four zones in BR. Core zone and buffer zones are required by both legal documents. Georgian system does not recognize transition zone. Instead, Restoration Zone and Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone are allowed in Georgian Law on the System of Protected Areas. Core area in both UNESCO and Georgian document seem to have similar objectives and function and the same kind of restrictions seem to apply: The core area is devoted to nature conservation and to protection of the genetic resources, flora and fauna, landscapes and ecosystems it contains. It is the reference area for research. Core areas have strict protection status. Human intervention must be kept to a minimum. Access is generally only permitted for research, monitoring or education (fulfilling the conservation and logistic support functions). UNESCO Statutory Framework states that only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place in buffer zone. These activities, as argued in literature, may include environmental education, recreation, ecotourism and applied and basic research. There is less clarity with the objectives and functions related to buffer zone and possible activities within this zone in Georgian Legislation: Article 10 of the Law on the System of Protected Areas (PAS) which relates to Biosphere Reserve stipulates (paragraph 3) that BR should comprise a Buffer Zone or a Natural Managed Protection (Manipulations) where research, environmental protection and restoration activities are allowed. However, later in the text of the same law there is significant confusion about the functions of buffer zone: Article 16. Support Zones (buffer zones) of protected areas states that “it is obligatory to establish Support (Buffer) Zones in the Biosphere Reserve”, and “Support (Buffer) Zone should be established by using the category of Multiple Use Area and is aimed to carry out the measures of promoting of balanced activity of nature protection and sustainable development and for local financial resource generation”. There seems to be two different definition of Buffer Zone: 1. Buffer Zone or a Natural Managed Protection Zone, where research, environment protection and restoration activities are allowed; and 2. Buffer zone or support zone, which has a category of Multiple Use Area, is aimed for carrying out the measures of promoting balanced activity of nature protection and sustainable development and for local financial resource generation”.

Objectives and activities in these two definitions do not fit each other. It seems 2-nd definition was provided in the law to accommodate sustainable development function of BR which in UNESCO BR concept is implemented through transitional area. As according to UNESCO’s Statutory Framework for BRs, transition area is used to support sustainable development. All land uses and economic activities in transition area must be benign to the environment, nature and society. Research and monitoring are also carried out in the transition area. No transition area, where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed, is included in zones provided in the law on PAS. Instead, Restoration Zone and Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone are allowed by the law. However none of these zones can serve the function of promoting and developing sustainable resource management practices. As provided in the law on PAS, traditional economic uses of renewable natural resources are allowed in Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone. However, traditional uses do not necessary mean sustainable uses. Also, sustainable uses are should not be limited to traditional uses only.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 97

Organizational arrangements Organizational arrangements should be Articl 15. Management Plan of Protected provided for the involvement and participation Areas of a suitable range of inter alia public “The Protected Areas Agency - the Legal Entity authorities, local communities and private of Public Law of the Ministry of Environment interests in the design and carrying out the Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia - functions of a biosphere reserve. elaborates the Management Plan, which In addition, provisions should be made for: identifies the precise borders of the Protected (a) mechanisms to manage human use and Areas, their territorial organization, as well as activities in the buffer zone or zones; the integral development programs and (b) a management policy or plan for the area budgets of Support (Buffer) Zone and as a biosphere reserve; protection, scientific research and monitoring, (c) a designated authority or mechanism to education, recreation, tourism, administration implement this policy or plan; and other activities, and submits to the (d) programs for research, monitoring, Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural education and training. Resources when establishing a Protected Area. In exceptional cases (in case of urgent advisability of establishing of the Protected Area and a lack of the guaranteed budgetary funds, when there is a necessity to attract the funds of donor or other non-budgetary funds) – PA management plan can be submitted within 3 years after it is legally established”. The Management Plan has to be approved by the Minister of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia.

Article 18. Management of Protected Areas Protected Areas are managed by the Agency of Protected Areas. The Agency has the authority: • to manage all PAs, including Biosphere Reserves, • “in exceptional cases”, to manage BRs together with the other organizations; • to control Multiple Use Areas; • to cooperate with the governmental and non-governmental organizations of relevant functions; • to cooperate with wide sections of the society; • to organize monitoring, scientific research, processing of observation data, storing and dissemination;

The Protected Areas Agency carries out the management by means of territorial administrations. The scientific-advisory board can be established at administrations.

Article 21. Cooperation with the Governmental and Local Self-Governance Bodies “1. Protected Areas Agency has a close cooperation with governmental institutions and nongovernmental organizations in the process

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 98

of planning, projects implementation and management. 2. For cooperation with the interdepartmental and local self-governmental bodies a scientific-advisory board is being created, the composition of which is being approved by the Minister. 3. Rights and responsibilities, working rules and the agenda of the scientific-advisory board are defined by the typical regulations of the territorial administrations of the Protected Areas Agency. 4. The Protected Areas Agency cooperates with the governmental institutions and local self-government bodies via scientific-advisory board: a) in exceptional cases, for the management and controlling of Biosphere Reserves; b) for the regulation and controlling of Multiple Use Areas (Buffer Zones)”. Remarks: Having appropriate mechanisms for management, participation, trans-sectoral coordination and cooperation are essential for BR as according to UNESCO’s concept. UNESCO does not specify the organizational arrangements for managing Biosphere Reserves. Countries are free to design whatever arrangements they wish but there has to be a designated authority – a Biosphere Reserve Administration - for implementing a management policy. A common solution is to give the functions of the Biosphere Reserve Administration to an already existing government body, for example National Parks or other types of protected area, which are part of the Biosphere Reserve. In such cases the public administrations of the Biosphere Reserve and the embedded NP or PA are together in one and the same structure and organizational unit. Such an arrangement provides a number of advantages, e.g. economic efficiency and opportunities to create synergies (TJS, 2009). The Law on the System of Protected Areas (Aticle 18, paragraph 4) gives the Agency of Pro- tected Areas (APA) the authority to manage protected areas, including BRs. The law stipulates that “in exceptional cases” the Agency has the authority to mange separate zones of BRs “together with other organizations”. The Agency of Protected Areas carries out the management by means of its subordinated bodies Territorial Administrations which should be established at the level of each protected area. Also, Scientific-Advisory Boards (SAB) should be established at the level of each particular protected area. SABs are the bodies through which territorial administrations of the APA cooperate with governmental institutions, local self government and with a broader circle of the society. It seems, APA and it’s Territorial Administrations, if equipped with sufficient capacities, can carry out many of administrative functions for BRs. However, it also seems, that Sci- entific Advisory Boards cannot fully carry out coordination functions for BRs. Coopera- tion of Administration with other governmental organizations, self-governance institutions, NGOs, private sector etc. for the management of BR, including protection and development issues should be happening regularly, but not “in exceptional cases,” as it is stated by the Georgian Law on PAS. Moreover there should be permanent mechanisms and structures to allow broad involvement and participation of all stakeholders in Biosphere Reserve management and development. These should be designed according to the specific situation. In any solution, attention should be given to involving the major relevant authorities, public representative bodies and private stakeholder interests in the territory of a Biosphere Reserve. (TJS, 2009.)

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 99

Designation procedure 1. Biosphere reserves are designated for Approval of BR: inclusion in the Network by the International “Selected area will be approved as a Co-ordinating Council (ICC) of the MAB “Biosphere Reserve” as soon as it is programme in accordance with the following recognized by the International Coordination procedure: Board of the UNESCO Program – the “Man (a) States, through National MAB Committees and a Biosphere”. where appropriate, forward nominations with supporting documentation to the secretariat after having reviewed potential sites, taking into account the criteria as defined in Article 4; (b) the secretariat verifies the content and supporting documentation: in the case of incomplete nomination, the secretariat requests the missing information from the nominating State; (c) nominations will be considered by the Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves for recommendation to ICC; (d) ICC of the MAB programme takes a decision on nominations for designation. The Director-General of UNESCO notifies the State concerned of the decision of ICC. Remarks: Georgian legislation does not include provisions concerning procedures for nomination of selected area as BR. Neither it specifies who “approves” selected area as a BR after the area is designated for inclusion in the Network by the International Coordinating Council (ICC) of the MAB program. Participation in the Network States participate in or facilitate co-operative activities of the Network, including scientific research and monitoring, at the global, regional and sub-regional levels. The appropriate authorities should make available the results of research, associated publications and other data, taking into account intellectual property rights, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Network and maximize the benefits from information exchanges. Remarks: No provisions are provided in Georgian legislation requiring Georgia’s participation in the Network of Biosphere Reserves. Furthermore, in article 3 the law on PAs mistakenly refers to the “International Network of Protected Areas”. Periodic review • The status of each biosphere reserve should be subject to a periodic review every ten years, based on a report prepared by the concerned authority, on the basis of the criteria of Article 4, and forwarded to the secretariat by the State concerned. • If ICC considers that the biosphere reserve no longer satisfies the criteria contained in Article 4, it may recommend that the State

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 100

concerned take measures to ensure con- formity with the provisions of Article 4, taking into account the cultural and socio- economic context of the State concerned. ICC indicates to the secretariat actions that it should take to assist the State concerned in the implementation of such measures. • Should ICC find that the biosphere reserve in question still does not satisfy the criteria contained in Article 4, within a reasonable period, the area will no longer be referred to as a biosphere reserve which is part of the Network. • The Director-General of UNESCO notifies the State concerned of the decision of ICC. • Should a State wish to remove a biosphere reserve under its jurisdiction from the Net- work, it notifies the secretariat. This notifica- tion shall be transmitted to ICC for information. The area will then no longer be referred to as a biosphere reserve which is part of the Network. Remarks: No provisions are included in Georgian legislation concerning periodic reporting to UNESCO or it’s ICC of the MAB programme and review of the status of biosphere reserves.

2.2 Conclusions Even though the law on PAS provides a legal base for establishing biosphere reserves in Georgia, the major concern is the compatibility of BRs established by this law with the requirements of UNESCO’s Statutory Framework for inclusion of such BRs into the World Network and for Georgia’s participation in the Network. More specifically, the issues of concern are the following:

2.2.1 Concept of Biosphere Reserves As opposed to the UNESCO’ Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, Georgian legislation considers and treats BR as a type of protected area. There is no clear definition of Biosphere Reserve provided in Georgian Legislation. Instead, objectives for which BRs can be established are stated. Conservation and protection of biological diversity and ecosystems are at the heart of these objectives. However, the objective related to sustainable use of the components of biodiversity, which is a key objective for BRs as according to UNESCO’s Statutory Framework, is missing in Georgian legislation. Furthermore, the Georgian Law on the System of Pro- tected Areas mistakenly refers to the “International Network of Protected Areas” for inclusion of BRs. In fact, BRs form a worldwide network, known as the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 101

2.2.2 Zoning The UNESCO’s Statutory Framework requires existence of three zones in BRs, while the Georgian Law on the System of Protected Areas considers BR as a type protected area with four zones. Core zone and buffer zones are required by both legal documents. Georgian system does not recognize transition zone where, according to UNESCO’s concept of BRs, sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed. Instead Restoration Zone and Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone are allowed by the Georgian law. However none of these zones can serve the function of promoting and developing sustainable resource management practices. Also, there is little clarity with objectives and functions related to the buffer zone and activities within this zone in Georgian Legislation: the term “buffer zone” is defined in two different ways in the Law on the System of Protected Areas.

Provisions related to zoning of BRs in Georgia should be changed to ensure complete concordance with zoning as its has been stipulated in the UNESCO’s Statutory Frame- work.

2.2.3 Organizational arrangements Current Georgian legislation does not provide sufficient ground for the Agency of Pro- tected areas (APA) and its’ Territorial Administrations to be involved in the management of entire BR. The law on PAS gives the authority APA to manage core and buffer zones of BR. By the law, the APA is authorized to cooperate with other organizations, “in exceptional cases” for managing the buffer zones. APA has no authority in transition area as there is no such an area required by Georgian legislation for BRs.

Scientific Advisory Board, which is by current legislation the instrument for cooperation with other governmental organizations and local self-governance bodies, cannot fully undertake the role of mechanism for participation, trans-sectoral coordination and cooperation, as required by UNESCO’s requirements towards BR.

Biosphere Reserve needs an appropriate system of governance to ensure it meets its objectives. Changes need to be made in Georgian legislation in order to provide for effective and efficient arrangements for managing Biosphere Reserves, including administration, coordination and facilitation of participation. Proposal for the institutional setup of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia is provided in chapter 4 of this document.

2.2.4 Management plans According to current legal framework, management plans have to be in place for all legally established protected areas in Georgia, including BRs. The management plans need to be developed by the APA and approved by the Minister of Environment Protec- tion and Natural Resources. In exceptional cases, management plan for a particular protected area can be submitted for approval within three years after the PA is legally established.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 102

Management plan for each protected area should establish precise borders of the PA, it’s zones, as well as the integral development programs and budgets for buffer zone, for protection, scientific research and monitoring, education, recreation, tourism, administration and other activities. The existing legal framework implies that management plans for Biosphere Reserve should have the same character as management plans for State Reserves, National Parks and other types of protected areas that are managed solely by the APA. However, management plans for Biosphere Reserve must be different in purpose and scope from, say, a management plan for a National Park. Also, if a BR is organized in compliance with UNESCO’s Statutory Framework, it is required that different governmental organizations, NGOs, local authorities and private sector are involved in the management of the BR. Therefore, for these arrangements, it would be more appropriate if management plans for Biosphere Reserves is agreed between all stakeholders and approved by an authority which is higher in the governance hierar- chy than the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources – e.g. the President of Georgia. This kind of a plan for BR would be better described as a development program. The programme would identify actions, which should be taken by various entities having a stake in the development of the area concerned (TJS, 2009). In this scheme, the core area and buffer zone (?) could have its own management plan. This plan would be a typical PA management plan approved by the MENPR, for the implementation of which the Agency of Protected Areas would be responsible. Transition area of BR may have its development plan/program. This plan/program would identify actions and provide opportunities for all the stakeholders to contribute to the sustainable development of the transition area.

2.2.5 Designation procedure Georgian legislation does not include provisions concerning procedures for nominating selected area as BR. Neither has it specified who “approves” selected area as a BR after the area is designated for inclusion in the Network by the International Coordinat- ing Council (ICC) of the MAB programme.

2.2.6 Participation in the Network No provisions are provided in Georgian legislation requiring Georgia’s participation in the Network of Biosphere Reserves. Furthermore, in article 3 the Law on the System of Protected Areas mistakenly refers to the “International Network of Protected Areas”. As required by the UNESCO’s Statutory Framework, States must participate in or facilitate co-operative activities of the Network, including scientific research and monitoring, at the global, regional and sub-regional levels. The appropriate authorities should make available the results of research, associated publications and other data, taking into account intellectual property rights, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Network and maximize the benefits from information exchanges.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 103

2.2.7 Periodic reviews No provisions are included in Georgian legislation concerning periodic reporting to UNESCO or its International Coordination Committee of the MAB Program, and review- ing of the status of biosphere reserves, if needed.

3. Recommendations for revising the legal framework There are two options for providing appropriate legal framework in Georgia for establishing and registering BRs compatible with UNESCO requirements: a) to amend the existing Law on the System of PAs, and b) to adopt a new special framework law on Biosphere Reserves.

If the first option is pursued, the amended Law on the System of protected Areas should address all its current limitations related to BRs discussed in previous chapter. However, this may appear technically difficult. Also, in this case, as the law will remain dedicated to protected areas, it can be expected that BRs will keep on being considered as a type of protected area and it may entail respective undesirable consequences.

Taking account of the wide range of issues and objectives incorporated into the UNESCO’ concept of Biosphere Reserve, it is suggested that a framework law on Biosphere Reserves is adopted by the Georgian Parliament. Such framework law would have a higher potential to accommodate trans-sectoral cooperation and stakeholders’ participation for a sound Biosphere Reserve development.

The following issues, among others, are suggested to be addressed in the new legislation related to Biosphere Reserves: • the voluntarily intention of Georgia to meet and actively support the objectives of the international guidelines and recommendations of UNESCO; • that BRs should be planned, implemented and developed according to the UNESCO guidelines as the country’s contribution to the World Network of BRs; • procedure and way of implementing and defining BRs, their outer borders and inner zonation, referring to suitable existing PA instruments for core and buffer zones; • possible activities within each zone; • organization, mechanisms and tasks of the administrative and management structure; • organization, mechanisms and objectives of inter-sectoral cooperation for governance in a BR region, on national and regional level; • mechanisms for participation of local stakeholders; • funding of the BR administration structure; • nomination for inclusion of the BR in UNESCO World Network of BR

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 104

• participation in the network and reporting • harmonization with other relevant legislation.

All legislation regulating related issues would of course continue to apply and would retain its importance in the Biosphere Reserve, in particular in the outer transition area. Such issues include: agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing, fauna and flora, protected areas, spatial planning and building, energy, traffic and communication infrastructure, economic development, environmental protection and use of water. All such sectoral legislation will be necessary for an optimum Biosphere Reserve development (TJS, 2009).

It is recommended that the Ministry of Environemnt and Natural Resources (MEPNR) or its Agency of Protected areas prepares draft of revised legal framework for establishing and registering Biosphere Reserves in Georgia no matter option a) or b) is pursued. If option b) is chosen than the Law on the System of protected Areas will also need to be amended, basically by removing provisions related to BR. The MEPNR would then also be responsible for arranging the review of the draft Biosphere Reserve legislation by different Ministries and for consideration in a session of the Georgian Government before submitting it to the Georgian Parliament. Finally the Georgian Par- liament would have to consider and adopt the revised or new legislation on Biosphere Reserves.

After appropriate legal framework for establishing BRs compatible with UNESCO concept is in place, each BR can be established by adopting a law on establishing that specific BR. Such a law would establish: • Total area of the BR and outer borders; • Its internal zones, including core area, buffer zone and transitional area, and their borders; • Organizational structure of the BR management, including: o tasks and authorities of the administration of the BR; o tasks, authorities and institutional composition of the Coordination Council; o tasks and authorities of the Scientific Advisory Board. • Procedures for coordination and cooperation; • Funding of the BR administration; • Responsible authority for nomination of the BR for inclusion in UNESCO World Network of BR; • participation in the network and reporting.

Preparation of the draft laws would be the responsibility of the MEPRN.

Normally, adoption of such law should be preceded by development of BR management plan/development program. However, current legislation on the system of pro-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 105 tected areas allows, as exception, development and approval by the MENPR of management plan within 3 years period after establishing a protected area. This approach could be applied to establishment of BR also – BR management plan could be developed and approved within e.g. 3 years after adoption of the law on specific BR. In this regard, there could be option for developing and approving management plans for Bio- sphere Reserves: a) To approve the management plan by the law on establishing a BR, if the plan is prepared by the time of adoption of the law; or b) To assign the President of Georgia to approve the management plan/development programme after it is developed and agreed by all stakeholders.

In the later option, the President of Georgia would establish working group and assign the responsibility to the MEPRN to lead the process for preparing the management plan. MEPRN and its Agency of Protected Areas would be responsible for preparing the management plan with the participation of all stakeholders. The plan/programme would be circulated by the MEPNR for consideration and agreement by all ministries and local stakeholders. The management plan would have to be approved by the President of Georgia.

4. Proposal for the institutional setup of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia The most challenging issue which needs to be properly addressed in the legal framework for biosphere reserves is that related to the organizational arrangements for managing BRs. Below is a one possible model which would meet the requirements of UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and take into account institutional setup and responsible authorities in the context of Georgia. The model is largely based on the earlier model proposed by the Transboundary Joint Secretariat in its Activity Plan on Biosphere Re- serves: Report to prepare for the establishment of Kazbegi Biosphere Reserve (TJS, 2009). The arrangements include: • Biosphere Reserve Administration; • Coordination Council (BR Management Board); • Scientific Advisory Board, • Consultative Regional Biosphere Reserve Forum. The functions and composition of each of those institutions are described in the following paragraphs:

It is suggested that administration function of entire BR is given to “territorial administrations” of APA which are by current Georgian legislation responsible for managing protected areas - potential core zones of BRs - and its buffers zones. The BR administration would be subordinated to the APA.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 106

Statutory document of the Agency of Protected Areas and Typical Statute on Territorial Administrations may need to be amended to take into account the new functions of this agency and its subordinated Territorial Administrations.

Assignment of the administration functions to territorial administrations would not mean that other already existing institutions will need to give up responsibilities. The wide range of issues covered by the objectives of a biosphere reserve makes it obvious that not all can be managed and promoted alone by a BR management administration. Communal or municipal authorities will keep on playing their important roles. Farmers will keep on managing their farmland, businessmen will keep on running their businesses. But they should all find support and assistance from the Biosphere Reserve administration to help them to develop and implement ideas that will contribute to the success of the Biosphere Reserve; for example, providing information and advice on sources of investment funding, arranging studies on options for tackling specific problems such as waste management (TJS, 2009).

It is of a high importance to recognize that no single authority would alone cover all the needed mandate, competences and responsibilities for appropriate management and development of BRs. It is suggested that Biosphere Reserve Coordination Coun- cils are established to allow the requested involvement and participation of all stakeholders, including local populations, in Biosphere Reserve development. BR Coordina- tion Councils could act as a “Board of Directors” or representation mechanisms to coordinate activities of all actors involved each within their own mandate and competence. Coordination Councils could consist of representatives of the following institutions: • Administration of the Presidential Representative (Gubernatori) in the concerned Province (Mkhare), • Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources, • Ministry of Economic Development; • Ministry of Education and Science; • Ministry of Agriculture; • Ministry of Energy; • Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure; • Administration of the concerned BR; • The Agency of Protected Areas; • Municipalities concerned and local self-government bodies of settlements within BR’s buffer zone and transition area. Involvement of MAB National Committee and NGOs could be also considered in the Council.

This Council should provide a permanent structure for involvement of all stakeholders and coordination of actions and measures towards a sustainable development of the Biosphere Reserve area. The Biosphere Reserve administration should service the

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 107

Council as secretariat preparing and inviting for meetings, providing minutes of meetings. It should play the role of an impulse, initiative and idea giving capacity for activities and projects which further a sustainable development in the district. (TJS, 2009)

It is suggested that Biosphere Reserve Forums are established at each BR as an instrument to provide involvement of the local population, comprising representatives of local municipalities and local stakeholders. This forum will have more of a consultative rather than a decision making character. Such forums are in many cases designed as informal regular meetings of local people and stakeholders in order to provide opportunities for organized information and feedback transfer and involvement. The Biosphere Reserve Forum should be an offer to everybody in the Biosphere Reserve to get involved. (TJS, 2009)

In view of the importance given to science by the UNESCO concept of Biosphere Re- serves, establishment of scientific advisory board can also be considered for each Biosphere Reserve. Establishment of scientific advisory boards at protected areas is usual practice in Georgia. The Scientific Advisory Board should comprise of scientists representing the variety of most relevant sciences for the issues of the Biosphere Re- serve concerned. These would be: natural sciences such as geology, botany, zoology, ecology, geography, hydrology; and socio-economic and cultural sciences such as economics, sociology, agricultural and tourism related sciences. The Scientific Advisory Board should be established taking into account the role of a MAB National Committee and with strong involvement of the Academy of Sciences. The central function of the BR Scientific Advisory Board would be to provide any advice and support that could be given to local population, the BR Administration, the BR Coordination Council, and any other involved and concerned authority and institution. Its role is a rather consultative one. The existence of a scientific advisory board would be of some importance for UNESCO, as Biosphere Reserves are contributions to the MAB scientific research programme. (TJS, 2009)

5. Legal establishment of the proposed institutional set-up Administration Status, tasks, authorities, functions and financing of administrations would be established by the framework law on Biosphere Reserves or a specific law on establishment of a particular BR. MEPRN would be asked or authorized to appoint administration and provide adequate financing. APA would submit staff composition of the administration to Minister for approval.

Coordination council Objectives tasks, authorities, functions of the Coordination Council would be established by framework BR law or specific law on establishment of particular BR.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 108

By current legislation on protected areas, Minister of Environment approves the list of members of Scientific Advisory Board – coordination mechanism for a specific protected area. Coordination Council of a Biosphere Reserve, which must have a broader representation and mandate than Scientific Advisory Board has for a PA, could be established/approved for particular BR by an authority higher than the Minister of Envi- ronment – e.g. President of Georgia. However, problem with this approach is that membership of the Council will need to be re-approved regularly as it should be expected that persons soon or later will be leaving institution they represent. To avoid this problem, the law establishing specific BR could also establish institutional composition of the Council and then the APA or the MEPNR would ask respective institutions to nominate their representatives in the Council.

Scientific Advisory Board After a specific BR is legally established, APA prepares draft list of Scientific Advisory Board members and the MEPNR approves the list, as it is current practice with respect protected areas. Objectives and functions of such Scientific Advisory Board should be established by the framework law on BRs.

BR Forum The forum meetings be organized periodically (e.g. once a year) by the Biosphere Re- serve Administration in cooperation with the administration of district/municipality concerned. Local people and NGOs should be invited to the forum. Composition of the forum, most likely, would not need a formal approval. Objectives and functions of such Forums could be established by the framework law on BRs.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 109

Annex 1.12:

Stakeholder Analysis

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 110

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

For this stakeholder analysis, the main stakeholders of the project were analysed regarding their mission and interest, activities in the region or with direct relevance to the region, their potential role in the context of the proposed project and their capacity with particular regard to that role. The stakeholders are grouped into following categories: 1) Government institutionsI 2) International donor organizations 3) Civil Society (including the Church, academic institutions, NGOs and CBOs) and 4) Business sector.

A secondary distinction is made regarding their involvement in Kazbegi District and the existing National Park.

1 Government Agencies The following analysis describes the major government institutions with direct relevance to the project. Additional agencies are listed and described in TJS (2009). The Ministry of Finance of Georgia is not a stakeholder of this specific project, but will play its usual role as a recipient and distributor of the KfW grant for the project.

1.1 Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources (MoE) Mission: As the responsible Ministry and implementation partner of the project, the MoE is one of its central stakeholders. It is responsible for development and implementation of environmental policy and legislation in Georgia, including biodiversity conservation and natural resource use. The MoE’s structure is illustrated in TJS (2009). The most relevant subunits of the MoE are discussed in more detail below.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: While several subunits (e.g. APA, Environmental Inspectorate) of the MoE are fulfilling their functions in Kazbegi District, there are currently no project activities specifically dedicated to the District or Kazbegi National Park. The proposed project would be by far the largest activity of the MoE in Kazbegi since independence.

Interests: There are a number of priority actions of the MoE at the national level with direct relevance to Kazbegi, according to the 2009 Ministerial Action Plan. Among them is the elaboration of an Environmental Code (which may form a basis for further legislative amendments relevant to the project, e.g. regarding co-management), the development of sustainable tourism around protected areas, and an improvement of the Minis- try’s relations with wider society.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 111

Capacity and role: The MoE’s annual budget 2009 is GEL 41 Mio (out of about GEL 5 billion State expenditures), with a reduction to GEL 29 Mio foreseen in the revised 2010 Draft Budget. According to the Ministry’s 2009 Action Plan, institutional capacity development is one of its current priorities. This is supported through a number of donor funded projects, including through GTZ and InWEnt. The specific capacity and role of the subunits of the MoE in relation to the project is discussed below.

1.2 Biodiversity Protection Division Mission: The Biodiversity Protection Division is responsible for the development and implementation of policy and legislation for biodiversity conservation inside and outside protected areas. It also provides expert advice to the Department of Natural Resources Licensing of the Ministry of Economic Development (regarding quotas for licenses etc.), and hosts various MEA focal points. Current projects include the development of a national biodiversity monitoring system and the implementation of relevant MEAs (e.g. CBD, CITES). According to the Division Head (pers. comm.), its functions are still not very clearly delineated from those of the APA, which has been established quite recently.

Interest: While the exceptional biodiversity value of the District was acknowledged, division staff showed both interest and skepticism towards the idea of establishing a BR in Kazbegi District. Based on the problematic experience from the establishment of Protected Landscapes (IUCN Category V) and the associated co-management mechanisms (e.g. Davit-Gareji Protected Landscape) the establishment of a BR in Kazbegi was considered a considerable challenge by the Division Head. However, the need to fill the Kazbegi gap in the system of functional protected areas was strongly confirmed, and full support within the competencies of the Biodiversity Protection Division was promised for a future project aiming at this. There was particular interest in using the Kazbegi project to pilot a new type of community based sustainable hunting scheme for Georgia.

Possible role: The exact role of the Biodiversity Protection Division with regard to the project would have to be discussed jointly with APA but based on the general competencies of the Division there might be a strong role regarding policy development for participation and co-management of PAs, regarding biodiversity monitoring and the the development of policy and legislation for any sustainable hunting schemes in the Dis- trict. The division should be represented in communication and coordination mechanisms established in the area, particularly if a community based sustainable hunting scheme is included

Capacity: The Biodiversity Division is of limited size and has a limited annual budget. Nevertheless, it could contribute significantly in the above mentioned roles. Its specific capacity and possible role in the project should be explored further during project implementation.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 112

1.3 Inspection of Environmental Protection Mission: Based on the 2005 Law on State Control of Environment Protection, the Envi- ronment Protection Inspectorate started its functioning as state sub agency of the Min- istry of Environment and Natural resources of Georgia in 2005. The Inspectorate has controlling and inspection and decision making functions in the field of environment protection. It is also responsible for checking logging concessions, hunting/fishing farm quotas and CITES related licenses. Its most relevant subdivisions are the Urgent Re- sponse Unit (responsible for controlling illegal logging, poaching etc.) and the Inspec- tion Unit, which is also responsible for expert inspections in the biodiversity and natural resources field.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Inspectorate has about 300 staff, 220 of which work in 7 Regional Bureaus. The office responsible for the Kazbegi District is the Eastern Central Bureau in Mtskheta. This branch office has a few staff who are responsible for Kazbegi District. Only four administrative acts (statements about violations) have been drawn up for Kazbegi District by the Inspectorate over the last two years. All of them related to failure to submit annual reports related to licenses issued, and none of them to any license violations that were observed on the ground.

Interest: Cooperation within the framework of the legal competencies of the Inspector- ate. Possible role: Throughout Georgia, PA rangers and Inspectorate staff cooperate regarding law enforcement in PAs because rangers are not entitled to apprehend people. The development of this type of cooperation with Kazbegi National Ppark staff and general collaboration regarding natural resource related law enforcement would be the main specific roles of the Inspectorate in relation to the project.

Capacity: The Inspectorate has relatively numerous staff and operates in the regions, but its capacity on the ground was considered weak by staff. It is conspicuous that no violation regarding licenses or natural resource use has been reported by the Inspec- torate based on observations on the ground, over the last two years. According to the 2009 Ministerial Action Plan, further reform of the Inspectorate remains a priority objective of the Ministry. This may result in increased capacity at the national and district level.

1.4 Department of Environmental Policy and International Relations Mission: This Department is responsible for environmental policy development and long-term planning of the MoE, as well as liaison with international partners and donors. A number of MEA and international cooperation focal points (e.g. CoE) are based at the Department. The Department is also leading the revision and re-drafting of the NEAP and NBSAP of Georgia, both of which are in preparation currently. The Depart- ment Head is also the GEF Focal Point within the MoE.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 113

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Policy Department does not work at the regional level but has a stake in regional activities of national or international policy relevance, such as the establishment of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.

Interest: The Policy Department was involved in the negotiations preceding the current project. The Department Head expressed support to the idea of establishing a BR in Georgia but said that this was not written into any policy documents or agreements, such as the Georgia-UNESCO agreement. According to the Department Head, environmental policy in the MoE is developed in a bottom-up manner, which means that the Policy Department would generally follow the advice of the APA and Biodiversity Pro- tection Division on issues like the establishment of a new BR in Georgia, taking into account international commitments, rather then defining its interest independently.

Possible role: Cooperation within the framework of the mandate of the Policy Depart- ment, role in general policy development aimed at participation and co-management, liaison with the MAB Programme in the course of a possible BR nomination.

Capacity: The Department currently has 14 staff, which are divided equally between the international relations and environmental policy divisions. No capacity constraints in relation to the project are expected.

1.5 Forestry Department Mission: The Department’s mission is the development and implementation of forest policy including ecological, economic and political aspects of forest management, as part of national development strategy and stable development of the country.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The little forest that exists in the Kazbegi District forms part of Kazbegi National Park and is therefore managed by APA, not the Forestry Department. Therefore, the Department is currently not active in the District. However, this could change if forested parts (e.g. pine plantations) of the National Park are de- listed in the course of the re-zoning of the National Park. However, even in this case the extent of forest cover under the responsibility of the Department would be insignificant on a national scale.

Interest: Because of the situation described above, there is currently little interest on the part of the Department in the Kazbegi District.

Possible role: In case of a delisting of forested parts of Kazbegi NP, the Forestry De- partment would become responsible for the management of any forested parts of the District, within the general competencies of the Department.

Capacity: Since there are currently no territorial unit and no activities of the Department in Kazbegi District, it is impossible and irrelevant to assess the Department’s capacity on the ground.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 114

1.6 Agency of Protected Areas (APA) Mission: The Agency’s core mission is: (a) to manage protected areas of IUCN Catego- ries I -IV, and other PAs in cooperation with other institutions; (b) maintaining and supervising PAs; (c) PA system and capacity development planning, and (d) the development of plans, draft laws and guidelines related to PAs. There are some additional functions, such as the monitoring of rules established by the law, the planning and development of new protected areas, their popularization and the development of ecotourism, as well as the planning and arrangement of protected area infrastructure. The mandate of the APA is laid down in the Statute of the Agency of Protected Areas (2008).

The Agency is a legal entity of public law and not a Department of the MoE. According to the law of Georgia on Legal Entities of Public Law, such an entity is ”an organization established by a respective law, decree of the President of Georgia or an administrative act of a state management body based on law, independent of state management agencies, that under the state control independently conducts political, governmental, social, educational, cultural or other public activities.”

According to the TJS pre-feasibility study for this project, “the APA was established by the Order N96 of the Minister of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia of January 28th 2008, on approval of the Regulation of Protected Areas Agency (referring to Annex 8). Accordingly, the APA was put in charge of all protected areas existing in Georgia as at February 1st 2008 (except for the Tusheti Protected Landscape). Hence the APA independently manages the Georgian PAs (state reserves, national parks, natural sites and monuments, managed reserves, protected landscapes, biosphere reserves, world heritage sites and wetlands of international importance, (referring to Annex 9), though the law identifies some issues that need to be agreed with regulatory bodies, namely, purchase, alienation and use of estate, obtaining loans, guarantees, personnel and the wage fund.”

As a legal entity of public law, the APA is entitled to conduct certain economic activities and to collect the revenue of these activities for re-investment in PA system development. One of the sources of such revenues has been ecotourism, and the APA has been actively promoting ecotourism in Georgian PAs.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: Kazbegi NP is managed by the APA through a Field Administration that reports to it and that is established based on the Typical Stat- ute on PA Agency Territorial Administrations (2008). APA is the main national partner of KfW for the planned project. In addition, the APA is currently compiling a catalogue of Natural Monuments of Georgia (IUCN Category III). While seven sites from the preliminary long list of the APA are situated in the District, none of them has been included in a recent shortlist, in order not to preempt activities aimed at the conservation of these sites within the framework of this project.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 115

Interest: According to the Vice Chairperson of the Agency, APA is interested in finding a suitable format for combining nature conservation and sustainable development of Kazbegi District. The lack of a fully functional protected area in this key region of Geor- gia and the underused tourism potential of the District (from the APA point of view) are perceived as incentives for action. Whether the appropriate format for the development of the District is a Biosphere Reserve or an alternative setup (such as a National Park with a support zone), is of secondary importance to the APA, according to the Vice Chairperson.

Possible role: The APA, as the project partner, will have a central role in implementing the project (whether focused on a BR or not), in supporting the necessary adjustments of the legal and institutional framework and in ensuring the sustainability of operations of Kazbegi NP. This role, as well as the possible role of APA within project implementation, is described in more detail in Section 5 of this report.

Capacity: The APA central office currently consists of 7 divisions with about 30 staff. The APA is financed from the State budget (with increasing contributions over the last few years), donations, and to a lesser degree from revenues originating from PAs. It has recently developed a national PA System Development Strategy and Action Plan - in cooperation with IUCN POSC - which aims at an overall increased capacity of the national PA system. While the sound legal basis of the law of Georgia on Protected Areas (1996), the centralization of the management mandate in the APA as a single institution and the increased financing from the State budget over recent years provide a good foundation for further capacity development, some overlap and unclarities with other legislation, the lack of implementing legislation, the limited institutional memory of APA and missing specialist qualifications (e.g. management planning) constrain this capacity development.

1.7 Kazbegi National Park Administration Mission: As a territorial subunit of the APA, the Administration of Kazbegi NP is responsible for the management of the National Park and for liaison with the relevant State Institutions and other stakeholders, as laid down in the Typical Statute on PA Agency Territorial Administrations (2008).

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: In theory, the activities of the Kazbegi NP Ad- ministration include protection of the NP, enforcement of the conservation regime, liaison with other institutions, control of natural resource use, research and monitoring, the promotion and organization of sustainable tourism in and around the NP, as well as education and communication. However, these activities are implemented to a very limited degree only, due to the limited capacity of the administration which is under- budgeted and under-equipped and lacking the most rudimentary infrastructure. The highly fragmented existing national park makes a meaningful management and law enforcement close to impossible.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 116

Kazbegi National Park currently comprises an area of 8,707 ha and ranges over an altitude 1,400 m – 4,100 m. APA has recently suggested enlargement of the National Park of up to 70,329.5 ha. This suggestion was based on expert opinion, without a rig- orous needs analysis, and a NP of this size would likely enjoy little support among the local population and be difficult to manage. Interest: The overall interests of the administration of the NP are defined by its mission. According to the NP Director, the central interest of the administration is to have the capacity and resources to fulfill its functions adequately. Possible role: In the same way as the APA as a whole, the Kazbegi NP Administration will be the key actor during project implementation and beyond, and a key champion of the sustainable development for the whole of Kazbegi District. Its detailed role within a potential BR setup and alternative institutional setups is discussed in Section 3 and 4. Capacity: The capacity of the Kazbegi NP Administration to fulfill its mission is extremely limited. There are 12 staff, nine of which are rangers with a monthly salary of GEL 300. Kazbegi NP does not have a separate budget but is financed from the APA budget (30,000 Gel/a with no funds available for operations). The physical infrastructure of the administration is extremely limited and in poor condition (e.g. only one car, no computers, no ranger uniforms). The park boundaries are not demarcated and no tourism- related infrastructure exists.

1.8 Department of Tourism and Resorts (DoTR) Mission: The mission of the DoTR is the development and promotion of tourism in Georgia.

Ongoing and planned activities in Kazbegi District: The DoTR has conducted training (e.g. for guesthouse owners) in the past. It is currently collaborating with the NGO “Mountain House” (see below) to establish information boards and signposting in Devdoraki Valley (Budget: GEL 6,000), and preparing the development of a Mountain Rescue Unit, to be based in Stepantsminda, for early 2010. In addition, funding from the State Budget (Budget: GEL 12,000) has been committed for the opening of a small tourist information centre in spring 2010. Additional activities are planned for the future. One of the priorities in 2010 will be the development of tourism in the mountain regions of the country, including Kazbegi. As part of this priority, the Department will collaborate with the Union Internationale des Associations d'Alpinisme (UIAA) and the private sector to conduct mountaineering training for guides from mountainous regions of Georgia, including some from Kazbegi (total budget: ca. EUR 80,000).

Interest: The core interest of the DoTR regarding Kazbegi District is the utilization and further development of the exceptional tourism potential of the area. In order to achieve this objective, the Department is interested in supporting improvements of service quality (e.g. accommodation, gastronomy, tourism activities), visitor information, and the promotion of the District as a tourism destination at the national and international level. Possible role: DoTR may become an important cooperation partner for the project because of its interest and potential added value regarding the improvement of services, visitor information and the promotion of the region. In order to fulfill this role, good co-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 117 operation with the APA will be crucial, according to DoTR staff. It is important that a clear agreement regarding the respective fields of activities in Kazbegi is reached between the DoTR and the APA. In the past, communication between the DoTR and APA has sometimes been poor.

Once the tourist information centre in Stepantsminda is established, the Department’s capacity to contribute to the promotion and development of tourism in the area will be strengthened, and regular communication with the NP Administration or inclusion in cooperation bodies (e.g. BR Coordination Council) will be appropriate.

Capacity: The DoTR has been a Department of the Ministry of Economic Development since its establishment in 2001. Its 2009 budget is 3.5 Mio GEL, with a reduction to 2.7 Mio GEL foreseen in the draft 2010 budget. Changes in leadership has resulted in staff reduction (e.g. from ca 50 to less than 20 staff in 2008), and ongoing strategic re- orientation. A new chairperson took over at the DoTR in October 2009 and, similar to previous changes of leadership, the strategic priorities, structure andnumber of staff are being re-assessed. The effect of this process on the overall capacity and role of the DoTR, and therefore its capacity to fulfill its potential role in Kazbegi, is not clear yet, although Department staff state that no major changes are expected.

1.9 Ministry of Economic Development: Department of Natural Re- sources Licensing Mission: The mission of the Department of Natural Resources Licensing, which was transferred from the MoE to the Ministry of Economic Development in 2008, is the issue (partly auction) of licenses for the use of natural resources, including timber, water, underground minerals, hunting (for game hunting outside hunting reserves, which are managed by APA) and fishing. The Department also issues export licenses for speci- mens of wild flora and fauna.

In order to fulfill its mission, the Department closely cooperates with the MoE, including the Biodiversity Protection Division and the Forestry Department. The MoE provides information on quotas and on additional requirements to license holders to the Depart- ment.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Department of Natural Resources Licensing has issued a number of licenses for resource exploitation in Kazbegi District. However, it appears that few or none of these licenses are currently being used.

Interest, possible role and capacity: The Department of Natural Resources Licensing is interested in fulfilling its legal role in the Kazbegi District, like in other Districts of Geor- gia. The Department has the capacity to fulfill its role regarding Kazbegi District.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 118

1.10 Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure (MRDI) Mission: The Mission of the MRDI is the development and implementation of policy, legislation and planning instruments for the coordinated development of Georgia’s regions including their infrastructure. The Ministry also has a key role as a coordination agency for infrastructure development projects. It was formed in early 2009 only, incor- porating some Departments that were earlier under the Ministry for Economic Devel- opment.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The MRDI’s Road Department maintains the roads of Kazbegi District and carries out a number of smaller rehabilitation works (see below). In addition, the activities of its Department of Reforms and Innovation on regional development and local self-government reform are of high relevance to the development of the District. Interest: Beyond fulfilling its responsibilities in Kazbegi District, the MRDI (and particularly the Department of Reforms and Innovation) is currently conducting a reform of regional development policy in Georgia, which will include the development of integrated spatial planning policies. This interest is consistent with the need to apply modern integrated planning methods during the further development of Kazbegi District and may create useful synergies during the course of the project.

Possible role: The MRDI could become a consultation partner and should be engaged for advice on further developments regarding regional planning policies, laws and methods in Georgia, which would also apply to Kazbegi. Some tools developed in this process could also be piloted in the District. In addition, the Ministry collaborates closely with the Regional Offices of the State Representatives – Governors, including the office of Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region, which is also responsible for Kazbegi District. In this capacity, it could be involved in the joint planning and implementation of the project with the Mtskheta-Mtianeti Governor’s Office.

Capacity: The MRDI is mainly concerned with national policy development and implementation and the coordination of ongoing projects. It does not have regional units, which limits its capacity for a strong direct role in Kazbegi District. Therefore, it should be engaged together with the Mtskheta-Mtianeti Governor’s Office, which has a stronger regional focus.

1.11 Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure: Road De- partment Mission: The mission of the Road Department of the MRDI is the maintenance and rehabilitation of Georgia’s Roads.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Road Department is responsible for the maintenance of the Natakhtari-Larsi Road (“Georgian Military Highway”), the only road connection of Kazbegi District to the rest of Georgia. In addition, the Road Department is planning to rehabilitate the road to Sno Village (fully planned and slated for 2010,

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 119 pending availability of funds) and parts of the road between Stepantsminda and the Sameba Church (medium term).

Interest: The interest of the Road Department regarding Kazbegi District is to fulfill its mission under the particularly adverse local conditions.

Possible role: Collaboration with local authorities within the legal mandate and financial means of the Department.

Capacity: While the Department has sufficient funds to carry out general maintenance tasks and small rehabilitation work, no funds are currently available for major investments, such as for the rehabilitation of the Gudauri-Kobi section of the road, which is in very poor condition.

1.12 Ministry of Agriculture: Department of Regional Management Mission: Within the general mission of the Ministry of Agriculture, the mission of the Department of Regional Management is the implementation of agricultural policy and the development of agriculture in Georgia’s regions.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Kazbegi District is not considered a favor- able place for agricultural activities by the Department, and no major activities are being implemented there. Minor activities may be conducted by the territorial unit for Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region which is based in Mtskheta and could be contacted during project implementation.

Interest: Due to the restricted funds of the Ministry and particularly the Department of Regional Management, the Department is interested in cooperation with international donors. However, it apparently has no specific interest in launching activities in the Kazbegi District. Potential areas for sub-projects in the agricultural sector were identified by the Department Head as intensification of meadows, use of improved seeds, and support to the development of dairy farms.

Possible role: The legal role of the Department of Regional Development of the Ministry of Agriculture should be respected and supported in the course of project implementation. The possibility of a specific cooperation could be explored further.

Capacity: The 2010 (draft) annual budget of the Ministry of Agriculture is GEL 53.3 Mio, less than half of its 2009 budget. At the same time, regions with a more developed/productive agricultural sector will likely attract more activity and funding from the Ministry. The responsible territorial unit is situated relatively far from Kazbegi District, in Mtskheta. Taken together, these observations suggest that the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture to implement projects in Kazbegi District may be rather limited.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 120

1.13 Ministry of Internal Affairs: Border Police Mission: The mission of the Border Police of the MIA is the protection of the land and sea borders of Georgia.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: Since Kazbegi District borders both the Russian Federation and the breakaway region of South Ossetia, the Border Police maintains a strong presence there and is one of the major employers. The No. 7 Office of the Bor- der Police is based in Stepantsminda, and permanent or seasonal posts are situated near Abano (Truso Valley), near the Larsi border crossing (entrance to Khde Valley), and near Juta in the upper Sno Valley.

Interest: The Border Police has no particular interest in nature protection, but an interest in strong visitation in the border areas of Kazbegi and a close connection to the rest of Georgia was expressed to the FS team by the Head of the Land Border Defense Department. Therefore, increased tourism in areas like Khde Gorge, Devtoraki, or Truso Valley would be welcomed by the Border Police.

Possible role: The border police should be involved in consultations as an important local stakeholder and partner of nature protection and sustainable development (e.g tourism development) in the Kazbegi District. Since they maintain a presence even in the more remote parts of the District, there might be added value in sensitizing them to nature conservation issues, by involving them in public awareness building and information events that are carried out within the framework of the project.

Capacity: Although Border Police staff numbers and budgets are secret, the FS team was ensured by the Head of the Land Border Defense Department that their capacity is sufficient to fulfill their mission in the Kazbegi District.

1.14 Ministry of Justice: National Agency of Public Registry Mission: The mission of the National Agency of Public Registry is the establishment and implementation of a registration system for ensuring recognition and protection of immovable property rights by the state. It is a Legal Entity of Public Law under the Min- istry of Justice that was established according to the Law of Georgia on State Registry (2004).

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: Compared to the rest of Georgia very few titles have been registered so far with the central cadastre office in Tblissi. The Agency maintains a territorial office in Stepantsminda, although all land title applications can be done on-line or directly at the central office in Tblissi. The Department is fully centralized. Existing land titles for all of Georgia will be accessable on-line by the end of 2009.

Interest, possible role and capacity: The interest of the National Agency of the Public Registry in Kazbegi District is to fully implement its mission on site. At the same time, only small parcels of mostly residential land inside villages have been registered. No

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 121 agricultural lands have been titled in the target area except for a few plots owned by the Orthodox Church. As mentioned earlier, the ibterest in land titling by the Kazbegi population is relativeley low for reasons explained previously in a diferent context.

1.15 Ministry of Foreign Affairs: National Commission for UNESCO Mission: The Mission of the National Commission for UNESCO is the coordination and promotion of Georgia’s cooperation with UNESCO. It was established in 1994 and re- organized in 2004, when the President of Georgia issued Decree No 508 On the Adop- tion of the Statute of the National Commission of Georgia for UNESCO.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Commission does not work at the sub- national level but some of the activities that are coordinated by it are carried out in the regions (though not in Kazbegi District).

Interest: The Commission is interested in promoting activities related to UNESCO in Georgia and in developing Georgia’s cooperation with UNESCO, based on the 1995 Memorandum of Cooperation. According to the Secretary of the Commission at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this explicitly includes the promotion of Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO World Heritage sites, although the final decision on the establishment of any of these sites would rest with the relevant line Ministry (e.g. MoE). UNESCO Bio- sphere Reserves have never been discussed in the Commission.

Possible role: The Commission should be engaged to play a supporting role (particularly regarding liaison to UNESCO and its relevant subunits) in relation to the establishment of any UNESCO-designated Biosphere Reserve or World Heritage Site in the Kazbegi District.

Capacity: The Commission consists of 12 members and meets twice annually. It has only limited funds to disburse although some small grants for small projects in priority areas of Georgia-UNESCO collaboration are available.

1.16 Ministry of Culture, Cultural Heritage Protection and Sport (MoCCHPS): Georgian National World Heritage Committee Mission: The mission/mandate of the MoCCHPS includes the elaboration and conduc- tion of State policy on protection and development of Cultural Heritage, as well as supervision on protection, the investigation and promotion of cultural heritage, drafting normative acts on cultural heritage zones, and other activities. The Ministry has a Cul- tural Heritage Department and hosts the national World Heritage Committee, which is the custodian of the tentative list of World Heritage of Georgia.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The feasibility study did not find information about activities of the MoCCHPS related to cultural heritage in the Kazbegi District.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 122

Interest: The general interest of the Georgian World Heritage Committee is the elaboration of proposals for inclusion of Georgian sites in UNESCO’s World Heritage List, including cultural, natural and mixed sites. No expression of interest in potential World Heritage sites has come to the attention of the Feasibility Study Team.

Possible role: In case a nomination of Kazbegi as a World Heritage Site is considered, the Commission – as well as the Ministry as a whole and the Cultural Heritage Depart- ment will become an important partner in the process of including the District in the Georgian tentative list and the liaison with UNESCO and IUCN HQ (who deals with natural World Heritage Site applications on behalf of UNESCO) regarding its inscription in the international list.

No natural WH sites in Georgia have been designated to date, and the World Heritage Committee of the MoCCHPS does not collaborate closely with the APA or the MoE. Capacity: The capacity of the Cultural Heritage Department and the World Heritage Committee to promote the inclusion of natural sites in the UNESCo WH list, as well as the potential need to develop this capacity through collaboration with APA or other relevant institutions, should further be elaborated.

1.17 Ministry of Energy Mission: The Mission of the Ministry of Energy is to exploit existing energy resources, to diversify imported energy supply, to ensure energy safety, and to develop alternative energy sources. It also pursues the long-term goal of meeting the entire demand on electricity by local hydropower resources.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: While it is fulfilling its legal mission of ensuring energy safety, the Ministry of Energy does not administer power stations in the District. There used to be two hydropower stations - at the confluence of the Sno River and Tergi (upstream from Stepantsminda) and at the entrance to Khde Valley - but they are not operative anymore. A recent study of potential small hydropower stations in Geor- gia, which was commissioned by USAID, lists six potential sites for new small hydropower stations in the District (Truso, Kobi, Juta, Tergi, Tsdo and Amali), with a combined estimated capacity of 129 MW.

Interest: The MoE is promoting the establishment of small hydropower stations in Georgia, to be financed by investors. This interest extends to the Kazbegi District with its two non-operative stations and additional four potential small hydropower plant sites. However, the FS could not ascertain any concrete ongoing preparations for the rehabilitation of old or establishment of new hydropower stations.

Possible role: The Ministry of Energy could play an important role for the promotion of the establishment of small hydropower stations like the one that is being proposed by this feasibility study in Juta (Section 3.6.2.1). Beyond this, the Ministry could become a partner in piloting new innovative schemes of energy trade for the benefit of local communities. The Ministry should be engaged at an early stage during project imple-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 123 mentation to further explore the feasibility of collaboration regarding the establishment and operation of hydropower plants in Kazbegi District.

Capacity: The strengthening of energy generation from hydropower is a priority of the Georgian energy sector, but there are no financial resources to develop small hydropower stations through government agencies themselves. This limits the capacity of the Ministry of Energy to become an active player regarding the development of hydropower in the Kazbegi District. However, the Ministry has sufficient capacity to promote and regulate stronger involvement of the private sector.

1.18 Office of State Representative – Governor in Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region Mission: Like all regional State Representatives-Governors, the Mtskheta-Mtianeti Governor has the mission to represent the State at the level of the region (the highest level of regional subdivision in Georgia) and to coordinate policy implementation at the regional and sub-regional level. It is also consulted by municipalities regarding local budget allocations. Currently the regions are not legally established because the Geor- gian Constitution foresees establishment of the necessary legislation only once the Georgian State has full jurisdiction over the entire country. Hence, the State Represen- tatives at the regional level are also not legally established, although fulfilling their de- facto role.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Office of the State Representative – Gover- nor has a Department of Relations with Local Government and Public Organs, which is mainly responsible for the collaboration with Municipalities like Kazbegi. The Office takes part in the decision-making regarding the allocation of state funds and coordination of donor projects throughout the Region, and supports initiatives and activities aimed at the development of the region. However, no major projects implemented by the Office or with its strong participation have come to the attention of the FS team.

Interest: The Office of the State Representative – Governor has taken a strong interest in the development of the feasibility study and will likely continue to take a strong interest during project implementation. The overall objective of the Office is to support the sustainable development of tha Kazbegi District through supporting the project and facilitating communication between the donor, implementers, and APA on the one hand and the Sakrebulo and Gamgeoba on the other hand. Another likely objective is ensuring that all project activities are in line with Government policies and priorities, also taking into account the special position of the Kazbegi District’s proximity to the Russian border and the break-away region of South Ossetia.

Possible role: The Office of the State Respresentative – Governor should continue playing a strong role as a communication facilitator and advisor to the project. It should be represented in consultation and cooperation mechanisms that are to be established in the support zone and National Park or in the Biosphere Reserve (e.g. Biosphere Reserve Coordination Council).

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 124

Capacity: The Office of the State Representative-Governor has thus far demonstrated sufficient capacity as a monitor and facilitator of project preparation and will likely continue to do so.

1.19 Sakrebulo Mission: The Sakrebulo or local council is the representative body of local self- government of Kazbegi District. Its mandate is defined by the Organic Law of Georgia on Local Self-governance (2005). The 16 members of the 6 Stepantsminda Sakrebulos are elected by the District’s population for a period of four years. The election system is such that all villages/settlements of a District are represented in its Sakrebulo.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Sakrebulo is the leading representative body of the District and as such decides on a wide range of activities.

Interest: The Sakrebulo’s natural interest is safeguarding local participation in the decision making on all issues of relevance to the District, including any changes to the Na- tional Park, the setup of its support zone, the potential establishment of a biosphere reserve and the natural resource use regime in the District. At the same time, the Sak- rebulo promotes the interests of the local population. The position of the various members of the Sakrebulo that were consulted during the feasibility study towards the project differed, but in general a constructive but skeptical attitude was observed. The main concern expressed was that the Sakrebulo should be actively involved in decision making.

Possible role: Based on its legal mandate, the Sakrebulo (and not the Gamgeoba) should be the main local partner in the decision making processes involved in the development of Kazbegi National Park and a potential Biosphere Reserve, as well as during the participatory formulation of sustainable development priorities for Kazbegi District as a whole. Its support will be essential for the sustainability of any project impact. The support of the local council is even more crucial as Kazbegi - as a mountainous district - has a strong traditional sense of independence and of suspicion against measures imposed from the outside. Therefore, the Sakrebulo should occupy a leading role in any communication or coordination mechanisms for the development of the National Park and its support zone, as well as a possible Biosphere Reserve.

The FS team observed a latent conflict between the Sakrebulo and the Gamge- beli/Gamgeoba (executive). Similar conflicts have been observed (i.e. by Council of Europe representatives) in many Georgian municipalities. Although it is not the mandate of the project implementer to mediate between these sometimes conflicting interests, the conflicts - as well as overarching objectives of the German development cooperation in relation to the strengthening of local self-governance in Georgia - should be taken into account when suggesting arrangements for the institutional setup of the National Park/Support Zone or possibly a Biosphere Reserve.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 125

Capacity: In general, according to the GTZ Georgia website, in Georgia “…the municipalities are not yet in a position to fulfill all the tasks entrusted to them. They are over- stretched with the responsibility of planning and budgeting and have so far been unable to provide their citizens with adequate goods and services.” A similar assessment may apply to both the Sakrebulo and the Gamgeoba of the Kazbegi District. During project implementation, it should be further explored to what extent the Sakrebulo’s capacity to fulfill its role as the leading decision-making institution on local matters is compromised by financial constraints, conflicts with the Gamgeoba and potentially interference from the regional administration.

1.20 Kazbegi Gamgeoba Mission: The Kazbegi Gamgeoba is the executive government body of Kazbegi Mu- nicipality. Its mission and mandate – implementation of the decisions of the Sakrebulo and delivery of public services to Kazbegi District - is defined by the Organic Law of Georgia on Local Self-governance (2005). The Gamgeoba consists of the Gamgeoba (mayor, a public servant), his Deputy, the chairpersons of the commissions of the Sak- rebulo, and some other staff. The Gamgebeli is appointed by the Sakrebulo for a term of 4 years, after an application procedure and a pre-selection by the Sakrebulo Secre- tariat.

Ongoing activities in Kazbegi District: The Gamgeoba is the leading executive agency in the District and legally responsible for implementing a wide range of activities.

Interest: Based on the FS team assessment, the interest of the Gamgebeli, as the representative of the Gamgeoba, is to maximize the development effect of the project and to use its outcomes to strengthen his position within the Municipality. At the same time, it is in the interest of the Gamgebeli to minimize land use restrictions and other restric- tive conservation measures, which might also reduce his popularity. The Gamgebeli repeatedly expressed reservations towards any extension of conservation measures in the District – particularly if driven from outside Kazbegi - during the run-up to and implementation of the feasibility study. It was also obvious that strong and active outside actors, a National Park or Biosphere Reserve administration with strong outside support, might be perceived by the Gamgebeli as undermining his authority because they might give rise to the impression that the Gamgebeli is (relatively) inactive.

Possible role: Fulfilling their legal mandate, the Gamgeoba and Gamgebeli will remain important local implementation partners throughout the project and central stakeholders of the National Park and possibly Biosphere Reserve beyond the project lifespan. It should be explored further to what extent the Gamgebeli is respected by the local population as a trusted leader and broker in negotiations with outside actors like the APA.

The Gamgebeli and Gamgeoba should be involved in communication and coordination mechanisms in relation to the Kazbegi National Park and a possible Kazbegi Biosphere

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 126

Reserve. They should also be engaged for the dissemination of information for awareness raising activities within the framework of the project.

Capacity: The Gamgeoba has a permanent staff of about 60 (including Sakrebulo staff) and an annual budget of about GEL 2.2 Mio. There are staff members that are focusing on various subject areas including natural resource use, but their professional qualification does not always reflect their field of responsibility. Therefore, support to the capacity development of the Gamgeoba – particularly with regard to natural resources management and land management, and in parallel support to the Sakrebulo - could be a secondary field of activity of the project.

1.21 Georgian Academy of Sciences: MAB National Committee Mission: The mission of the MAB National Committee of Georgia is the promotion of implementation of the UNESCO MAB Programme in Georgia.

Ongoing and past activities in Kazbegi District: There are currently no activities of the Committee in Kazbegi District. In 2004, the Committee or some of its members elaborated, but did not publish, a draft concept “Comparative characteristics of the regions for the formation of the first biosphere reserve in Georgia” for the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in various regions of Georgia, including one comprising Kazbegi and the upper Aragvi Valley.

Interest: The general interest of the national MAB Committee is the promotion of the establishment of Biosphere Reserves in Georgia. Based on this general interest, the Committee in principal supports the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in the target area.

Possible role: A possible role of the Committee in a future project depends (1) on whether a Biosphere Reserve (BR) is established, and (2) on the capacity development of the Committee (see below).

Capacity: The feasibility study team met the Deputy Chair of the Committee, since the Chair is already 90 years old and is not actively fulfilling his role anymore. According to the Vice Chair, the Committee has not been active since 2004, has 80-100 members, but no regular meetings, no meeting protocols, no list of members, and no other records of its activity. The Vice Chair also pointed out the lack of support from UNESCO to any activities of the Committee in Georgia since its establishment in the Nineties. Therefore, the capacity of the national UNESCO Committee to actively support any BR project appears to be rather limited.

2 International Donors and Projects Related to Study Area Important international donor agencies with activities that are relevant to the project are listed in Table 2.5.2. The column (Table 2.5.2) on the possible role/interest of interna-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 127 tional donors provides recommendations for engaging potential partners and stakeholders during project implementation.

Table 1: International donor agencies with activities in Georgia relevant to the project.

Organization Relevant activities in Activities in Possible role/interest (country) Georgia Kazbegi District

KfW PA establishment Ecocregional Donor Development of water Programme III, Potentially transfer of best sector Kazbegi Project- practice/expertise

KfW TJS Coordination of PA Elaboration of pre- Coordination with TJS projects, PA related FS, Advice to activities, application of TJS capacity building decision makers on PA Management Planning above project Guidelines

Caucasus Funding of PA running - Funding of Kazbegi PA Protected costs running costs Areas Fund (CPAF)

GTZ Office Sustainable management Collaboration on specific Tbilisi of the biodiversity in PA aspects of sustainable and forests (until 2016); natural resource use in Support to development of Kazbegi (e.g. FairWild environmental code; certification); Strengthening of local Integration of legal self-government; adjustments related to Kazbegi PAs into national legal reform; Advice regarding participation of local self- government in sustainable development of Kazbegi District;

USAID Rural tourism Project on land Provision of information and Georgia development; tenure in Kazbegi advice; DGP Grant Programme District commissioned in for national NGOs, incl. Further scope for environmental grants; 2002 to Association of Protection of collaboration to be Rural Energy Programme, Landowners Rights determined. including promotion of hydropower; (NGO-APLR) Interest in collaboration on Support to National Parks participation of local Reform (US DoI, 1999- communities in PAs and 2009); natural resource Sector Strategy management; Environment including participatory watershed protection, community forestry in preparation;

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 128

Organization Relevant activities in Activities in Possible role/interest (country) Georgia Kazbegi District

Millennium Georgia Regional Energy Information about ongoing Challenge Development Fund Infrastructure activities, environmental Georgia Fund (GRDF), Agribusiness Rehabilitation impacts in prospective PAs Development Activity Project (North-South within Kazbegi District (e.g. (ADA) pipeline Sea-buckthorn areas S of rehabilitation) Stepantsminda); Exploration of participation of actors from District in GRDF, ADA

Eurasia Eco-Awards Programme, - Advice on best practice Partnership including grants on approaches and lessons Foundation participation in PAs, learned Georgia sustainable tourism development in PAs

Asian Support (loan) to water - Possibly inclusion of Development sector reform in Georgia Kazbegi District in Bank under consideration cooperation ADB-Georgia regarding sewage system rehabilitation

World Bank Establishment of - Need to take into account Protected Areas in lessons learned from earlier Eastern Georgia and WB PA projects Kolkheti Wetlands

UNDP/GEF Financial sustainability of - Application of project Georgia’s PA system; outcomes regarding Use of small hydropower sustainable PA financing in at the community level; Kazbegi; UNDP now responsible Contribution of GEF to for GEF Georgia CPAF considered allocations;

SCD Support to rural SMEs Support to NGO Application of project (Switzerland) and marketing, including Sustainable Tourism outcomes and best practice rural tourism Centre 2001-2002 approaches

People in Support to small Support to NGO Potentially implementation Need (Czech bussinesses, Mountain House, partnership; Republic) CBOs/NGOs, Stepantsminda Application of project tourism development outcomes and best practice approaches

Polish Aid Agricultural tourism Support to NGO Application of project Georgia Office Mountain House, outcomes and best practice Stepantsminda; approaches;

EC Delegation Management of waste, Inclusion of Kazbegi Coordination of activities to Georgia water, land use, District in disaster with project on natural environmental disaster risk management disaster risk reduction; risks; environmental project Application of project

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 129

Organization Relevant activities in Activities in Possible role/interest (country) Georgia Kazbegi District

advocacy; outcomes and best practice Establishment of approaches, particularly Environmental Sector with regard to waste Policy Support management; Programme in preparation;

JSDF Livelihood improvement - Application of project around PAs (Kolkheti outcomes and best practice Lowlands), finished approaches; Reportedly considering further activities in Georgia

The feasibility study identified the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as an international donor of potential importance for the implementation of the project. The Asian Devel- opment Bank has been active in Georgia since 2008 and has recently opened a Coun- try Office in Tbilisi. The Indicative Assistance Programme for 2008-2009 comprises ca. USD 70-90 Mio of grants, allocated mainly to municipal infrastructure and regional road development.

For the period starting from 2010, ADB and the Government of Georgia are negotiating a significant extension of this activity, with a focus on reform of the water sector (development credits of at least USD 300 Mio). Following the development of a road map for reform of the sector in 2010, it is planned to initiate rehabilitation projects on drinking water and sewage infrastructure in the regions of Georgia as of 2011. Although the population of Kazbegi is relatively small, and an important criterion for the selection of sites for this project will be the number of people benefiting from these activities, the high visibility of the District and the fact that there will be a project aimed at sustainable regional development renders the District attractive for inclusion into the scheme, according to ADB interlocutors. This is also due to the fact that ADB is not implementing an environmental portfolio itself and that participation in a wider initiative for environmental sustainability would strengthen the Bank’s image regarding the environment.

Therefore, communications with ADB and national Government Agencies regarding inclusion of Kazbegi District into water sector rehabilitation activities within the framework of the ADB-GoG cooperation should be established early during project implementation.

3 Non-Governmental Organizations and the Study Area Important national as well as international NGOs and academic institutions with activities relevant to the project are listed in Table 2.5.3. The column (Table 2.5.3) ‘possible role/interest’ of NGOs provides recommendations for engaging potential partners and stakeholders during project implementation.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 130

The Georgian Orthodox Church occupies a prominent position in the public life of Georgia, and equally in the Kazbegi District. There is a separate Episcopate in the Dis- trict, with the Episcopal Seat in Sno village. Although the Church is treated in the stakeholder analysis under the “Civil Society” header, its relevance as a stakeholder in the District is at least threefold: (1) The church is an opinion leader among the local population, (2) a technology leader regarding agricultural technologies and local crafts, (3) and potentially an important land owner. The latter needs to be further ascertained because information about plans to transfer lands within Truso Gorge to Church ownership could not be corroborated during the feasibility study.

It is suggested that the Church would be an important ally of the project implementer, a supporter of the sustainable development of the District and a partner during further communications with local stakeholders. Furthermore, collaboration with the Church (as an established technology leader in the District) regarding possible training activities in the livestock and traditional crafts fields should be considered.

Table 2: NGOs, national/ international NGOs and academic institutions relevant to the project.

Organization Relevant activities Activities in Possible role/interest Kazbegi District

REC Caucasus Community Forestry, Local - Exchange of Agenda 21, support to information and protected landscape project experience; in Khevsureti Interest in developing formats for local stakeholder participation and sustainable development;

WWF WWF Caucasus Small grant Exchange of Caucasus Programme, 2012 support to information Programme Caucasus Protected Areas “Zeta” Interest in the Office project, implementer role in environmental establishment of an new PA projects for KfW, summer camp effective conservation Norwegian MoFA, near Juta regime in Kazbegi Development of new District approaches to support zone management

Caucasus Promotion, implementation - Regional platform for Biodiversity and updating of Eco- exchange of Council regional conservation plan, experience relevant to eco-regional communication the project

IUCN Development, translation of - Application of project Programme PA Management outcomes and best

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 131

Organization Relevant activities Activities in Possible role/interest Kazbegi District

Office for the Guidelines, training, PA practice approaches, Southern system planning, particularly regarding Caucasus development of formats for PA Management local stakeholder planning, stakeholder participation in PA participation in PA

NGO NACRES Research and practical - Application of project projects on biodiversity outcomes and best conservation (particularly practice approaches, large carnivores, particularly regarding human/wildlife conflict) human/wildlife conflict

NGO GCCW Research and practical Baseline study Application of project projects on biodiversity for outcomes and best conservation (particularly establishment practice approaches birds), national BirdLife of Kazbegi partner, publications on National Park Georgian PAs; (2007) Potential source of advice during project Elaboration of Caucasian implementation, Black Grouse National particularly regarding Action Plan (2007) alpine bird conservation

NGO CENN Georgian sustainable Kazbegi Communication and development included in coordination of project NGO/consultancy with Natural activities in Kazbegi diverse project portfolio, Disaster Risk District including communication Management participation in small project hydropower development, Application of project advocacy, sustainable land outcomes and best management, EIA practice approaches

NGO Promotion of economic School project To be explored further Stepantsminda development and livelihood (computer security of rural population skills); of Stepantsminda District City (Tbilisi- based NGO) partnership with french partner city

NGO Mountain Promotion of mountain Support to Application of project House Kazbegi tourism and environmental mountain outcomes and best awareness raising tourism in practice approaches Kazbegi District, education, Possible local

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 132

Organization Relevant activities Activities in Possible role/interest Kazbegi District

campaigns implementation partner

NGO Promotion of sustainable Establishment Source of advice on Sustainable tourism in Kazbegi District of “Kazbegi local experience Tourism Climbers Hut”, Centre educational trail marking, Possible local awareness implementation partner raising campaigns, guide training

NGO Elkana Promotion of sustainable - Application of best rural development, organic practice approaches agriculture, rural tourism from other regions of Georgia, e.g. regarding guesthouse training and certification

CUNA Promotion of sustainable - Cooperation regarding Georgica/CWC natural resource use in FairWild certification of Georgia, certification Kazbegi wild products, (FairWild) and market processing and chains for wild products marketing

Ilia Research into the ecology Field station in Source of advice Chavchavadze and conservation of Stepantsminda, regarding the zoning State Georgian fauna various and conservation University, research regime of Kazbegi Faculty of Life activities in National Park Sciences Kazbegi District

Georgian Botanical Research, Research into Source of advice Academy of regional coordination of flora and regarding the zoning Sciences, Caucasus Plant Red List vegetation of and conservation Institute of Assessment, to be finalized the Caucasus, regime of Kazbegi Botany in 2010 plant National Park conservation Explicit interest in conservation of specific plant communities in the District

4 Private Sector The private sector of Kazbegi District is represented by (1) livestock breeders and pas- toralists, (2) guesthouse owners, hotel owners and others active in the tourism sector,

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 133 and (3) a few small businesses that are involved in the extraction of various building materials, asphalt production, and other activities.

Livestock economy stakeholders: The local stakeholders of the livestock and agricultural sector are described in more detail in Chapter 2.3, while possible interventions aimed at the livestock sector are discussed in Chapter 3.6.

Tourism sector stakeholders: With regard to the tourism sector –tourism related stakeholder groups are described in Chapter 2.3.1.5- by far the greatest activity is related to Gudauri winter resort (i.e., Sport Hotel Gudauri: a 4-Star resort hotel with 120 rooms, 5 ski lifts, staff village with school and communal infrastructure; three recently constructed blocks of private holiday flats with an overall capacity of 2,000 beds; Hotel “Gudauri Hut” with about 30 double rooms, restaurant; Hotel “Truso”, offering 16 rooms, comfortable hotel with restaurant; a number of smaller guest houses (Shamo, Panorama, Ozoni, Shino, Sno) operating services mainly during the winter and partly during the summer season; two restaurants in the skiing area and one ski hut, plus a few small vendors).

An important umbrella organization of Georgian tourism operators, including many that are active in the Kazbegi District, is the Georgian Tourism Association (GTA). GTA has a 28 business membership and is active in the fields of destination promotion, capacity building and training. The association initiated cooperation with the APA regarding the development of sustainable tourism in 2008, and has since been involved in marketing, trail marking and education activities in various PAs of Georgia, in collaboration with APA and local stakeholders. It is recommended to explore how the experience and expertise gained during this cooperation can be harnessed during project implementation.

Other business stakeholders: The only other active Private Sector business interests in the target area are:

Kasara Ltd., a carbon acid gas and mineral water enterprise which used to hold a 25- year license for two areas in Kazbegi District (one near Kobi and one near Abano in Truso Gorge), issued in 2006. However, until 2008 the company had lost its interest in exploiting the wells and the carbonated water continued to stream from the well uncontrolled, resulting in deterioration of the surrounding travertine area, a tourist attraction. The license was revoked in 2008. It is not clear whether there are further plans to exploit carbon acid gas and mineral water in the Truso Gorge.

Kobi Asphalt Plant near the entrance to the Truso Gorge constitutes a small asphalt producer but a major polluter in the area because it uses old tires as fuel, resulting in a thick black plume spreading over Truso Valley whenever the plant is operating. The exact ownership, order of magnitude of the operation and scope for environmental improvements (switch to different fuels?) should be further explored during project implementation.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 134

Information on a few additional private sector stakeholders of secondary importance can be found in TJS (2009).

Table Natural resource use licenses issued for Kazbegi District. Source: Minis- try of Economic Development of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources Licensing. Date: October 2009

Code Description District Company Term Quantity Area Location

17 230 Extraction of Kazbegi Ltd 05.06.98 5 mln 32 ha Sagarejo, sand-gravel `Sharagza~ 17.08.98 800 000 Khashmi from “Kobi” 20 Years m 22 000 village deposit m3 (Kazbegi district) 8 49 Study- Kazbegi Ltd 19.07.1994 1400m3 293,07 Kazbegi, extraction of `kentavri~ 28.04.1998 ha Shno village “Djuti” diabaz 20 Years boulder area (Kazbegi district) 730 01165 Extraction of Kazbegi Privat 14.03.08 Total 2,63 “Devdoraki” person Gogi 20 Years extraction ha Diabaz (for Alibegashvili 9626 m3 revtment) (Kazbegi district, Village Gveleti) 153 100195 Extraction of Kazbegi Privat 09.10.08 Total 1,06 Rustavi, andesite person 20 Years extraction ha Block 7, (Kazbegi Aleksandre 127200 Building 11. district, Village Gabrichidze m3 Flat 10 Oqrokana) 899936000 266 100372 Extraction Kazbegi Privat 21.01.09 10 m3/per 0,07 Tbilisi, Vaja- (bottling) of person 25 Years day ha Pshavela av, fresh water Konstantine VI Block, from “Fansheti Iakobishvili Building 21. #5 bore flat 3. (Kazbegi 899706555 district, 898150000 Adjacent area of Village Fansheti) 267 100373 Extraction Kazbegi Privat 21.01.09 130 0,14 Tbilisi, Vaja- (bottling) of person 25 Years m3/per ha Pshavela av, fresh water #1 Konstantine day VI Block, and #2 Iakobishvili Building 21. (Kazbegi flat 3. district, 899706555 Adjacent area 898150000 of Village Ukhati) 351 100470 The River Kazbegi Privat 15.04.09 Total 1,3 ha Kazbegi, Tergi sand- person 5 Years extraction Achkhoti gravel Konstantine 39000 m3 village extraction Iakobishvili (Kazbegi

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 135

Code Description District Company Term Quantity Area Location district, Adjacent area of Village Achkhoti and Kobi) 629 01007 `Arshas~ Kazbegi Ltd 28.12.2007 Total 4,36 899,196,126 Extraction of `Saqartvelos 20 Years extraction ha Andesiti samxedro 152000 (boulder area) gza~ m3 (Kazbegi district, Adjacent area of Village Gaiboteni)

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 136

Annex 2.1:

DECISION SUPPORT TOOL: DISCUSSION BIOSPHERE RESERVE VS. NATIONAL PARK AND SUPPORT ZONE

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 137

DECISION SUPPORT TOOL: DISCUSSION BIOSPHERE RESERVE VS. NA- TIONAL PARK AND SUPPORT ZONE:

Is the Biosphere Reserve concept the best way of organizing sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in the Kazbegi District?

In order to support decision makers in deciding on the best arrangement for the integration of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the Kazbegi Area, the Feasibility Study Team (FS Team) has devised a decision support tool (Annex 3.4.1.2). This tool breaks down the overall problem into a set of logically structured tractable questions and provides information to answer these questions. It also provides a simple way of synthesizing the answers to these questions and arriving at a final Votum.

A key question is: (i) whether a Biosphere Reserve (BR) concept is the best way of organizing sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in the Kazbegi Dis- trict, more specifically, (a) is it feasible, and (b) does the added value of its application in comparison to alternative approaches outweigh its added cost.

Another Key question is: (ii) what alternative approaches would generally be feasible. A tried and tested approach in Georgia (e.g. Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park and Mtirala National Park) is the establishment of one or several protected areas (PA) conforming to the IUCN PA Categories and a support zone around them. Similar to the BR approach, this approach allocates emphasis on conservation, and on sustainable socio-economic development to separate zones within the overall planning unit. Ex- perts on Biosphere Reserves acknowledge that this approach (National Park and Sup- port Zone) generally can pursue the same objectives and include the same ways of working as a BR (Phillips, 2008, p. 3, Fiture 1).

In order to identify the most suitable option for meeting KFW’s defined goals and objectives for the Kazbegi Region the BR concept is compared to a “National Park and Sup- port Zone” arrangement for the purpose of this decision support tool. The assumption of feasibility for the alternative agreement is based on existing examples in other regions of Georgia. This does not preclude the need to introduce general legal amendments allowing for stronger co-management of the National Park, as well as natural resource management in the support zone in Kazbegi.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 138

Figure 1. Functional equivalence of BR and “National Park plus support zone” arrangements (Loiskandl, 2009).

1. OPTION 1: BIOSPHERE RESERVE 1.1 The Biosphere Reserve Concept In the 1970s the “Man and Biosphere” (MAB) Programme of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) introduced the Biosphere Reserve (BR) Concept as a multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach to integrate biodiversity conservation, sustainable development and research. Biosphere Reserves are areas of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems, that serve as demonstration sites for conservation and integrated natural resource management. Each biosphere reserve is intended to fulfil three complementary functions. Its conservation function is to prescribe genetic resources, species, ecosystems and landscapes. Its development function is to foster sustainable economic and human development. Its logistical support function is to facilitate demonstration projects, environmental education and training, and research and monitoring. Biosphere reserves are being proposed by national governments and designated by UNESCO upon the fulfilment of the following criteria: • Encompassing a mosaic of ecological systems representative of major bio- geographic regions, including a gradation of human interventions; • Be of significance for biological diversity conservation;

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 139

• Providing an opportunity to explore and demonstrate approaches to sustainable development on a regional scale; • Appropriate size to serve the three functions of Biosphere Reserves; • Appropriate zoning, recognizing a) core zones, b) buffer zones and c) an outer transition area; • Organizational arrangements for involvement and participation of a suitable range of public authorities, local communities and private interests in the design and carrying out the functions of a Biosphere Reserve; • Providing (a) mechanisms to manage human use and activities in the buffer zones; (b) a management policy or plan for the area as a Biosphere Reserves; (c) a designated authority or mechanism to implement this policy or plan; (d) programmes for research, monitoring, education and training.

Physically, each biosphere reserve should contain three elements. First, there must be one or more core areas - securely protected sites for conserving biological diversity, monitoring minimally disturbed ecosystems, and undertaking non-destructive research and other low-impact uses. Next is a clearly identified buffer zone, which usually surrounds or adjoins the core areas and is used for cooperative activities compatible with sound ecological practices. Last is a flexible transition area, or area of cooperation, which may contain a variety of agricultural activities, settlements and other uses, and in which local communities, management agencies, scientists, non- governmental organizations, cultural groups, economic interests and other stakeholders work together to manage and sustainably develop the area's resources. Although originally envisaged as a series of concentric rings, the three zones have been implemented in many different ways to meet local needs and conditions.

Biosphere Reserves remain under the sovereign jurisdiction of the states were they are located.

1.2 Added Value and Feasibility of a Biosphere Reserve As shown by Figure 2, the Kazbegi project would have to meet the BR criteria of the Statutory Framework of Biosphere Reserves (Criterion 1.1.), and would need to enjoy the necessary political support at the national-(1.2.) and local level (1.3.) in order to be feasible. The potential added value of the concept can be broken down according to the three objectives of biosphere reserves (Criteria 2.1. - 2.3.), the concept’s added value regarding the integration of these objectives (Criterion 2.4.), and the benefits of becoming a member of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (2.5.). Potential added costs and risks need to be considered in relation to the institutional setup of the area (3.1.), the necessary adjustments to the legal and institutional framework at national level (3.2.) and recurring costs (3.3.).

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 140

Figure 2. Criteria for feasibility, added value and added cost of the BR vs. the “PA plus support zone” arrangement.

Establish BR?

1. Feasibility? 2. Added value? 3. Added cost?

1.1. Statutory Framework 2.1. Biodiversity conservation 3.1. Institutional setup

1.2. Political support 2.2. Socio-economic 3.2. Framework adjustments

1.3. Local support 2.3. Science and education 3.3. Running costs

2.4. Integration of objectives

2.5. WNBR membership

Each criterion is discussed in detail below.

Criterion 1.1. Is it feasible to fulfill the criteria of the MAB Statutory Framework within the framework of the project? The general criteria for BR are set out in Article 4 of the Statutory Framework for Bio- sphere Reserves. Criteria 1-4 of the Statutory Framework would clearly be met by the planning area, because it comprises a representative mosaic of ecological systems, is of conservation significance, allows to explore approaches to regional sustainable development, and is of appropriate size to serve the functions of a BR.

The criterion 5 of the Statutory Framework states that the function of a BR should be achieved through zoning, including a core area, buffer zone and outer transition area. Kazbegi National Park as a legally established protected area already exists. Irrespec- tive of its final extent and location, it would qualify as a BR “core area”. Likewise, the inner Tergi Valley and parts of its side valleys are under agricultural use and therefore could constitute an “outer transition area”.

While Statutory Framework criteria 5a and 5c would thus be met, the question is whether the establishment of “buffer zones” is feasible in Kazbegi District. According to the Statutory Framework, a BR requires “… (b) a buffer zone or zones clearly identified and surrounding or contiguous to the core area or areas, where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place”.

Land use in Kazbegi typically follows a vertical gradation, with agriculture and hay making near the valley bottom, summer cattle grazing on the lower slopes (or higher up in the valley, based on cheese production in seasonal settlements), and summer grazing of sheep at altitudes up to above 3,000 m. This continuum of traditional use by live-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 141 stock from the valley bottom to the alpine belt makes any attempt to define a discrete “buffer zone”, and to impose the corresponding land use restrictions unrealistic and impracticable. The steep altitudinal gradients and the resulting rapid transitions from intensely used valleys to the alpine belt further limit the applicability of the “buffer zone”.

Instead of attempting to impose the rather simplistic “buffer zone”, the gradation of land use with altitude could possibly better be accommodated using modern integrated spatial planning approaches aiming at the sustainable management of existing land use patterns. At the same time, the “buffer zone” is an explicit requirement of the Statutory Framework for BR that is further re-enforced by the Madrid Action Plan (2008).

The Statutory Framework criteria further state that a BR requires that “6. Organizational arrangements should be provided for the involvement and participation of a suitable range of inter alia public authorities, local communities and private interests in the design and carrying out the functions of a biosphere reserve”. This means that, rather than establishing a only mono-functional authority aimed at managing, for example, nature conservation in a protected area, a BR requires the establishment of a PA authority plus a Coordination Council that is capable of coordinating the management of all three statutory functions of the BR. Options for such arrangements are discussed in TJS (2009).

This requirement is ambitious because it may lead to costly duplications, overlaps of jurisdiction and/or conflicts with existing state institutions. However, a natural and sustainable project approach to the planning area might be to first identify (in a participatory way) the measures necessary to achieve sustainable development, livelihood improvements, biodiversity conservation or other technical project objectives, and then to identify existing public authorities or other actors to jointly implement these measures. If the Coordination Council would play this role – as a pure inter-institutional communication mechanism for the development of the zone around the NP (which in this case would be the development zone of a Biosphere Reserve) without any duplication of responsibilities, then it might have a positive impact as a catalyst of a better integration of the NP in its surrounding landscape. At the same time, it would need to be ensured that the Coordination Council or similar setup would not be perceived as an artificial construct by national partners, which might be inacceptable to them, and/or financially unsustainable beyond the project lifespan.

Following the above reasoning, there remains some doubt about the acceptability and hence feasibility of meeting Statutory Framework criterion 6 in Kazbegi District. In contrast, the specific sub-criteria for the management of the various aspects of sustainable development and conservation in the planning area (Statutory Framework criteria 7a-d) are considered achievable.

Conclusion: The FS observes a conflict between the requirements of the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves to establish a “buffer zone” (Framework criterion

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 142

5b) and the special characteristics of the planning area, which render such a buffer zone difficult or even impracticable. In addition, there remains some doubt about the feasibility of establishing a multi-functional BR Coordiantion Council conforming to Framework criterion 6. As a result, the feasibility of establishing a BR in Kazbegi Dis- trict is reduced, and Criterion 1.1. is only partly met.

Criterion 1.2. Does the establishment of a BR in Kazbegi have the necessary political support at the national level? The establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in Kazbegi would need strong political support because it would require a costly and innovative institutional setup and significant adjustments to the institutional and legal framework in Georgia.

Biosphere Reserves are listed as a PA category in the Law on the System of Pro- tected Areas of Georgia (1996). This is somewhat inappropriate because they are an international designation that can consist of several PA categories of the IUCN system. For the purpose of this study, political support for them has been measured based on published policy and planning documents at the national and regional level, Georgia’s commitments under Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), stakeholder interviews and the application history of the concept in Georgia.

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) of Georgia (2005) lists the objective “Designate Biosphere Reserves” as one of 20 objectives related to the development of the national protected area system. The objective is assigned a “Low” budget code (< 50,000 GEL expected expenditure). It is the only objective for which no implementation period is listed in the NBSAP.

The Georgian National Environmental Action Plan (2000) did not mention BR. No other official policy or planning document of the Georgian Government refers to them.

The Ecoregional Conservation Plan for the Caucasus (2006), the principal ecoregional planning document for nature conservation, does include objectives or actions related to the establishment of BR, but not in Georgia. Likewise, the establishment of BR in Georgia has never been on the agenda of the Caucasus Biodiversity Council, the regional coordination and cooperation body dedicated to the implementation and updating of the Ecoregional Conservation Plan. IUCN’s Message from Gudauri (2006), a list of priority actions to be taken throughout the Caucasus to reach the 2010 Biodiversity Target, does mention the establishment of BR, but not in Georgia.

The commitments of any country taken under International Conventions are an indicator of its wider political goals. An analysis of Georgia’s commitments and obligations under major Multilateral Environmental Agreements related to protected areas using the TEMATEA tool (www.tematea.org) shows that - leaving aside the Seville Strategy and BR Statutory Framework, which are not MEAs – only two out of several hundred commitments of Georgia in the PA field refer to BR (CBD Decision VII/14, 10, and

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 143

Ramsar Resolution IX.22, 10). However, this does not exclude the possibility that other commitments could be met through BR establishment.

The following information regarding political support to the BR concept was obtained from interviews at several Departments of the Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia: The Focal Point responsible for the feasibility study at the Agency of Protected Areas stated that the APA has the prime objective to support the sustainable and biodiversity-friendly development of Kazbegi District and was open to exploring the possibility of doing so through establishment of a BR if donor funding was conditional on using the BR approach. The Head of the Department of Environ- mental Policy and International Relations said that there is a general intention to establish BR in Georgia but that this does not form part of any written policy. It was also pointed out that the UNESCO-Georgia agreement does not refer to BR. The Chief Specialist of the same Department added that the BR concept appears attractive to the Ministry because it allows for economic development and community participation. The Head of the Biodiversity Protection Service stated that, prior to a study visit of MEPNR staff to Germany in 2008, there were no projects, plans or policies aimed at the establishment of BR in Georgia, and that establishing a BR would be much more difficult than establishing a National Park. Representatives of the Office of State Rep- resentative – Governor of Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region expressed their willingness to support a project on sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in Kazbegi District and emphasized the need to provide clear information about the consequences of the project to the local population. They did not express a preference for either the Biosphere Reserve approach or other approaches.

The main conservation stakeholders outside the Ministry (e.g. WWF Caucasus, IUCN South Caucasus Office and Georgian IUCN Member Organizations, representatives of Tbilisi State University and the Institute of Botany at the Georgian Academy of Sciences) assigned potential benefits but no particular priority to the establishment of BR. For example, the Director of a leading national NGO said that “no-one really un- derstands the concept, and no-one really is against it”. This is consistent with the spo- radic occurrence of the BR concept in publications of these organizations.

Although there has been a National MAB Committee of Georgia since the late Nine- ties and a UNESCO Chair on Biosphere Reserves at the Georgian State Agrarian University since 1999, and although a concept note about a possible BR covering the Kazbegi and Dusheti Districts was elaborated (but not published) by the Committee, no projects focusing on the establishment of BR in Georgia have been initiated as a result. According to the Vize-Chair, a major problem in relation to the work of the Commission has been the complete lack of support to it from UNESCO. The recent initiative of KfW (through TJS) towards the establishment of a BR in Georgia was not triggered by the national MAB Committee – the committee was not involved in the initiative at all.

Conclusion: Although the BR concept is included in the Georgian PA law and mentioned in the NBSAP, the analysis of policy documents and statements of MEPNR rep-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 144 resentatives and other stakeholders shows that the establishment of a BR is not a major priority of the Georgian MEPNR or a prominent topic on the Georgian conservation agenda. There is general openness to test the approach (particularly if international donor funding is attached to it), but the robust autochthonous support that would be needed to overcome the considerable challenges involved in establishing a BR appears to be missing, and Criterion 1.2. is only partly met.

Criterion 1.3. Can the necessary local support for a BR in Kazbegi be achieved? There is considerable opposition among both local Government and parts of the local population against the establishment (particularly if driven from outside the District) of a new or the extension of an existing PA in the planning area, but there is strong interest in jointly exploring new ways of boosting sustainable development. A BR could take advantage of this interest. Depending on what uses are permitted in the “buffer zone” of a potential BR, application of the concept might fuel the anxieties of the local population. In contrast, a National park traditional use zone encompassing existing extensive grazing areas, and in accordance with the Georgian PA law, would be relatively acceptable to local stakeholders.

If the option of establishment of a Biosphere Reserve is chosen, the terminology used in public communications should be adapted to avoid the term “Reserve”, which is misleading to most Georgians. Such adaptations are explicitly encouraged by the Seville Strategy where necessary. An alternative might be “Biosphere Park”, or “Biosphere District”.

Conclusion: Although the prospect of donor funding for sustainable regional development is attractive to the local population, the rigid zoning pattern that is central to the BR concept reduces potential local support to them, also the local perception of a biosphere reserve mistakenly identified as another protected area category continues to cause controversy. Criterion 1.3. is only partly met.

Criterion 2.1. Would a BR be a better tool for biodiversity conservation than the alternative scenario? The Statutory Frameworkville of BR lists biodiversity conservation as a function of BR (and hence advocates BR as a tool to achieve biodiversity conservation, among other goals). the BR concept is included in the Georgian PA law in a mislelading way (see above), and the FS has observed misconceptions among Georgian stakeholders about BR as a type of protected area. Therefore, it is relevant and necessary to address the possible contribution of the BR approach to conservation:

The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework for BR, the Madrid Action Plan and the publications of the MAB Programme give little specific technical guidance on how biodiversity should be managed within BR. In practice, the core zones of most existing BRs are usually legally protected and managed based on the IUCN PA Category Sys- tem, and existing management guidelines for such PAs available through IUCN. This is

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 145 reflected in the Georgian PA law which states that BR can consist of PA classified according to IUCN Categories, and implicitly in the ToR for this FS, which recommend using the TJS National Park Management Guidelines for the Management Planning of a possible Kazbegi BR.

Conclusion: Given the fact that the planning and management of biodiversity conservation in the core and buffer zones of a future Kazbegi BR would have to rely on existing IUCN PA and TJS National Park methodologies, i.e. the same methodologies that are used for PAs, there is no added conservation value in applying the BR concept. However, a BR managed according to IUCN or TJS Guidelines would also not be any worse than any IUCN Category PA, and Criterion 2.1. is partly met.

Criterion 2.2. Would a BR provide a better framework for sustainable socio- economic development than one or several protected areas plus a support zone? The success of boosting sustainable socio-economic development in the planning area will depend primarily on the adequateness, effectiveness and extent of, as well as the local support to, the specific measures that will be implemented within the project (e.g. sub-projects in the tourism and agricultural sector following participative planning and prioritization processes). Only to a lesser degree does it depend on the framework within which such measures are carried out. In addition, there are existing alternative frameworks for the establishment of support zones in Georgian PA and spatial planning law, the application of which may be a simple and adequate way of establishing such a framework.

Existing guidance is another issue to consider: On the one hand, there is ample evidence from Georgia and internationally that well-executed socio-economic development measures in a National Park support zone can be effective. On the other hand, the Seville Strategy, the Madrid Action Plan and related documents available through the MAB Programme give little specific guidance on how development should be cata- lyzed in BR, arguing instead that the approach should be flexibly adapted to local conditions. Flexibility alone is of little advantage if no solutions and tools for achieving development are offered.

Conclusion: Both BR and PAs (if seen including their support zones) can provide a basis for conducting measures aimed at sustainable socio-economic development, but it depends on the quality of the measures themselves whether the desired development impact is realized. There is huge added value in high-quality development measures, but less added value of conducting them within a BR “outer transition zone” rather than, for instance, a National Park support zone, is doubtful. Therefore, Criterion 2.2. is only partly met.

Criterion 2.3. Does the BR concept facilitate demonstration projects, environmental education and training, research and monitoring more effectively then alternative arrangements?

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 146

Almost all current National Parks, and many other PAs in Georgia successfully support demonstration projects (e.g. Vashlovani NP and Tusheti PAs: Demonstration project on human-wildlife conflict and possible solutions), environmental education (e.g. Vashlovani, Tusheti and Lagodekhi NPs: Junior Ranger Programmes) and training (e.g. Kolkheti National Park: PA management planning trainings), research (e.g. Tu- sheti PAs: Research about large carnivores) and monitoring (e.g. Kolkheti National Park: International Migratory Waterbird Census). Many of these projects deal not only with activites within the NPs but also with sustainable natural resource use and related activities around them. They are as effective a basis for such activities as a BR would be, particularly as UNESCO does not provide funds to carry them out in BR. The same would be true for the Kazbegi planning area.

Conclusion: The BR approach holds no added value for the development or implementation of education, research, training or monitoring in Kazbegi. Since a BR might be a basis as good as a National Park to achieve these objectives, Criterion 2.3. is partly met.

Criterion 2.4. Could the functions according to criteria 2.1. - 2.3. be more effectively integrated using the BR approach, as opposed to an integrated spatial land use planning approach within the framework of the alternative arrangement? The BR concept aims at integrating biodiversity conservation, sustainable socio- economic development and support to education and research. This is its main difference to Protected Area approaches. However, the aim alone is not an added value. Added value depends on the extent to which the aim is actually reached in practice, or, more specifically, the extent to which the BR concept would be effective in reaching an integration of all three objectives in Kazbegi, in comparison to alternative arrangements.

This leads to the question of how the BR approach offers to achieve functional integration. The answer of the Seville Strategy, Statutory Framework and Madrid Action Plan, as well as of the supplementary guidance provided through the MAB Programme on the UNESCO Website, is essentially threefold: (1) through zonation, (2) through participative land use planning, co-management and/or community management and (3) through application of a number of specific guidelines on issues like BR management, conflict resolution, provision of local benefits, and involvement of stakeholders in decision making (Objectives II.1.1. and IV. 1.1. – IV.1.5. of the Seville Strategy).

1) Zonation: Apart from the fact that “integrating” the functions of a BR by allocating them to separate zones (e.g. nature conservation in the core zone and development in the outer transition zone) and then drawing an outer BR boundary around them stretches the meaning of the term “integration”, the application of the “buffer zone” to Kazbegi District appears particularly problematic, for the reasons explained in the discussion of Criterion 1.1. Therefore, the application of the BR zoning pattern to Kazbegi

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 147 might threaten rather than support the historically grown spatial integrity of land use and ecosystem functioning in the District, and does hence not offer added value.

2) Participative land use planning, co-management and/or community management - to the extent that they are practicable as well as politically desired in Georgia, and can be accommodated within the national legal framework - would indeed support the integration of BR functions: They would enable local people to pursue their legitimate interests in the area, increase ownership, benefit from improved environmental conditions, and ultimately take advantage of positive feedbacks among the three BR functions.

However, these benefits of strong participation of local communities in planning, decision making and implementation are not limited to BR but equally apply to PAs. As acknowledged by the Seville Strategy and in the scientific literature (e.g. Bridgewater el al. 1996, Phillips 1998), there has been a convergence of participation approaches of Biosphere Reserves and National Parks since the 1980s, and there is now a considerable body of best practice approaches to such management schemes for IUCN catego- rized PAs. This does not exclude the possibility that the introduction of stronger co- management formats to Georgian practice would be easier within the framework of a new planning format (e.g. BR) then as an amendment to the already widely practiced PA management approaches.

3) Objectives II.1.1. and IV. 1.1. – 5. of the Seville Strategy (1996) list a number of specific methodological guidelines that were supposed to be developed a the international level to support the integration of BR objectives. The series Biosphere Reserve Technical Notes that is published by the MAB Programme comprises two methodological guidelines on stakeholder dialogue in BR (1-2006 and 2-2007), but no technical guidelines on key aspects of BR management such as provision of local benefits or management planning and policy, as envisaged by the Seville Strategy. Online searches of the Web of Science, the University of Cambridge Central Library Cata- logue and the NHBS Catalogue yielded a few publications of national MAB Commit- tees and individuals offering some guidance on BR management. However, this scattered information does not match the rich and easily accessible body of methodological guidance for protected area management.

Conclusion: Because (1) the zoning guidelines of BR are not conducive to integrating conservation and development in Kazbegi District, (2) the integrative effects of local participation could be used in alternative arrangements in the same way as in a BR, and because (3) the MAB Programme methodological guidance to achieve integration of BR functions as promised in the Seville Strategy has either not been delivered or is not accessible, the BR approach offers a more holistic general outlook, but no practical added value to integrate conservation, sustainable development and research/training in Kazbegi District. Therefore, Criterion 2.4. is only partly met.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 148

Criterion 2.5. Would the planning area, its managers and stakeholders benefit from becoming part of the WNBR, beyond benefits of other PA- related national, regional and international networks? There is only a relatively limited number of BR worldwide (531, as compared to about 4,000 National Parks and about 100,000 Protected Areas in total). In addition, the BR concept is not particularly well known (Googlefight yields about 40 times more hits for the term “National Park” than for “Biosphere Reserve”), and some European conservation areas that are both a National Park and a Biosphere Reserve use the National Park label and not the BR label for their branding.

However, in spite of the small size and limited global popularity of the BR network, membership of a Kazbegi BR in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves might be of added value because of (1) the status of international recognition that it would convey, and (2) the opportunities for horizontal learning and exchange of experience that could arise from membership in the global network. Participation in the EuroMAB regional sub-network may also enable synergies with the growing Georgian membership in IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), and several ongoing initiatives aimed at European integration of conservation and sustainable development efforts in Georgia, such as related to the Emerald Network, the Pan-European Ecological Net- work (PEEN), or PAN-Parks. Although there is no sound evidence that BR attract more funding then Protected Areas, this might also contribute to the general attractiveness of the area to tourists and international donors.

Conclusion: There may be added value for Kazbegi District in becoming part of the World Network of Protected Areas, and Criterion 2.5. is met.

Criterion 3.1. Would the institutional setup for a BR be less costly or risky then the setup for alternative arrangements? As pointed out in the ToR of this FS and discussed with regard to Criterion 1.1., the institutional setup of a BR would need to coordinate the activities of a wide range of Government Institutions as well as other stakeholders, and would hence be complex and costly. It sit somewhat unfomfortably with existing Government Institutions: The objective of coordinating all conservation and sustainable development functions of the BR through the Coordination Council (even if set up with participation of local Govern- ment) might lead to a duplication of responsibilities and to a perceived loss of control of local Government. In addition, there would be frictional losses and costs associated with the introduction and testing of an untried approach in the area, and the BR/NP Administration would be more expensive to run because of its additional “soft” functions besides its jurisdiction for the embedded NP/PAs.

In contrast, local as well as regional and national Government Institutions could become direct and respected partners of a project that aims at the same objectives as a BR (regional development, nature conservation and education/science), but pursues this objective through cooperation with existing structures, as well as the facilitation of dialogue and joint participatory decision making among them. For example, the nature

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 149 conservation objective could become the prime responsibility of one or several PAs located within the planning area, which could be strengthened and developed within the framework of the project, whereas the responsibility for most sustainable development measures could remain with local self-government or the responsible Line Minis- tries, which in turn would strengthen their ownership of the overall process. The necessary coordination and dialogue between them could be supported through various mechanisms, without superimposing a BR Coordination Council.

In terms of cost, this would mean that funds could be concentrated on process facilitation and on specific mono-functional authorities, such as PA Administration(s). This would result in a leaner administration setup that would at the same time be more compatible with existing structures.

Conclusion: A Coordination Council aiming at coordinating all functions of the BR would be costly, in terms of its establishment, operation and sustainability beyond the initial project lifespan. Unless it is designed as a pure communication body for existing institutions and stakeholders, it would probably also be less cost-effective than alternative arrangements, because of overlaps, frictional losses and limited acceptance by local self-government. The BR Administration would have clear management responsibility for the NP/PA only, but at the same time would have to fulfill several support roles for the overall BR. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the BR approach would reduce costs, compared to alternative arrangements, and Criterion 3.1. is not met.

Criterion 3.2. Would the establishment of a BR necessitate adjustments to the legal and institutional framework of the conservation and sustainable development sector in Georgia that are more costly then those of alternative arrangements? Irrespective of whether a BR or alternative arrangements are chosen for the sustainable development and biodiversity of Kazbegi District, the need to strengthen participation mechanisms and to apply modern co-management and possibly community management approaches to the project area means that adjustments to the legal and institutional framework of conservation and sustainable development will be necessary. Whether these will be cast in the mold of the BR concept or differently is a secondary question.

Conclusion: Both the BR concept and alternative approaches will come at a cost in terms of legislative and institutional arrangements. Therefore, the BR approach would likely neither save nor increase associated costs (although a concise quantification is difficult), and Criterion 3.2. is partly met.

Criterion 3.3. Would establishing a BR reduce the running costs of the planned area within or beyond the project lifespan, in comparison to alternative arrangements? Following the reasoning set out under Criterion 3.1., it is expected that the running costs of a BR Administration, combined with the Coordination Council, would be higher

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 150 than those of smaller mono-functional administration structures associated with alternative arrangements, simply because a multi-functional administration would need more staff. This would aggravate sustainable financing constrains beyond the project lifespan and threaten the overall sustainability of project impacts.

Conclusion: Running a BR Administration would most likely increase costs, in comparison to alternative arrangements. Criterion 3.3. is not met.

Summary The feasibility of applying the BR approach to the Kazbegi District is in doubt, and even if it would turn out to be feasible, choosing the BR option would offer little added value at considerable added cost (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Summary of conclusions for each criterion of the decision support tool.

Establish BR?

1. Feasibility? 2. Added value? 3. Added cost?

1.1. Statutory Framework 2.1. Biodiversity conservation 3.1. Institutional setup

1.2. Political support 2.2. Socio-economic 3.2. Framework adjustments

1.3. Local support 2.3. Science and education 3.3. Running costs

PRO BR 2.4. Integration of objectives NEUTRAL

2.5. WNBR membership CONTRA

Additional considerations The concept of a biosphere reserve fosters biodiversity conservation to be mainstreamed into the sustainable economic development of relatively densily settled predominantly rural areas with a high dependency on natural resources. Such areas are generally characterized by unsustainable and poorly controlled land and resource use threatening the ecological integrity of existing core areas of biodiversity conservation and the environment at large. The biosphere reserve concept focuses on people and their needs to be embedded in a sustainable environment. Stabilization of livelihood and sustainable economic development, closely linked to a healthy environment and intact nature are central to UNESCO’s original Man and Biosphere Concept which over time evolved into the more formalized Biosphere Reserve Concept (early 1970s) as it is known until today with little changes over the past 40 years.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 151

The possible establishment of a BR in Kazbegi needs to be seen not only from the perspective of the planning area but also from a national and ecoregional perspective because it is clearly intended as a pilot project that, if successful, might be followed by additional BR projects in other places in the future.

Although many of the points that speak against the establishment of a BR in Kazbegi are of a general nature (e.g. 2.1. – 2.5.), there might be regions in Georgia that would be more suitable for a BR (i.e. where criteria 1.1. and 1.3. could be met more easily). From a strategic point of view, this means that attempting to establish a BR in Kazbegi, where the concept appears to be particularly unsuitable, might turn out to be counter- productive: A failed attempt to establish a BR there would discredit the concept to an extent that its application in more suitable areas would become unfeasible, too.

The BR concept is primarily aimed at managing cultural landscapes, which are characterized by a close interrelation of human activity and ecosystem function. In fact, it has been increasingly being applied to suburban and urban environments in the recent past. Kazbegi District, in contrast, has one of the lowest population densities of Geor- gia, and extensive high-mountain wilderness areas which are not cultural landscapes, the economic potential of which may be limited to tourism.

While its agricultural development potential is limited, due to climatic conditions, the District is of high symbolic value to Georgians and foreigners alike, is very easily accessible by Georgian standards, and already is among the prime tourist attractions of the country.

2. OPTION 2: STRENGTHENING EXISTING NATIONAL PARK AND ESTABLISHING SUPPORT ZONE 2.1 Description of National Park and Support Zone This option entails strengthening and significantly expanding the existing Kazbegi Na- tional Park to be converted into an ecologically viable conservation unit protecting rare high mountain forests and shrublands. The park expansion would permit protection of large tracts of diversified plant communities characterizing sub-alpine and alpine grassland ecosystems of the High Caucasus, which are currently not protected by the existing national park and which are under-represented by Georgia’s PA system at large. Expanding and strengthening the existing national park is of cardinal importance to Georgia’s protected area system with or without the establishment of a biosphere reserve.

New to the proposed second option (national park and support zone) is the designation, establishment and well targeted economic development of the park’s support zone. The establishment of a national park support zone is a legal requirement in accordance with Georgia’s Law on Protected Areas.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 152

The NP support zone concept is well known to Georgia. It was first introduced to the country with the establishment of Borjomi Kharagauli National Park in the early 90s, subsequently anchored in the country’s new protected area legislation of 1996. Center to the support zone concept is the active involvement of park neighbours in the park- and support zone planning and management. Hence national parks and support zones are considered one entity.

Functions promoted by a biosphere reserve: conservation, development and logistic support for demonstration projects, environmental education and training and research and monitoring all have been inherent to the national park/ support zone concept in Georgia from the beginning, actively promoted and implemented since the early 90s by WWF and later by USAID.

In realtiy, the only difference between a national park/support zone- and a biosphere concept is that the biosphere reserve concept promotes a “buffer zone” to encircle the “core zone” (i.e., a national park) of a biosphere reserve, compared to a national park and support zone considered one single entity without a buffer between the support zone and the national park.

Although no specific rules to the selection and size of a support zone apply, it has become common practice to include all communities sharing a common boundary with the national park5. Applied to Kazbegi, all 25 communities located in the Tergi River catchment area would therefore qualify to be included in the support zone of the to-be- expanded Kazbegi National Park, since all either would border the park or share traditional land partly located inside the national park.

The philosphy of a national park/ support zone and a biosphere reserve in reality differ little; both aim at the integration of people into biodiversity conservation and sustainable economic development related to protected areas and peripheral zones. The main difference lies in the approach taken to the integration. It is argued that the approach taken by the national park/support zone concept better reflects the Zeitgeist by placing more emphasis on people, effectively empowering park neighbours by involving them in decision-making processes related to the park and support zone. Although the biosphere reserve concept stipulates the creation of a multi-stakeholder management board, less emphasis is placed on the involvement of local people and even less on the empowerment of local people through participation in decision-making processes related to the “core zone” of a biosphere reserve. This fundamental difference in the approach is of utmost importance to the Kazbegi region. It is argued that in the Kazbegi region neither a biosphere reserve nor a national park would be accepted by the local population without community empowerment to be substantiated through active involvement in decision making processes related to the conservation units.

5 Schuerholz, G. 1998. ‘Buffer Zone’: a term to put to rest! IUCN CPA Newsletter

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 153

2.2 Added Value and Feasibility of a National Park-Support Zone The rationale for a support zone of a national park is to support park neighbours in an effort to improve community development and to stabilize livelihood of local people who frequently are economically marginalized due to the isolation of such areas. This is achieved through participatory- and integrated spatial land use- and sustainable economic development planning of a support zone and the subsequent implementation of the resulting development plan.

In return for economic assistance provided to support zone communities, park neighbours are expected to take ownership in the over-arching conservation objectives for their hinterland which provides them with goods and services.

This concept has successfully been promoted in Georgia by WWF and for the first time applied in the country to Borjomi Kharagauli National Park in 1993 (the country’s first national park structured according to IUCN guidelines) with financial assistance of KfW (1995-2009). Meanwhile the concept has been successfully applied to other national parks in the country culminating in the first successful co-management model applied to National Park Mtirala which is manageed by a multi-stakeholder Management Board with membership of community representatives from the support zone.

The philosophy of a support zone (i.e., in principle the same as a consolidated “buffer zone” and “transitional zone” of a biosphere reserve), promotes an even closer relationship between the “core zone” and people living in its neighbourhood than a biosphere reserve. This is in due consideration of the (mostly) pronounced dependency by park neighbours on natural resources. It is also for this reason that national parks in accordance with IUCN guidelines permit sustainable traditional resource use in designated (traditional use) zones inside a national park (instead of surrounding a park with an additional “buffer zone” --to keep people out of the core area or “buffering” the core area against people’s potential impacts -- as stipulated by the biosphere reserve concept). Thus the national park/support zone concept provides for a much more intimate relationship between park neighbours and the park by integrating people harmonically into the one entity national park and support zone instead of the biosphere reserve approach which fosters the establishment of a “buffer” zone separating people from the park.

3. WORLD HERITAGE SITE: AN ADDED VALUE? Another option for receiving an internationally recognized UNESCO status and a label that enjoys a much higher prestige and wider-spread international recognition than a biosphere reserve would be through the label of a “World Heritage Site”. This highly interesting option would appear more suitable and acceptable to local people since there are few restrictions attached to awarding Heritage status to an area of out-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 154 standing natural beauty and culture. The World Heritage label is highly prestigious flagging the selected site as an area of global importance. The prospects for a successful application in the Kazbegi case appear to be good due to the favourable framework conditions offered by the target area.

By regarding heritage as both cultural and natural, the Convention of World Heritage is a reminder of ways in which people interact with nature, and of the fundamental need to preserve the balance between the two. A key benefit of ratification, particularly for developing countries and countries in transition, is access to the World Heritage Fund. All things considered, the Kazbegi area appears to be a prime candidate for the designation of a World Natural Heritage due to its outstanding natural and cultural features, especially the very prominent Kazbegi Glacier being increasingly threatened through global climate changes.

Another advantage would be that IUCN as a key advisor to the Programme is in a position to promote the declaration and possible financing of the Kazbegi National Park and support zone as World Natural Heritage. IUCN of course would be interested in the establishment of a viable national park of global significance, especially in a transboundary context. The same applies to the Caucasus Biodiversity Council. The issue of recognizing the target area as World Heritage Site was discussed with both IUCN Swit- zerland (pers. comm. T. Jaeger) and the Head of the Caucasus Biodiversity Council (pers. comm. H. Jungius) who are both fully supportive of the NP-Support Zone model at the same time sharing the FS team’s concerns regarding the successful application of a biosphere reserve in the target area.

4. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 4.1 Comparative SWOT Analysis Table 4.1 summarizes and compares the strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O) and threats (T) associated with both, the establishment of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and strengthening of the National Park/ establishment of Support Zone in Kazbegi District.

There is sometimes confusion regarding the subject of SWOT analyses and the difference between strengths and opportunities or weaknesses and threats, respectively. In accordance with modern SWOT methodology, this analysis refers to a defined objective. Strengths and weaknesses are defined as inherent qualities of the general approach, the specific idea of establishing a BR/ NP+SZ in Kazbegi District, and the clus- ter of institutions promoting this specific idea. Opportunities and threats are defined as factors that are external to the approach, the specific idea and the specific actors but nevertheless affect the likelihood of reaching the objective.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 155

Table 4.1: Comparative SWOT analysis regarding the feasibility, the added value and the added costs of both options

Biosphere Reserve6 National Park (NP) + Support Zone (SZ) 1. FEASIBILITY S • Functions: Criteria 1-4 clearly be met by the planning area • Organizational arrangements: Kazbegi National Park as a legally (representative mosaic of ecological systems; conservation established protected area already exists. More emphasis on people, significance; allows to explore approaches to regional sustainable effectively empowering park neighbours by involving them in development; appropriate size) decision-making processes related to the park and support zone. • Zoning: (Criterion 5) existing NP would qualify as a BR “core area”. • Political support: Well recognized, widely accepted and one of the The inner Tergi Valley and parts of its side valleys are under most popular protected area categories in Georgia and globally. agricultural use and therefore could constitute an “outer transition • Local support: Although never fully accepted, the Kazbegi area” (within limitations) communities are used to the existence of a NP. The concept is • Political support: BR concept appears attractive to the Ministry easier to understand and to be accepted. because it allows for economic development and community • Guidance and technical input: NP+SZ concept has successfully participation. General intention of the Department of Environmental been promoted and implemented in Georgia since 1993 (Borjomi Policy and International Relations to establish BRs in Georgia but Kharagauli National Park with financial assistance of KfW 1995- not part of any written policy. 2009; first successful co-management model National Park Mtirala). • Local support: Depending on what uses are permitted in the “buffer Existing planning and management guidelines/ ample evidence from zone” of a potential BR, application of the concept might fuel the Georgia and internationally for effective socio-economic anxieties of the local population. development measures in a NP SZ. • Guidance and technical input to BR establishment by TJS, experience from Azerbaijan. Applicability of TJS participatory PA management planning guidelines W • Zoning (Criterion 5, re-enforced by the Madrid Action Plan 2008): • Organizational arrangements: No special law or management plan difficult/ impracticable to establish a “buffer zone”, and to impose the has been adopted or approved yet related to Kazbegi National Park. corresponding land use restrictions. Due to declining population, Although the Kazbegi National Park is currently administered pressures on the environment are low making the establishment of a centrally by APA, an expanded park and well planned support zone

6 Referring to Statuatoory Framework of the UNESCO MAB Programme

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 156

“buffer zone” redundant requires a co-management structure which requires ministerial • Organizational arrangements (criterion 6): less emphasis on cooperation as a relatively new governance model to Georgia involvement and empowerment of local people in decision-making processes related to the “core zone”. Cooperation of Administration with other governmental organizations, NGOs, private sector etc. for the management of BR, should be happening regularly, but not “in exceptional cases,” as stated by the Georgian Law on PAS (Article 18, paragraph 4). Permanent mechanisms and structures to allow broad participation of all stakeholders in BR management and development required. • Political support: BRs are unknown to Georgia and substantially less popular globally. The designation of BRs is of low interrest within NBSAP of Georgia (2005)/ and not included in Georgian National Environmental Action Plan (2000), in the Ecoregional Coservation Plan for the Caucasus (2006), the Caucasus Biodiversity Council, or the IUCN Message of Gudauri (2006) • Local support: Communities strongly defend traditional land use. An artificially imposed “buffer zone” applied to land considered communal and/ or traditional private property would be outright rejected. Local population are apprehensive towards an untested, unknown biosphere reserve. • Guidance: there are no prescriptions for participatory planning approaches, management plans, economic development plans etc. for biosphere reserves provided by UNESCO or any other available documents. O • Zoning: gradation of land use with altitude could possibly better be accommodated using modern integrated spatial land use planning approaches aiming at the sustainable management of existing land use patterns. • Organizational Arrangements: Coordination Council as a pure inter-institutional communication mechanism for the development of the zone

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 157

around the NP (which in case of a BR would be the development zone) might have a positive impact as a catalyst of a better integration of the NP in its surrounding landscape. • Political support: APA has the prime objective to support the sustainable and biodiversity-friendly development of Kazbegi District and was open to the option of a BR if donor funding was conditional on using the BR approach. Representatives of Governor of Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region expressed their willingness to support a project on sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in the Kazbegi District and emphasized the need to provide clear information about the consequences of the project to the local population. Conservation stakeholders outside the Ministry (e.g. WWF Caucasus, IUCN South Caucasus Office and Georgian IUCN Member Organizations, representatives of Tbilisi State University and the Institute of Botany at the Georgian Academy of Sciences) assigned potential benefits but no particular priority to the establishment of BRs. O • Donor interest in testing the BR concept in Georgia • Local Support/ Integration of objectives: Easy integration and • Political support: -Awareness among government agencies of the harmonization of resource use in support zone and NP. The NP need for improved stakeholder participation and mutual integration of could include a “traditional use zone” encompassing existing grazing development and conservation. areas, and in accordance with the Georgian PA law, would be • Local support: If the option of establishing a BR is chosen, the relatively acceptable to local stakeholders. terminology used in public communications should be adapted to avoid the term “Reserve”, which is misleading to most Georgians (an alternative might be “Biosphere Park”, or “Biosphere District”) T • Organizational Arrangements: requirements may lead to costly duplications, overlapping jurisdiction and/ or conflicts with existing state institutions. It needs to be ensured that the Coordination Council or similar setup would not be perceived as an artificial construct by national partners, and/or financially unsustainable beyond the project lifespan. • Political support: BR needs strong political support because it would require a costly and innovative institutional setup and significant adjustments to the institutional and legal framework in Georgia. Limited capacity of Georgian institutions for effective inter- institutional cooperation threatens integrative setup of BR.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 158

T • Functions: regional sustainable development limited by decreasing population and work force. The Kazbegi population has shrunk by half within the past five years (from 6000 in 2005 to less than 3000 in 2009) meanwhile displaying a very unfavourable age class distribution in favor of persons above 60 years of age (one third of the current population and increasing). • Organizational Arrangements: in the Kazbegi District neither a biosphere reserve nor a national park would be accepted by the local population without community empowerment to be substantiated through active involvement in decision making processes related to the conservation units. • Political/ local support: Considerable opposition among both local Government and parts of the local population against the establishment of a new or the extension of an existing PA; lack of trust to central government. Centralization in Georgian PA system threatens implementation of co-management aspects. But there is strong interest in jointly exploring new ways of boosting sustainable development. • Possibility of political tensions in the vicinity of the separatist area of South Ossetia 2. ADDED VALUE S • Integration of objectives: Inclusiveness of BR concept (integration • Socio-economic development: Tourism sector has significant of conservation, sustainable development and education/science). development potential in the District, and tourism development is BR approach explicitly includes outer transition / development zone consistent with NP/ Support Zone format. International best practice in setup and management of the BR – generally strong basis for examples from managing remote wilderness areas with high tourism promoting sustainable development. development potential as NPs with Support Zone. • Socio-economic development: Tourism development potential of • Science and education: Almost all current National Parks, and Kazbegi District. Foreseen Larsi border opening may improve many other PAs in Georgia successfully support demonstration development potential of District (opportunity conditional on border projects (examples see discussion). Many of these projects deal not opening) only with activites within the NPs but also with sustainable natural resource use and related activities around them. • Integration of objectives: The SZ promotes an even closer relationship between the “core zone” and people living in its neighbourhood than a biosphere reserve. NP in accordance with IUCN guidelines permit sustainable traditional resource use in designated (traditional use) zones inside a NP. • Empowerment: The participatory planning of a NP + SZ allows local stakeholders to formulate land- and resource use policies adapted to

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 159

their lifestyle and local conditions fostering development of ownership.

W • Biodiversity conservation: Limited added value of BR concept as a biodiversity conservation tool for this specific region (due to zoning requirements, population development and acceptance). BR concept is included in the Georgian PA law in a mislelading way (see above), and the FS has observed misconceptions among Georgian stakeholders about BRs as a type of protected area. • Socio-economic development: the application of the BR zoning pattern to Kazbegi might threaten rather than support the historically grown spatial integrity of land use and ecosystem functioning in the District. • Science and education: No additional advantages/ funds available for science and education in the frame of UNESCO MAB programme • Integration of objectives: there are no prescriptions for participatory planning approaches, management plans, economic development plans etc. for BR provided by UNESCO or any other available documents; MAB Programme methodological guidance to achieve integration of BR functions as promised in the Seville Strategy has either not been delivered or is not accessible. • WNBR membership: UNESCO label for a BR is of questionable value in a country where UNESCO’s profile is very low. On a local level, the UNESCO label would be of no consequence. Small size and limited global popularity of the BR network. No evidence that BRs attract more funding then Protected Areas. O • WNBR membership: World Network of Biosphere Reserves might • Empowerment: Potential application of the bottom-up Mtirala Model be of added value because of (1) the status of international of NP Support Zone designation would empower Local authorities recognition that it would convey, and (2) the opportunities for (designation by Municipality under Georgian Spatial Planning Law).

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 160

horizontal learning and exchange of experience that could arise from membership in the global network. BR may contribute to the general attractiveness of the area to tourists. O • Biodiversity conservation: Given the fact that the planning and management of biodiversity conservation in the core and buffer zones of a future Kazbegi BR would have to rely on existing IUCN PA and TJS National Park methodologies, i.e. the same methodologies that are used for PAs, there is no added conservation value in applying the BR concept. However, a BR managed according to IUCN or TJS Guidelines would also not be any worse than any IUCN Category PA. • Socio-economic development: Both BR and PAs (if seen including their support zones) can provide a basis for conducting measures aimed at sustainable socio-economic development, but it depends on the quality of the measures themselves whether the desired development impact is realized. There is huge added value in high-quality development measures, but less added value of conducting them within a BR “outer transition zone” rather than, for instance, a National Park support zone. • Integration of objectives:Participative land use planning, co-management and/ or community management would indeed support the integration of BR functions. Benefits of strong participation of local communities in planning, decision making and implementation are not limited to a BR but equally apply to PAs; there has been a convergence of participation approaches of BRs and NPs since the 1980s, and there is now a considerable body of best practice approaches. This does not exclude the possibility that the introduction of stronger co-management formats to Georgian practice would be easier within the framework of a new planning format (e.g. BR) then as an amendment to the already widely practiced PA management approaches. T 3. ADDED COSTS S • Institutional Setup: Cooperation with existing structures, as well as the facilitation of dialogue and joint participatory decision making among them. Existing experience with the establishment of NP support zones in Georgia (Borjomi-Kharagauli NP and Mtirala NP). • Framework Adjustments: Although Georgia’s Law on Protected Areas is in urgent need of review it provides a strong legal basis for a national park/support zone. • Running Costs: smaller mono-functional administration structures associated with alternative arrangements

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 161

W • Institutional Setup: Less cost-effective (overlap, frictional losses, costs associated with the introduction and testing of an untried approach). BR Administration would have clear management responsibility for the NP/PA, but at the same time have to fulfill several support roles for the overall BR. Coordination Council would be costly (establishment, operation and sustainability beyond the initial project lifespan). National MAB Committee of Georgia and UNESCO Chair on Biosphere Reserves at the Georgian State Agrarian University weak/ not involved in the recent initiative for the establishment of a BR at all. Lack of support from UNESCO MAB Programme to Georgian MAB Committee. • Framework Adjustments: Existing weak and vague legal framework for a BR. Law on the System of Protected Areas considers and treats BR as a type of protected area. No Transition Area, where sustainable resource management practices can be promoted and developed, is included in BR zones according to the Law on the System of Protected Areas (instead, “Restoration Zone” and “Traditional-Cultural Landscape Zone”). • Georgian legislation does not include provisions concerning procedures for nomination of selected area as BR, neither it specifies who “approves” selected area as a BR after the area is designated for inclusion in the Network by the International Coordinating Council (ICC) of the MAB program or responsibility for periodic reporting to UNESCO or it’s ICC of the MAB programme and review of the status of biosphere reserves.. • Running Costs of a BR Administration, combined with the Coordination Council, would be higher simply because a multi- functional administration would need more staff

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 162

W • Framework Adjustments: Irrespective of whether a BR or alternative arrangements are chosen for the sustainable development and biodiversity conservation of the Kazbegi District, the need to strengthen participation mechanisms and to apply modern co-management and possibly community management approaches to the project area means that adjustments to the legal and institutional framework of conservation and sustainable development will be necessary. O • Institutional Setup: Coordination Council designed as a pure • Institutional Setup: Leaner administrative setup that would at the communication body for existing institutions and stakeholders, same time be more compatible with existing structures. E.g. the nature conservation objective as prime responsibility of one or several PAs located within the planning area, whereas the responsibility for sustainable development measures could remain with local self-government or the responsible Line Ministries. Necessary coordination and dialogue could be supported through various mechanisms, without superimposing a BR Coordination Council. Funds could be concentrated on process facilitation and on specific mono-functional authorities, such as PA Administration(s). T • Institutional Setup: Coordination Council might lead to a duplication of responsibilities and to a perceived loss of control of local Government. 4. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS T Attempt to establish a BR in Kazbegi, where the concept appears to be partly unsuitable, might discredit the concept for the establishment of BR in more suitable areas in Georgia

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 163

5. CONSULTANTS VOTUM The advantages of the option “national park/support zone” compared to the option “biosphere reserve” are apparent. There appears to be no added value offered through a biosphere reserve concept except for its international registration with UNESCO (no monetary nor other tangible benefits are affiliated with biosphere reserves). The UNESCO label for a biosphere reserve, however, is of questionable value in a country where UNESCO’s profile is very low. On a local level, the UNESCO label would be of no consequence.

It is argued that one of the key obstacles for the successful establishment of a biosphere reserve would be its mandatory zoning concept; more specifically, the definition of a mandatory “buffer zone” which simply would not be acceptable to local people. The Kazbegi communities strongly (violently) defend their traditional land use- and grandfathered property rights extending from valley floors to the high mountains of the Caucasus. An artificially imposed “buffer zone” applied to land considered communal and/ or traditional private property would be outright rejected by local people.

Another recognized shortcoming for the successful application of a meaningful economic development as stipulated by the biosphere reserve concept is the lack of people living in a very sparsely settled area. The Kazbegi population has shrunk by half within the past five years (from 6000 in 2005 to less than 3000 in 2009) resulting in a rapidly aging population. This is not conducive to the biosphere concept that intends to connect people with conservation through well guided economic development. As a direct result of the low population density in the target area and the alarmingly declining population, pressures on the environment, and/ or threats to the existing national park and other areas flagged as areas of high conservation value, are very low and decreasing making the establishment of a “buffer zone” as stipulated by a biosphere reserve redundant. Rather than “buffering” endangered ecosystems and species from local land- and resource use the future project should aim at reducing external threats such as mass tourism and land speculation while at the same time support the local population in maintaining and developing sustainable livelihoods.

On the other hand, communities appear more open-minded, although still sceptical, regarding the participatory planning of a support zone as part of a national park. The option national park/ support zone therefore appears the more suitable alternative also fully meeting the overall goals and objectives of German bilateral aid for the region: “harmonizing biodiversity conservation and sustainable regional economic development for the benefit of the local people”.

The official response to the suggestion by the FS team to UNESCO’s Secretary of the Man and Biosphere Program, aimed at the consolidation of the buffer- and economic development zone of a potential biosphere reserve for Kazbegi (pers. comm, Mr. Nata- rajan Ishwaran, Secretary Man and the Biosphere Programme UNESCO), converting the biosphere reserve effectively into a national park/support zone model, is still

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 164 lacking. The only visible advantage of this option that would be more acceptable on a local level by eliminating the “buffer zone” as key obstacle, however, would be the UNESCO label attached to the biosphere reserve. Although this option has been proposed to UNESCO, it is doubtful that the proposed change would be achievable and acceptable in the short run.

The option for a radical change of the existing and rather outdated biosphere reserve concept has also been brought to the attention of UNESCO. It has been suggested (pers. comm. Secretary of MAB) to use the biosphere reserve label in the future as a certification tool for well managed national parks and support zones with full integration of local people into the planning and decision-making processes (i.e., co- management). This would not only add great value and prestige to the certified protected area but also signal proper framework conditions for potential donor investments and make it more visible and attractive to tourists who can expect acceptable service standards. This however is a long term vision not achievable in the near future and not acceptable to UNESCO under the current legal framework guiding UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme.

Since there is no doubt that Kazbegi National Park will need to be strengthened and developed within the framework of this project, the alternative between the formats “Biosphere Reserve” and “National Park plus Support Zone” does not affect the core conservation regime to be developed/ established. It is merely an alternative between two approaches to managing areas outside the core conservation zones of Kazbegi District.

In addition to the above-mentioned discussion on feasibility, added value and added costs, the following criteria are crutial for the assessment of both strategic options regarding the successful implementation of the future project: • potential for change • potential for scaling up • significance • synergies

Figures 3.3.3.2.a to 3.3.3.2.c illustrate the evaluation of these criteria for both options with special emphasis on the given conditions of the project area.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 165

Figure 4.2a Potential for change: The operational-strategic orientation of options BR (Bio- sphere Reserve) and NP (National Park + Support Zone) on innovative themes and methods is opposed to the participants’ willingness to embrace change.

Participants’ willingness to NP embrace V change BR -

- + Innovative themes and methods

Figure 4.2b Potential for scaling up: The scope of options BR (Biosphere Reserve) and NP (National Park + Support Zone) for testing functional procedures and models is opposed to the potential for scaling up innovative approaches.

+ NP

Leverage for scaling up BR -

- + Creation of functional procedures and models

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 166

Figure 4.2c Significance: The alignment with the national reform agenda of the options BR (Biosphere Reserve) and NP (National Park + Support Zone) on innovative themes and methods is opposed to the attention of decision-makers due to its high visibility.

+ BR NP

Visibility

- + Selection of sectors and themes aligned with national reform agenda

In due consideration of all pros and cons of the local applicapility and feasibility of a biosphere reserve concept vs. a national park-support zone model, the Consultant Votum is therefore in favour of Option 2:

A strengthened and expanded national park and a well planned support zone involving all stakeholders guided by sustainable economic development objectives for the benefit of the local population.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 167

Annex 3.1:

Gudauri SWOT Analysis

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 168

GUDAURI SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths

1) Gudauri is part of Kazbegi District. 2) Most of the property tax income and some family income of Kazbegi District originate from Gudauri, and strengthen these sources would have a positive income effect throughout Kazbegi. 3) There are high-conservation value areas near Gudauri (particularly along Ghudo Gorge). 4) There are social links across the Cross pass: Many people working in Gudauri during the season live in Khevi.

Weaknesses

1) Gudauri is not part of the same watershed as the rest of Kazbegi, and differs in terms of its climate, vegetation and other environmental conditions. 2) Only a very small proportion of the target group (rural communities of Kazbegi District) lives in Gudauri, which is an artificially developed winter sports resort run by national businesses. 3) The inclusion of Gudauri into the planning area would not address most of the weaknesses and risks as identified during the Gudauri development SWOT that was carried out by Gudauri tourism staff with facilitation of the FS team on 13 Oct 2009. 4) Lack of designation of Gudauri as a resort. 5) According to the Gudauri development SWOT on 13 Oct 2009, the problems that would need to be addressed in Gudauri are significantly different from those in Khevi. In terms of economy of scale, the need to address two separate sets of problems would make the overall project less cost-efficient. 6) The development of Gudauri is based on the winter sports season. The link between environmental protection and biodiversity conservation on the one hand and socio-economic development on the other hand is weaker in Gudauri than it is in Khevi, which makes the overall intervention logic of the project less applicable there.

Opportunities

1) Transfer of tourism skills from Gudauri to Khevi. 2) Development of nature-based summer tourism within the framework of the project. 3) Benefit of Gudauri resort area from the introduction of modern spatial planning methods.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 169

Threats

1) The separation of Gudauri from Kazbegi District is being discussed (threat to Strength 1 and 2). 2) The unclear ownership, tenure and responsibility situation of Gudauri and the serious economic interests involved threaten the sustainability and developmen- tal impact of any investments made within the framework of the project. 3) There might be a scale imbalance between concrete development measures implemented in Gudauri vs. Khevi. Addressing the environmental problems of Gu- dauri might be at the same time more costly and less effective (in terms of its socio-economic impact on the target group) than addressing environmental and related problems in Khevi. This would threaten overall cost efficiency, in terms of reaching socio-economic objectives. 4) Inclusion of Gudauri might fuel suspicions among the local population that vested interests are involved at the part of the donors/implementers, and might hence reduce credibility of the project among the target group, and ultimately local ownership.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 170

Annex 3.2:

Setting Site-Based Conservation Priorities

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 171

SETTING SITE-BASED CONSERVATION PRIORITIES

For an ecosystem or our natural environment to be viable, ideally every population of every species should be protected within it. However, resources available for conservation efforts are limited and therefore should be invested cost-effectively (Pressey et al. 1993). Conservation priorities should be set by defining which biodiversity elements need attention first and the conservation of which elements provide the greatest contribution to the conservation of global biodiversity (Myers 1983). One of the methods that address this issue is the framework of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs).

The procedure of the identification of KBAs and KBA-based GAP analysis is described in detail in the IUCN KBA Guidelines (Langhammer et al. 2007). Here we present a brief version of the procedure. The KBA process can begin with incomplete data on taxa and be updated iteratively as more data become available. The KBA methodology is inexpensive, simple and typically fast to apply. The KBA identification process uses two criteria: vulnerability and irreplaceability. Criteria and thresholds for KBA trigger species are summarized in Table 1. The KBA delineation process suggests the exclu- sion of areas that have been converted to human use (e.g. urban areas, agricultural areas and transportation corridors). Preliminary KBA boundaries could represent (a) existing protected areas, (b) existing IBAs and IPAs, (b) polygons derived from species-habitat models, (c) polygons defined from radio-telemetry, and (d) polygons delineated by outlining terrain features (e.g. watershed, streams, forest cover or other vegetation type, roads, urban areas) around point locality records of species. Final KBA boundaries should ensure the realistic management of the site for conservation. The final KBA boundaries are set by minimizing conflicts with stakeholders (e.g. land use, logging concessions, administrative and political divisions, planned development).

Table 1. Summary of KBA criteria and thresholds.

Criterion Sub-criteria Provisional thresholds for triggering KBA status

Vulnerability N/A Critically Endangered (CR) Regular occurrence of a and Endangered (EN) species globally threatened species – presence of a single (according to the IUCN Red individual List) at the site Vulnerable species (VU) – >= 30 mature individuals or 10 pairs (i.e. population size/habitat size that ensures viability. This threshold should exclude any clearly non-viable populations) a) Restricted-range species Species with a global range Irreplaceability 2 Site holds X% of a species' less than 50,000 km global population at any stage of the species' lifecycle >= 5% of global population or range at site

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 172

b) Species with large but >= 5% of global population or clumped distributions range at site c) Globally significant >= 1% of global population or congregations range seasonally at the site d) Globally significant source Site is responsible for populations maintaining at least 1% of global population or range e) Bioregionally restricted To be defined. assemblages

After KBAs are identified, KBA gap analysis is applied to determine which KBAs are most in need of conservation action. The objective of the gap analysis is to assign conservation priority scores to KBAs through the following 4-step procedure. Step One is to assign an irreplaceability score (Table 2). Step Two is to assign a species-based vulnerability score based on the IUCN Red List categories (Table 3). Step Three is to assign a site-based vulnerability score using various threat classes (Table 4), where each threat is assigned a score derived from assessments of its timing, scope and severity (Table 5). These scores are then summed to calculate the impact score. The threat with the highest impact score, whether to the site, or to trigger species if indi- vidually assessed, is taken as the impact score for the site/species (applying the 'weakest link' approach). The impact score is then converted to an assessment of site- base vulnerability (Table 6). Step Four is to assign a conservation priority score to each species-site combination (Table 7).

If several sites get equally high conservation score and there are limited resources to conserve all of the sites, the site with the lowest ratio of conservation cost/ benefit is to be the highest priority for conservation action. Examples of cost/benefit relationships are (a) expenditure to purchase or manage the site vs. income from park entrance fees, (b) livestock killed by predators vs. income from ecotourists who may visit the site to see predators, and (c) the loss of income from hunting and logging vs. benefits that may arise from ecotourism and living in the healthier ecosystem. Final step in the site- based prioritization is to make specific recommendations for conservation actions for each KBA. These recommendations could be generalized in four actions: (a) restore habitats/reinforce species' populations; (b) strengthen conservation efforts; (c) continue ongoing efforts; and (d) monitor the site.

Table 2: Criteria used to assign irreplaceability scores to species-site combinations.

Irreplaceability ‘population data’ ‘presence/absence data’ scenario score scenario

Extreme Sites known or inferred to Sites holding a species endemic to the hold ≥ 95% of the global country/region that is not known to population of a species occur at any other site

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 173

High Sites known or inferred to Sites holding a species endemic to the hold ≥ 10% but < 95% of country/region that is only known to the global population of a occur at two to ten sites OR Sites species holding a species that globally is only known to occur at two to ten sites

Medium Sites known or inferred to Sites holding a species endemic to the hold ≥ 1% but < 10% of the country/region that is only known to global population of a occur at 11 to 100 sites OR Sites species holding a species that globally is only known to occur at 11 to 100 sites

Low Sites known or inferred to Sites holding a species endemic to the hold < 1% of the global country/region that occurs at more than population of a species 100 sites OR Sites holding a species that globally is known to occur at more than 100 sites

Table 3: Criteria used to assign species-based vulnerability scores to species- site combinations.

Species-based Global threat status vulnerability score

Extreme Critically Endangered (CR)

High Endangered (EN)

Medium Vulnerable (VU)

Low Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC)

Table 4: Threat classes. For each KBA, the first step is to identify all threats affecting the trigger species and/or their habitats.

Agricultural expansion & intensification • Annual crops o – Shifting agriculture o – Small-holder farming o – Agro-industry farming • Perennial non-timber crops o – Small-holder plantations o – Agro-industry plantations

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 174

• Wood & pulp plantations o – Small-holder plantations o – Agro-industry plantations • Livestock farming & ranching o – Nomadic grazing o – Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming o – Agro-industry grazing, ranching or farming • Marine & freshwater aquaculture o – Subsistence/artisanal aquaculture o – Industrial aquaculture Residential & commercial development • Housing & urban areas • Commercial & industrial areas • Tourism & recreation areas Energy production & mining • Oil & gas drilling • Mining & quarrying • Renewable energy Transportation & service corridors • Roads & railroads • Utility & service lines • Shipping lanes • Flight paths Over-exploitation, persecution & control of species • Direct mortality of ‘trigger’ species o – hunting & trapping o – persecution/control • Indirect mortality (bycatch) of ‘trigger’ species o – hunting o – fishing • Habitat effects o – hunting & trapping o – gathering plants o – logging o – fishing & harvesting aquatic resources

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 175

Human intrusions & disturbance • Recreational activities • War, civil unrest & military exercises • Work & other activities Natural system modifications • Fire & fire suppression • Dams & water management/use • Other ecosystem modifications Invasive & other problematic species & genes • Invasive alien species • Problematic native species • Introduced genetic material Pollution • Domestic & urban waste water • Industrial & military effluents • Agricultural & forestry effluents & practices • Garbage & solid waste • Air-borne pollutants • Noise pollution • Thermal pollution • Light pollution Geological events • Volcanic eruptions • Earthquakes/tsunamis • Avalanches/landslides Climate change & severe weather • Habitat shifting & alteration • Drought • Temperature extremes • Storms & floods Other

Table 5: Scores for threat timing, scope and severity.

Timing of selected threat:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 176

3 Happening now 2 Likely in short term (within 4 years) 1 Likely in longer term (beyond 4 years) 0 Past (and unlikely to return) and no longer limiting Scope of selected threat: 3 Whole population / area (>90%) 2 Most of population / area (50–90%) 1 Some of population / area (10–49%) 0 Few individuals / small area (<10%) Severity of selected threat: 3 Rapid deterioration (>30% over 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is longer) 2 Moderate deterioration (10–30% over 10 years or 3 generations) 1 Slow deterioration (1–10% over 10 years or 3 generations) or large fluctuations 0 No or imperceptible deterioration (<1% over 10 years)

Table 6: Site-based vulnerability: Threat impact score = timing + scope + severity.

Impact score Site-based vulnerability 8-9 High 6-7 Medium 0-5 Low

Table 7: Matrix used to assign conservation priority scores to species-site combinations. The numbers in the table correspond to priority level, with 5 indicating highest priority.

Irreplaceability Species-based Site-based vulnerability vulnerability High Medium Low Extreme 5 5 5 High 5 5 5 Extreme Medium 4 3 2 Low 3 2 1 High Extreme 4 4 3 High 4 3 2

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 177

Medium 3 2 1 Low 2 1 1 Extreme 3 High 2 Medium Medium 1 Low 1 Extreme 2 High 1 Low Medium 1 Low 1

In our study we identified a KBA per a trigger species within Kazbegi District, Georgia. The KBA methodology described above is developed on a global scale using global species distributions and global IUCN criteria. For our study, we also applied it on a national scale using national IUCN criteria and species abundance categories relative to their national distributions. First we collected the list of those species whose distributions and abundance within and outside Kazbegi District, data were available on. Then, we checked to see if each of these species could trigger a KBA, and if it did, then we would assign conservation priority score using KBA-based GAP analysis. The KBA trigger species are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. Apart from species, we also incorporated cliffs where rare birds bred into our KBA-based GAP analysis. These cliffs provided nest and roost sites for Bearded Vulture (Gypaetus barbatus– nationally vulnerable), Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus– nationally vulnerable), Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus– globally endangered), Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos – nationally vulnerable). These areas scored 5 and 1 nationally and globally, respectively. The KBAs of the trigger species were overlaid and their conservation priority scores summed and converted to a scale of 0-1 to derive the final maps of global and national conservation priority scores for Kazbegi District.

Kazbegi District contains the endangered riparian forest predominated by Sea- buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) on the River Tergi, which is located at 1500-2000m asl, and provides food and cover for many passerines and small mammals, including threatened and restricted-range species. This is the only wintering habitat for Great Rosefinch (Carpodacus rubicilla) and Güldenstädt's Redstart (Phoenicurus erythrogaster), and the major stronghold of Corncrake (Crex crex). This habitat also provides cover for Otter (Lutra lutra). This habitat harbors the species that attract many tourists, thus contributing local economy. Other types of forests that grow on slopes are domi- nated by birch (Betula litwinowii), juniper (Juniperus spp) and pine (Pinus cochiana) trees. Forest cover in Kazbegi District is small (4% of the district) but harbors high diversity of species (incl. endemic ones), and provides timber and other building material, fuel, soil fertility as well as protection from landslides, avalanches, flash floods and sediment load. Forest cover is the basis for the existing Kazbegi Nature Reserve (IUCN

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 178 category I). Most of endemic plants found in Kazbegi District grow in forests and wetlands. Thus, we a priori assigned a top conservation priority to Sea-buckthorn cover, other forest types and wetlands without considering them in our KBA-based GAP analysis.

Table 8: KBA trigger mammal species and their conservation priority scores for Kazbegi District

Site Scale Capra Rupicapra Ursus Prometheomy Sicista conservation cylindricornis rupicapra arctos s kazbegica criteria schaposchnik owi

KBA qualification National Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Global Yes No No Yes Yes Irreplaceability National High Low Low High High score Global High Low Low Medium High

Species-based National Medium High High Medium High vulnerability score Global Low Low Low Low High

Threats in order at the site Hunting & Hunting & Hunting & Livestock Livestock of severity trapping trapping trapping farming & farming & ranching ranching Livestock Livestock Logging (Nomadic (Nomadic farming & farming & grazing) grazing) ranching ranching Livestock (Nomadic (Nomadic farming & grazing) grazing) ranching (Nomadic grazing) Timing of threat at the site 3 3 3 3 3 Scope of threat at the site 3 3 3 2 2 Severity of threat at the site 2 3 3 1 1 Site-based at the site High High High Low Low vulnerability conservation National 3 1 1 1 2 priority score Global 2 0 0 1 2

Table 9: KBA trigger bird species and their conservation priority scores for Kazbegi District

Site Scale Tetrao Tetraogallus Carpodacus Phoenicurus Crax conservation mlokosiewicz caucasicus rubicilla erythrogaste crex criteria i r

KBA National Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes qualification Global Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 179

Irreplaceability National High High Extreme Extreme Extreme score Global High High High High Medium

Species-based National Medium Low Medium Medium Low vulnerability score Global Low Low Low Low Low

Threats in order at the site Livestock (hunting & Logging Logging Logging of severity farming & trapping ranching Gathering Gathering Gatherin (Nomadic Livestock plants plants g plants grazing) farming & ranching Transportation Transportatio Transport Hunting & (Nomadic & service n & service ation & trapping grazing) corridors corridors service corridors Timing of threat at the site 3 3 3 3 3 Scope of threat at the site 2 1 2 2 2 Severity of at the site 2 0 3 3 3 threat Site-based at the site Medium Low High High High vulnerability conservation National 2 1 4 4 3 priority score Global 1 1 2 2 0

Fig. 1. Global conservation priority scores for Kazbegi District Fig. 2. National conservation priority scores for Kazbegi District Fig. 3. Agreement between global and national conservation priority scores for Kazbegi District Fig. 4. Planned hunting reserves (legendgame: Tur, Tur and Chamois)

Sources used Langhammer, P.F., Bakarr, M.I., Bennun, L.A., Brooks, T.M., Clay, R.P., Darwall, W., De Silva, N., Edgar, G., Eken, G., Fishpool, L., Fonseca, G.A.B., Foster, M.N., Knox, D.H., Matiku, P., Radford, E.A., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., and Tordoff, A. W. (2007) Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas: Tar- gets for Comprehensive Protected Area Systems. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Myers, N. 1983. A priority-ranking strategy for threatened species? The Environmental- ist 3: 97–120.

Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I. and Williams, P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism – key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 124–128.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 180

Annex 4.1:

Logframe

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 181

LOGFRAME

Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project - Logical Framework Matrix (draft FS version) Detailed specification Project Concept Consolidation of sustainable economic development and To establish and sustainably manage an extended Kazbegi National biodiversity conservation in the Kazbegi Park and ist support zone Overall Goal Stem further losses of regional biodiversity, at the same time Local Co-Management structures are established and support improved increase the incomes of poor rural households through the and effective nature conservation and economic development in Kazbegi sustainable utilization of natural resources District through capacity building and institutional strengthening Indicators for Overall goal Detailed description of the standards for the indicators 1 The National Park has achieved national and international recognition and the majority of Kazbegi people are of the opinion that the KNP has contributed to improvement of their livelihood.

2 Aggregated regional revenues from Tourism increased by 100% in 2015 through Co-Management 3 Access to all Kazbegi communities is possible throughout the year

4 The existing fauna and vegetation structure and biodiversity is safe guarded with the help of Co-Management 5 Sales of agricultural products from the region have increased by 75% at the of the project Assumptions for achieving the Overall goal R I Indicators (optional) 1 Political stability in the country 21 2 No mayor economic macro economic disturbances 2 3 3 Absence of mayor natural disasters in the project region 1 2 Objective / Purpose The Kazbegi National Park is well managed, sustainable and the support zone is economically strengthened Indicators for the Objective / Purpose Detailed description of the standards for the indicators 1 KNP Is sustainably funded and follows established business plans which are annually updated 2 Eco-Tourism is well established in the region and has achieved significant visibility on the national travel market by 2013 3 The support zone economy has grown by 50% in 2013 4 Community based initiatives (Arsha Women's' Association) take on ownership and exercise their empowerment. Assumptions for achieving the Objective / Purpose R I Indicators (optional) 1 Acceptance of protection and management plans within the local 21 communities 2 Participatory approach and co-management accepted as PA 22 management system 3 Local markets are not subject to political and economic 22 disturbance 4 Mutual understanding and trust between Government Institutions and local population is improved Risk classification (R) Possibility of interference (I): "1" or "l" = no/low risk "1" or "l" = no/low possibility of interference "2" or "m" = medium risk "2" or "m" = medium possibility of interference "3" o "h" = high risk "3" or "h" = high possibility of interference "4" or "vh" = very high risk/ risk case occured

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 182

Achievement Result / Output Area 1 Protected area regime is established and operational Indicator for Result / Output Area 1 Detailed description of the standards for the indicators 1 All KNP management staff in place and fullfilling their obligations by 2013 2 All Community Rangers undergo regular training by 2011 3 Poaching, illegal logging as well as illegal occupation of KNP land is reduced to not more than 10% of 2009 levels in 2013 Activity / Input for Result Area 1 1.1 Legal framework adjusted 1.2 Co-management strucutures (management board) established 1.3 Community ranger service established 1.4 Business plan for protection and support/transition zone elaborated 1.5 Management plan for protection and support/transition zone elaborated 1.6 NP administration strengthened 1.7 Relationship between APA and local population improved Assumptions for achieving the Result 1 1 Political will exists to establish co-management legal framework 2 Apropriate APA representation in Kazbegi 3 Participatory management process established and viable Result / Output Area 2 Eco-Tourism is established in the region Indicator for RA 2 Detailed description of the standards for the indicators 1 The number of tourist accommodations has tripled by 2014 as Kazbegi has achieved significant visibility on the national travel market compared to 2010 2 The number of tourist facilities has doubled (restaurants, shops, Established through development self monitoring travel related services) by 2014 as compared to 2010 3 The tourist info centre is established by 2011. 4 The regional tourist organisation has successfully carried out 3 national marketing campaigns 5 By the end of 2013, visitors to the region will pass the 200,000 mark Activity for RA 2 2.1 Quality of private guesthouse services improved 2.2 Mountain rescue and guide service established 2.3 Network of mountain huts and shelters improved 2.4 Marketing of tourism through branding of local products improved

Assumptions for achieving the Result 2 1 The population actively commits to tourism The local/regional administration actively support the tourism 2 sector and dedicates human and financial resources The regional tourism board receives active support from the 3 national organisation 4 Global tourism expenditure improves on 2010 levels 5 Region remains stable politically Result / Output Area 3 Livelyhood stabilization is supported Indicator for RA 3 Detailed description of the standards for the indicators 1 50% of the support zone small businesses report a constant The support zone economy has grown by 50% in 2013 growth in revenues by 2013 2 50% of the support zone agricultural businesses report a constant growth in revenues by 2013 3 Business and farmers' associations are in operation and are actively involved in the KNP - support zone communication process by 2012 Activity for RA 3 3.1 Fighting of brucella abortus is supported (QM) 3.2 Diary production is enhanced 3.3 Local beekeeping is improved 3.4 Wool processing is supported 3.5 Collection and marketing of cullinary herbs and medical plants is supported 3.6 Pilot project using biogas for greenhouses is established Assumptions for achieving the Result 3 The local/regional administration actively supports the development of the support zone economy with infrastructure 1 measures Local Population actively participates and takes in the formation of 2 farmers' and smal scale business associations 3 No downturn in the national economic development 4 Marketing on national level is supported by regional government

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 183

Result / Output Area 4 Regional development and stakeholder institutions are supported Indicator for RA 4 Detailed description of the standards for the indicators 1 CBOs operational in 3/4 of all target villages Regional based initiatives take on ownership and exercise their 2 25 Participatory community assessments of KNP acceptance at village level conducted 3 20 Community based initiatives implement joint activities with KNP

4 At least 50% of the private land owners have their land registration title. Activity for RA 4 4.1 Environmental awareness and project information campaign is conducted 4.2 Participatory and integrated spatial land use planning is implemented 4.3 Accessibility on roads during winter is improved 4.4 Regional waste management is improved 4.5 Village energy supply of Djuta village as model established 4.6 Sewage treatment in the region improved 4.7 Land title registration is supported 4.8 Community based hunting cooperative established Assumptions for achieving the Result 4 Land owners are aware of the need to have their land registered Regional/Local administration supports road accessibility and waste management with financial resources Local population contributes to infrastructure measures by providing man power for works Assumptions for achievement of activities RA 1.1: KNP staff is available to implement NP management and protection measures RA 1.2: KNP management follows established business plans which are annually updated RA 1.3: Sustainable funding of ranger service agreed, rangers and duties locally accepted RA 1.4:Communities and local farmer groups willing to join in business planning, Gudauri can be included in the business plan RA 1.5: Participation in planning and decision making achieved, plan not dictated by administration RA 1.6: Suitable facilities for administration housing made available RA 1.7: APA willing to approach communities and accept co-management and participatory approach RA 2.1: Private guest house owners willing to join and to contribute to quality standards agreed RA 2.2: Sufficient suitable local guides identified and willing to join RA 2.3: Maintainance of huts and shelters through villagers ensured, abuse as animal shelter effectively prevented RA 2.4: Sufficient producers willing to join in quality certification scheme RA 3.1: Farmers willing to join in the campaign and adhere to needed treatment, regulations and restrictions RA 3.2: Suffient number of farmers willing to join in production scheme RA 3.3: Beekeepers willing to adopt improved technologie RA 3.4: Woolproducers willing to join in production and processing scheme RA 3.5: Sufficient knowledge on collection and treatment for preservation of herbs and plants available, sources of wanted products suficient for sustainable RA 3.6: Pilot site identified, owner willing to join and contribute RA 4.1: Trainers and campaign wellcome by local population RA 4.2: Active and real participation in land use planning made possible by APA and responsible administration RA 4.3: Suitable stations for winter service identified and available RA 4.4: Communites and Sakrebulo willing to adopt proposed technology and methods RA 4.5: Maintainance of energy system ensured RA 4.6: Communites and Sakrebulo willing to adopt proposed technology and methods RA 4.7: Responsible administration willing to cooperate with project, registration regulations and laws valid and still applicable RA 4.8: Hunting Cooperation officially accepted by respective government institution

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 184

Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project - Logical Framework Matrix (draft FS v

Project Concept Overall Goal Indicators for Overall goal Consolidation of sustainable economic development Stem further losses of regional biodiversity, at the same The National Park has achieved national and biodiversity conservation in the Kazbegi time increase the incomes of poor rural households and international recognition and the through the sustainable utilization of natural resources majority of Kazbegi people are of the Aggregated regional revenues from Tourism increased by 100% in 2015 through Co-Management Sales of agricultural products from the region have increased by 75% at the of the project

Assumptions for achieving the Overall goal Political stability in the country No mayor economic macro economic disturbances Absence of mayor natural disasters in the project region

Objective / Purpose The Kazbegi National Park is well managed, Indicators for achieving the Objective / Purpose sustainable and the support zone is economically KNP Is sustainably funded and follows established business plans which are annually updated strengthened Eco-Tourism is well established in the region and has achieved significant visibility on the national travel The support zone economy has grown by 50% in 2013 Community based initiatives (Arsha Women's' Association) take on ownership and exercise their

Assumptions for achieving the Objective / Purpose Acceptance of protection and management plans within the local communities Participatory approach and co-management accepted as PA management system Local markets are not subject to political and economic disturbance Mutual understanding and trust between Government Institutions and local population is improved

Result / Output Area 1 Result / Output Area 2 Result / Output Area 3 Result / Output Area 4 Protected area regime is Eco-Tourism is established in Livelyhood stabilization is Regional development and established and operational the region supported stakeholder institutions are supported

Legal framework adjusted Quality of private guesthouse Fighting of brucella abortus Environmental awareness and services improved is supported (QM) project information campaign is 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 conducted

Co-management strucutures Mountain rescue and guide Diary production is enhanced Participatory and integrated (management board) service established 4.2 spatial land use planning is 1.2 established 2.2 3.2 implemented

Community ranger service Network of mountain huts Local beekeeping is Accessibility on roads during established and shelters improved improved 4.3 winter is improved

1.3 2.3 3.3

Business plan for protection Marketing of tourism through Wool processing is Regional waste management is and support/transition zone branding of local products supported improved elaborated improved 4.4 1.4 2.4 3.4

Management plan for Collection and marketing of Village energy supply of Djuta protection and cullinary herbs and medical village as model established 1.5 support/transition zone 3.5plants is supported 4.5 elaborated

NP administration Pilot project using biogas for Sewage treatment in the region strengthened greenhouses is established improved 1.6 4.6 3.6

Relationship between APA Land title registration is and local population supported 1.7 improved 4.7

Community based hunting cooperative established

4.8

Assumptions for achieving the Result 1 Political will exists to establish co-management legal framework Apropriate APA representation in Kazbegi Participatory management process established and viable Assumptions for achieving the Result 2 The population actively commits to tourism The local/regional administration actively support the tourism sector and dedicates human and financial resources The regional tourism board receives active support from the national organisation Global tourism expenditure improves on 2010 levels Assumptions for achieving the Result 3 The local/regional administration actively supports the development of the support zone economy with infrastructure measures Local Population actively participates and takes in the formation of farmers' and smal scale business associations No downturn in the national economic development Marketing on national level is supported by regional government Assumptions for achieving the Result 4 Land owners are aware of the need to have their land registered Regional/Local administration supports road accessibility and waste management with financial resources Local population contributes to infrastructure measures by providing man power for works

Assumptions for achievement of activities RA 1.1: KNP staff is available to implement NP management and protection measures RA 1.2: KNP management follows established business plans which are annually updated RA 1.3: Sustainable funding of ranger service agreed, rangers and duties locally accepted RA 1.4:Communities and local farmer groups willing to join in business planning, Gudauri can be included in the business plan RA 1.5: Participation in planning and decision making achieved, plan not dictated by administration RA 2.1: Private guest house owners willing to join and to contribute to quality standards agreed RA 2.2: Sufficient suitable local guides identified and willing to join RA 2.3: Maintainance of huts and shelters through villagers ensured, abuse as animal shelter effectively prevented RA 3.1: Farmers willing to join in the campaign and adhere to needed treatment, regulations and restrictions RA 3.5: Sufficient knowledge on collection and treatment for preservation of herbs and plants available, sources of wanted products suficient for sustainable utilization RA 3.6: Pilot site identified, owner willing to join and contribute RA 4.1: Trainers and campaign wellcome by local population RA 4.2: Active and real participation in land use planning made possible by APA and responsible administration RA 4.3: Suitable stations for winter service identified and available RA 4.4: Communites and Sakrebulo willing to adopt proposed technology and methods RA 4.5: Maintainance of energy system ensured RA 4.6: Communites and Sakrebulo willing to adopt proposed technology and methods RA 4.8: Hunting Cooperation officially accepted by respective government institution RA 4.8: Hunting Cooperation officially accepted by respective government institution

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 185

Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project - Logical Framework Matrix (draft FS version) Risk assessment

For grey highlighted parts assessment on this form Risk Possibility of interference no/low medium high very high no/low medium high

I. Risk and possibility of interference for Activity Achievement (a) through deviation in project implementation regarding - design xx - schedule xx - cost xx

(b) through deviation in the assumption RA 1 xx RA 2 xx RA 3 xx RA 4 x x

Risk and possibility of interference alltogether xx

II. Risk and possibility of interference for the project Objective / Purpose Achievement (through deviation at the assumptions)

Acceptance of protection and management plans within the local communities xx Participatory approach and co-management accepted as PA management system xx

Local markets are not subject to political and economic disturbance xx Mutual understanding and trust between Government Institutions and local population is improved xx

Risk and possibility of interference alltogether xx

III. Risk and possibility of interference for the Overall Goal (& Concept) Achievement (through deviation at the assumptions)

Political stability in the country xx

No mayor economic macro economic disturbances xx

Absence of mayor natural disasters in the project region x x

Risk and possibility of interference for the achievement of the overall goal of the FC Project x x

IV. Overall risk and possibility of interference x x

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 186

Annex 4.2:

Midterm Report: Quick-Start Measures and Priority Interventions

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 187

MIDTERM REPORT

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project

Table of Content

Priority Interventions...... 188 Information Campaign ...... 188 Management Plan, Business Plan and Support Zone Economic Development Plan for Kazbegi National Park...... 189

Quick Start Measures...... 194

Intervention 1: Assessing and combating Brucellosis in the target region...... 194

Intervention 2: Hydro-electric power plant (turbine) for Juta Village ...... 197

Intervention 3: Waste Management for the Kazbegi Planning Area ...... 198

Intervention 4: Tourism Development Initiatives...... 200

Conclusions ...... 202

Appendix A: Intervention 5: Land Title Registration)

Copies to Mr. Andreas Weitzel/ KfW [email protected] Mr. Günther Haase/ KfW [email protected] Mr. Felix Klauda/ KfW [email protected] Mr. Carsten Kilian/ KfW [email protected] Mr. Levan Tsitskishvili [email protected] Ms. Mariam Mrevlishvili/ APA [email protected] Ms. Tea Barbakadze/ APA [email protected] Mr. Mike Garforth/ TJS [email protected] Ms. Lali Tevzadze/ TJS [email protected] Mr. Götz Schürholz/ DFS Team Leader [email protected] Mr. Christian Schade/ DFS [email protected] Mr. Ralf Ludwig/ DFS [email protected] Ms. Bettina Kupper/ DFS [email protected] Mr. Harald Himsel/ AGEG [email protected] Ms. Beate Neumeyer/ AGEG [email protected]

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 188

1 Priority Interventiones Apart from the Quick Start Measures, which will be presented in the next chapter, the following project components are of high relevance for the success of the project implementation, hence these measures shall be implemented as early as possible in the project cycle.

1.1 Information Campaign i) Background and Problem Description. It is widely recognized that the lack of environmental awareness and adequate information regarding the need for biodiversity conservation measures in the target area is one of the most serious hurdles for the successful establishment of protected areas and establishment of a biosphere reserve. The majority of the local people strongly object to any type of protected area. The Kaz- begi Zapovednik, established in the early 1970s, had never been recognized nor respected by local people who consider the areas placed under protection --without their consent - as traditional land with all its respective user rights.

The conversion of the Kazbegi Zapovednik into a national park proceeded again without involvement and or/consent of the local people. This causes further alienation and opposition to the agency of protected areas (APA) imposing this new category without providing information on its nature or potential impacts on people’s grandfathered rights to the area.

In preparation of this study various preparatory missions from APA, TJS and individual consultants visited the area for pre-feasibility studies and fact finding missions. The different missions and experts could not manage to communicate homogenous and technically harmonized information on the future development of the protected area, thus creating confusion and concerns amongst the local population and authorities.

Against this background the team of the current feasibility study faced the formidable task to convince local people about the potential benefits of a protected area and/or a biosphere reserve. During the first weeks of the study much time was therefore spent on controlling the damage caused in the past through the lack of communication and local involvement.

Based on these observations and in order to counter-act and reduce the still wide- spread scepticism and antagonism towards any land use changes and/or establishment of a protected area/biosphere reserve in the planning area, it is absolutely essential to design a comprehensive awareness/information campaign. This campaign should be implemented at the onset of the project in support of the proposed participatory spatial land-use planning and participatory elaboration of the national park management- and complementary support zone economic development plan, or any other zoning requirements for the proposed BR. These are two important activities to be implemented in any case.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 189 ii) Rationale, Justification, Objectives. The rationale of the proposed intervention is to reach out to all communities in the target area providing well balanced information on the proposed project and the nature of and need for protected areas in preparation of the activities to be implemented by the project. In view of the wide-spread lack of knowledge on subject matters such as biodiversity conservation, protected area categories, the need to establish protected areas, user rights and potential benefits, sustainable development etc., the need for communication and information transfer is evident.

Although the overriding objective of the proposed campaign is clear, the best strategy to reach out to people and close the existing information gaps still needs to be decided. It is suggested to conduct a study addressing the specific approach and overall strategy of the information campaign, even before the start of the implementation phase. As the region faces a serious decline in population, this study has to take into consideration how migration (especially brain drain/ the loss of entrepreneur) and aging affects the future project activities and how the specific target groups can be represented and actively involved the information and participation process (e. g. composition and legitimation of support groups). iii) Expected Impacts and Benefits. The impacts resulting from the proposed information campaign are expected to be generally positive benefiting the project and all Kaz- begi citizens. A well informed public will be an essential prerequisite for the desired cooperation and the participatory planning- and decision making process characteristic to the approach taken by the project. iv) Risk Assessment. Identified risks are considered low mostly depending on the quality of design and delivery of the information campaign and the successful involvement of the proposed support groups. v) Implementation and Cost. It is suggested that the design and implementation of the campaign will be the responsibility of a suitable local NGO which also will identify community members from all villages in the target areas interested to serve as members of the support groups. The training of the support zone members will be carried out by project personnel jointly with the NGO charged with the campaign implementation. The timeline will be three months and continuing throughout the project.

The total cost including training of support groups, production of information material and implementation of the initial three months campaign is estimated at EUR 18,000.

1.2 Management Plan, Business Plan and Support Zone Economic Development Plan for Kazbegi National Park i) Background and Problem Description. In 1976 the “Strictly Protected Area” Kazbegi was created for the protection of the fragmented mountain forest scattered throughout

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 190 the Sno Valley and lower Tergi watershed encompassing a total area of 8,707 ha. In 2007 the Strictly Protected Area was converted into a “National Park”.

There is consensus agreement that the current National Park Kazbegi is in urgent need of a thorough revision. It is not functioning for numerous reasons. The most serious drawback is its high fragmentation with focus on the protection of remnant forest patches scattered throughout the area rendering effective protection impossible. Also the current area under protection insufficiently addresses the need to place high mountain grassland ecosystems under protection, at present significantly under-represented within Georgia’s protected area system.

The Park is headed by one Director assisted by a staff of twelve including one research and monitoring specialist, one tourism specialist, one chief ranger, one bookkeeper and seven rangers. The total lack of infrastructure and equipment, inadequate budget and extremely poor working conditions forcing park personnel to operate from personal homes, are responsible for a de-motivated staff. Thus the overall morale is considerably low.

It is apparent that the National Park in its current state does not meet any national and/or international standards. The park does not have any management plan and/or any meaningful work program. It is operating on a day-to-day, rather ad hoc basis without a perspective.

It is apparent that the park is in urgent need of a comprehensive management plan, a complementary business plan and a support zone economic development plan, to be elaborated in a participatory way, and involving key stakeholders in the panning and implementation process. Of critical importance is the participation of local people and resource users depending on the target area for their livelihood. Local ownership in conservation and sustainable land use programs are key to effective management of the target area and in achieving the overall goals focused on the consolidation of conservation and sustainable economic development.

The management plan will be guided by a long-term vision for the target area truly reflecting local interests embedded in the over-arching conservation and sustainable development objectives.

The purpose of the management plan and the complementary business plan is to assist the existing Kazbegi National Park to function effectively while reaching social, economic and environmental sustainability and to effectively manage and conserve natural resources in partnership with all key stakeholders.

The management plan would be complemented by a “business plan”. A business plan serves as vital tool for long-term financial planning and the preparation of annual work- plans. The financial spreadsheets as integral part of the business plan compare operational costs with revenues to-be generated to cover recurring costs.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 191

Following issues will have to be addressed by the management plan (which needs to be compatible with national and regional standards and guidelines) on a priority basis: • Which NP forest fragments to include and which to de-classify (exclude); • How to best expand the park in order to meet minimum critical size requirements, adequately address inclusion of sub-alpine and alpine grassland communities, and achieve one contiguous area facilitating meaningful demarcation and protection; • Identification of most suitable area to be included (preferably conflict-free areas of high biodiversity value and offering good tourism opportunities); • How best to accommodate grandfathered rights of local people; • How to achieve local participation and ownership; • Best governance model (empowering local stakeholders through co-management opportunities); • Establishment of a community ranger system in support of the national park, other conservation areas and environmental protection; • How to achieve financial sustainability.

The management planning process should be kick-started with a brain-storming multi- disciplinary stakeholder workshop. The workshop should be used as an event to highlight current and potential problems facing the area under consideration as well as to discuss actual and potential resource- and land-use options. This would be followed by the participatory elaboration of a practical zoning concept, the design of management prescriptions for each of the chosen use zone, the planning of specific use programs and the design of a practical and simple administrative structure for the park.

The proposed support zone economic development plan is indicative of the need to empower the poor rural communities neighbouring the park who are proposed to become active partners in planning and managing the park and other conservation units to be designated in the planning area. The support zone communities will be the primary beneficiaries of the proposed economic development and the goods and services provided by the designated conservation area.

This is the recommended approach to be chosen for the establishment of a well functioning and ecologically viable Kazbegi National Park. All communities sharing a common boundary with the park will become part of its support zone and active partners in the planning and management of the park and support zone. The park boundaries will be discussed with all communities and fine-tuned jointly with community members in an attempt to minimize potential use restrictions. ii) Rationale, Justification, Objectives. The rationale for the proposed management plan is to provide the basis for the effective management and protection of an ecologically viable conservation area meeting national and international standards of a national

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 192 park. The future expansion of the national park would place locally and globally endangered alpine grassland ecosystems under protection which currently is under- represented by Georgia’s protected area system.

The overriding objective of the proposed intervention is to achieve local ownership in sustainable conservation and land use management concepts through active involvement of local people as key stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the management plan and support zone development plan.

It is self-evident that a sound management plan is the most important prerequisite for the development of the Kazbegi National Park identifying its needs of personnel, infrastructure and equipment. The management plan is crucial for the sustainable financing and the justification of any investment in the existing park. It is therefore of cardinal importance to initiate the planning process as early as possible. The planning process should kick-start the project hand-in-hand with the proposed spatial integrated planning process.

The steps involved are summarized as follows: Step 1: Elaboration of a common vision for the target area at a multi-stakeholder kick-off workshop reflecting the long-term objective to be achieved for the target area. Step 2: Establishment of work groups at the workshop for topics and matters that need detailed participatory planning. Examples: traditional resource use inside the NP, boundary definition and demarcation, participatory management, support zone development etc. The work-groups will be composed mostly of support zone community representatives to be selected at the one-day kick-off workshop from workshop participants. Step 3: Elaboration of work-programs for the work-groups following the workshop. Step 4: Implementation of work programs by the work groups; 5 months time-line. Step 5: NP boundary definition involving local communities, to be ecologically sound and to be adjusted to socio-economic, cultural and legal framework conditions. Step 6: NP boundary survey and official gazettment. Step 7: NP zoning into administrative units. Step 8: Collaborative development of management programs: o Administration Program (organizational structure in accordance with identified personnel needs; definition of tasks, functions and responsibilities of staff positions). Human resources, accounting and bookkeeping, maintenance are part of this program. Defining administrative infrastructure and equipment needs. o Protection Program based on threat analysis and mitigation strategy. o Resource Use Program (covers all identified and permissible resource use opportunities in target area such as herder activity, haying, etc. o Tourism Program.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 193

o Research and Monitoring Program. o Public relations, Communication and Environmental Awareness Pro- gram. Step 9: Follow-up workshop with local stakeholders and work-groups in order to discuss work program results, identify information gaps and finalize data compilation and policy developments. Discussion of key issues not covered under zoning and/or management programs. : Step 10: Discussion of financial matters relevant to the proposed NP business plan. Step 11: Production of draft NP Management Plan Step 12: Circulation of Management Plan amongst stakeholders for comment. Step 13: Signing Management Plan by all work group members reflecting consensus by participating stakeholders. Step 14: Finalizing Management Plan and submission to Ministry for approval of the NP. Step 15: Elaboration of NP Business Plan. The Business Plan: o Describes all proposed activities, infrastructure and equipment needs identified in the management plan by management program; o Calculates the costs of the development process; o Organizes activities and development process chronologically; o Provides operational and investment spreadsheets for a five-year period or until all development/infrastructure needs are completed; o Proposes financial strategy on how to cover expected operational and development cost; o Provides recommendations on potential revenue generation and on how to cover financial budget shortfalls. iii) Expected Impacts and Benefits. All impacts are expected to be positive creating a win-win situation for all interested and involved parties and suggesting an exit strategy acceptable to all. iv) Risk Assessment. The main risk is related to the question of how to achieve local ownership in the recognition of protection needs in form of a national park. The risk is rated high and requiring a well focused and delivered information and public relations capmpaign beginning at the onset of the project. The approval procedure also constitutes a risk: Plan preparation without official approval is contra productive. APA needs to actively participate and guarantee an approval of the jointly prepared plan. v) Implementation and Cost. For the implementation the services of a very experienced expatriate protected area planner are needed to facilitate the planning process requiring one full calendar year. The total costs to produce the management-, business- and support zone plans are estimated at EUR 80,000 (all inclusive).

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 194

2 Quick Start Measures In accordance with the terms of reference focus of the mid-term report are the proposed quick-start measures of which several had been suggested by local stakeholders at the open workshop held in Stepandsminda on the 14th of October (see inception report of the 20th of October). Others were identified and verified during the (completed) community mobilization and profiling activity involving all 24 communities of the planning area (14th October to 7th November). The proposed interventions have been discussed repeatedly with local stakeholders and the Supervisory Committee of the trust-building measures (representatives of local communities elected at the October stakeholder workshop). The eight identified interventions of priority importance and suitable as quick-start measures were presented and discussed again at a local stakeholder meeting in Stepandsminda conducted on the 16th of November. At the meeting inter alia the eight proposed interventions were presented, rated and ranked by the stakeholders. For seven of the eight recognized priority interventions detailed profiles had been developed prior to the meeting and subject to the discussion (see below). The profile for the spatial integrated land use intervention will be annexed to the FS report. Due to the insurmountable division between the two factions of local people who either support or reject the proposed land registry of residential lots this intervention has been taken off the agenda. In this context, however, it is reiterated that a registered land title signifies financial empowerment and long-term security of a property owner, although this is not recognized by a group of residents. The selection criteria used for the quick-start measures are highlighted as follows: • Addressing a key problem/concern of local/regional significance; • Benefiting as many community members and households as possible with directly touchable and significant impacts (f.e. no planning documents as “result” of the quick start measures); • Quickly to implement, quick positive impacts, low risks • Being highly visible and appreciated (exposure) by community members; • Targeting specific age groups, being gender conscious and of community importance; • Being suitable for in-kind contributions; • Reflecting urgency of the problem to be resolved; • Relating to environmental issues and fitting into overall context of the project; • Being sustainable, especially regarding operation and management costs of the measures.

2.1 Intervention 1: Assessing and combating Brucellosis in the target region i) Background and Problem Description. The issue of bacterial brucellosis in the target area surfaced at the open stakeholder workshop in Stepantsminda. According to the only local veterinarian in the Kazbegi region brucellosis has been diagnosed as a

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 195 serious problem mostlly related to dairy cattle throughout the target area. When ques- tioned, local health officials confirmed the occurrence of the disease in their patients, indicating that the number of infected persons appears to be growing. The Chief medical physician of the Stepantsminda hospital estimates that up to 10% of the human population in the target area is infected.

Species infecting domestic livestock are Brucella melitensis (goats and sheep), B. suis (pigs) and B. abortus (cattle). Although not substantiated from the target area dogs may also be carriers being affected by the host-specific B. canis. The bacterium Brucella abortus is causing brucellosis in cattle. The bacteria are shed from an infected animal at or around the time of calving or abortion. Once exposed, the likelihood of an animal to be infected is varies, depending on age, pregnancy status, and other intrinsic factors of the animal, as well as the amount of bacteria to which the animal was exposed. The most common clinical signs of livestock infected with Brucella abortus are high incidences of abortions and arthritic joints. Males can also harbor the bacteria in their reproductive tracts, namely seminal vesicles and testicles.

Brucellosis, also called Bang's disease, Gibraltar-, or Malta fever is a highly contagious zoonosis. In humans it is usually associated with the consumption of unpasteurized milk, soft cheeses made from the milk of infected animals, ingestion of meat of infected animals, or close contact with their secretions. Brucella spp. are small, intracellular parasites that cause chronic disease, which usually persists for life. Symptoms include profuse sweating and joint and muscle pain. Brucellosis in humans causes inconstant fever, sweating, weakness, anaemia, headaches, depression and muscular and bodily pain. ii) Rationale, Justification, Objectives. The rationale of the proposed intervention is to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the problem of brucellosis in the target area and to effectively combat this highly contagious and dangerous disease affecting livestock and humans alike.

Since most families in the target area own livestock and depend on livestock (in particular dairy cows) and processed dairy products for their livelihood, it is obvious that the control and ultimate elimination of brucellosis as a highly contagious disease is of utmost importance to the human population and the economy of the district.

It is widely recognized that dairy products offer one of the best economic opportunities for subsistence farmers in the region. Successful marketing of value-added products however largely depends on the quality of raw materials being used. Against this background it is self-evident that animals potentially infected with brucellosis are unsuitable for human consumption, further reducing much needed income-generating opportunities. Combating brucellosis and other livestock diseases should therefore be seen as a very important step in improving the livelihood of the rural poor with focus on opportunities offered through (genetically) improved livestock quality, sustainable range man-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 196 agement, hay production, and centralized processing and marketing of value-added dairy and meat products.

Against this background the proposed intervention is timely, of urgency and necessary by providing the basis for a multi-pronged approach to the improvement of the local livestock industry as one of the most promising economic area.

The objectives of the proposed interventions are: • Sampling of all cattle in the target area including all 24 communities. One blood sample of each animal (cows only) is required to be tested for brucellosis. Each animal sampled has to be marked –tattoo or ear-tag; • Lab-testing blood samples in Tblissi (i.e., the only laboratory able to test for brucellosis); • Destroying all animals testing positive (meat of infected animals is usable if processed properly); • Vaccination of all cattle using winter range outside target area (calves born in winter are vaccinated on return to summer range and calves born in summer to be vaccinated before leaving for the winter range); annual vaccination is essential due to the short effective immunization span of the vaccine (8 months); • Replacing destroyed animals with yearling heifers from improved stocks (genetic selection); • Designing monitoring program and strategies aimed at control/eradication of brucellosis in cattle.

Due to the host-specific Brucellosis species and the extreme danger of person being infected from dairy products and daily contact with dairy cows, treatment will be con- fined to cows as the most critical source of infections. Eradication of Brucella melitensis (sheep and goats) would be close to impossible and will therefore not be considered at this stage. The occurrence of Brucellosis in sheep and subsequent infection by humans is statistically extremely rare and may therefore be neglected due to very high costs and low level of success because of the migratory pattern of sheep management. Al- though Brucellosis does occur in pigs, dogs and horses, it is practically unknown. Each Brucellosis species is host specific and inter-specific infection does therefore not occur.

Other actions proposed to be included in the Brucellosis control program involve: • Blood-testing of persons/families owning provenly infected livestock; • Sustainable treatment of infected persons. iii) Expected Impacts and Benefits. All socio-economic and ecological impacts resulting from the proposed interventions are expected to be positive benefiting all Kazbegi Dis- trict constituents.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 197 iv) Risk Assessment. Identified risks are: (a) re-infection of livestock through nomadic herds over-wintering outside target area (rated high); (b) financially and logistically unsustainable monitoring of all livestock in target area (rated high). v) Implementation and Cost. The implementation of the sampling and control program will proceed under the auspices of the district (privately practicing) veterinarian. The timeline of this intervention is estimated to be one year.

Total estimated cost including sampling, vaccination and follow-up is EUR 163,000.

2.2 Intervention 2: Hydro-electric power plant (turbine) for Juta Vil- lage i) Background and Problem Description. The Juta village is one of the smallest, most isolated and one of the poorest of the 24 villages of the planning area. Located in the upper reaches of the Sno Valley its only access road is frequently blocked by snow avalanches during the long winters and by earth slides from spring to fall, compounding its isolation and hardship. Slides and avalanches are also the most common cause of the frequent power outages plaguing the village and stifling the life of its people.

The Snotskali River, one of the main tributaries of the Tergi River, traverses the village as a powerful stream carrying a high volume of water throughout the year. The stream and the terrain it traverses offer an excellent opportunity for the construction of a small, low impact hydro-electric power plant that could generate sufficient electricity to supply the entire village with a surplus to be fed into the public grid. ii) Rationale, Justification, Objectives. The rationale for the proposed intervention is to supply the Juta village with an uninterrupted, reliable and low maintenance power supply system, at the same time reducing the economic burden of its residents by supplying power with a surplus to be generated that could be sold to the public grid. The installation of a small hydro electric power plant would be justified serving an entire community, being environmentally compatible, consistent with the overall objectives of the project under preparation, and contributing substantially to stabilizing and enhancing the livelihood of some of the poorest villagers in the study area.

Key objective of the proposed intervention is the construction of a low cost small scale hydro-electric power plant above the village, supplying power to each household via the existing distribution grid as an example demonstration for possible multiplication not only by the project.

A preliminary analysis shows that the amortization period of the proposed plant would be less than 10 years at the current price of electricity. In light of rapidly growing energy costs in Georgia, the growing interest in clean energy, the compatibility with the current project goals and objectives the capital investment for the proposed plant appears well justified.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 198

iii) Expected Impacts and Benefits. The expected ecological and environmental impacts from the installation of the turbine are considered insignificant. The socio-economic impacts would be positive resulting from a clean source of energy. All of the Juta families would substantially benefit from the free and contiguous energy supply. iv) Risk Assessment. No recognizable risks are associated with a low maintenance turbine and power distribution system. v) Implementation and Cost. The plant construction and operation would proceed under the auspices of the Juta village. In-kind labour for all construction work not requiring special skills would be provided by community members.

Estimated costs would be approximately EUR 54,000. The timeline for the construction and installation of the plant would be approximately two months.

2.3 Intervention 3: Waste Management for the Kazbegi Planning Area i) Background and Problem Description. The need for well executed waste management has been flagged by numerous studies and reports related to the Stepantsminda District and the current feasibility assessment as one of the key problems to be resolved on a priority basis. This applies in particular to the highly littered and unsightly central section of the Tergi River watershed paralleling the major through-road to Stepantsminda. At current the floodplain of the Tergi River and its tributaries are covered by garbage dumped uncontrolled by local people seemingly utterly oblivious of this problem.

Although the city of Stepantsminda has established a designated open garbage pit, the site is totally unsuitable and environmentally unacceptable being located dangerously close to the Tergi River. Since the site serves all waste disposal indiscriminately, toxic substances may also be part of the waste dumped at the site. Since there is no official garbage removal anywhere in the district, however, this only official open dump site enjoys little use.

At current none of the 24 villages of the planning area has an officially designated waste disposal site and there are no incentives of any kind to encourage people to deal with garbage disposal in an environmentally friendly manner. The level of environmental awareness appears to be low throughout the study area. Household waste separation and recycling are still unknown to local authorities and residents alike. Any- thing burnable is burned in kitchen stoves including toxic plastic, rubber and polyethyl- ene irrespective of toxic fumes and residues being generated causing a health hazard. It may not be an easy undertaking to change local people’s attitude, especially if full cooperation by local authorities cannot be secured.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 199

First steps in sensitizing people from Stepantsminda and selected communities such as Sno and Gergeti have been taken within the feasibility study, all related to trust- building measures originating from and implemented by target area communities. On the initiative of the locally very active NGO “Mountain House” two extremely offensive illegal dump sites in the center of Stepantsminda have meanwhile been cleaned up on a voluntary, citizen initiative basis, triggering the attention of the Stepantsminda Sacre- bulo and Gangebeli. In follow-up meetings district authorities appear now committed to look at the problem holistically.

The proposed intervention will start with a comprehensive information and awareness campaign on waste disposal and recycling issues involving every community of the target area. This will be followed by placing collection containers for recyclable plastics and domestic waste in every village to be collected periodically and taken to a recycling plant and respectively to a designated environmentally low impact and well tended garbage pit. ii) Rationale, Justification, Objectives. The rationale for this intervention is to encourage target area communities to implement organized and controlled garbage disposal system which at current does not exist. The task to effectively deal with this problem is expected to be challenging requiring the full cooperation of villagers and authorities of the Kazbegi District. The intervention also serves as example and test for self organization of the further expansion of waste management.

This initiative appears well justified in view of the frequently cited high tourism potential of the Kazbegi region. It is evident that in order to fully capitalize on the tourism potential the right framework conditions have to be created first. Favourable framework conditions for nature-based tourism (focus in Kazbegi region) include a clean and un- littered landscape and a population that is well sensitized to environmental protection.

The objectives of the proposed intervention are to: • Implement a comprehensive information and awareness campaign covering all target area villages and the city of Stepantsminda; • Involve all district schools in organized clean-up operations with focus on the Tergi River floodplain, in particular the section between Arsha and Stepants- minda; • Jointly with the Stepantsminda authority to identify and establish an environmentally low-impact designated waste deposit site to be used for organized domestic waste- and garbage disposal and to be open to the public for direct deliveries; • Jointly with the Stepantsminda authority to place mobile garbage containers in strategic locations throughout Stepantsminda and villages and arrange regular garbage removal to become a responsibility of the District Capital Stepantsminda; • Jointly with the Stepantsminda authority and a local NGO establish a well functioning plastic recycling system.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 200 iii) Expected Impacts and Benefits. The proposed awareness campaign, the recycling initiative and organized waste management are expected to provide highly positive environmental and socio-cultural impacts. People will be sensitized to the problems related to uncontrolled garbage disposal and toxic burning. A well organized and controlled waste management system complemented through a comprehensive clean-up operation of unsightly heavily littered sites will significantly contribute to establishing favourable framework conditions for the growing tourism industry in the Kazbegi region. iv) Risk Assessment. Identified risks include: (a) continued unwillingness at village level to cooperate (to be mitigated to a proper awareness campaign and proposing an attractive incentive system); (b) lack of suitable waste sites in the target area which is characterized by narrow valleys flanked by steep mountain slopes (a garbage pit may have to be excavated in a suitable location, to be regularly covered); (c) communities unwilling or unable to pay for centralized waste pick-up and disposal (to form part of the Stepnatsminda district budget and to be covered by property taxes). v) Implementation and Cost. It is suggested that the project will be implemented by the local NGO “Mountain House” jointly with the Stepantsminda. The costs for the 500 proposed garbage containers needed are going to be covered by the Stepantsminda budget. The selection and preparation of a suitable waste deposit site and related equipment for site tending should be carried by the project. The costs related to establish a well functioning waste management system (including initial clean-up operations and information/awareness campaign) amount to an estimated EUR 67,000.

2.4 Intervention 4: Tourism Development Initiatives i) Background and Description. The Kazbegi region is widely recognized as a potentially highly attractive tourism destination due to its strategic location along a major axis to Russia, its very scenic and diverse landscapes, high mountains, glaciers and deeply rooted traditional culture. The development of the tourism industry, however, is still in its infancy with literally no infrastructure- and only rudimentary services offered that are far from meeting international standards.

Organized and well-planned tourism development will be an integral part of the proposed NP management plan, the support zone economic development plan, and the regional integrated spatial land use plan the early creation of the right framework conditions should be started as early as possible.

Initiatives suitable as quick-start measures include capacity development described as follows: • Identification of households interested in Bed and Breakfast / accommodation; • Design and implementation of training module for existing and proposed B & B households;

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 201

• Design and implementation of training module for existing guesthouses in the target area; • Marketing and advertising of B & B places and guesthouses; • Design and implementation of training module for mountain guides; • Design and implementation of training module for product marketing with emphasis on cultural tourism, mountain climbing and glacier expeditions; i) Rationale, Justification, Objectives The rationale for tourism development is to capitalize on one of the most promising economic development opportunities offered by the Kazbegi District. Focus of tourism development would centre on the district’s communities in an effort to optimize and spread benefits to economically marginalized families. The target area is ideally suited as a single destination for summer tourism. Its excellent climate and attractive landscapes makes it particular attractive to tourists seeking a nature-based summer vacation spot in an attractive environment.

Central to the justification for the development of the tourism sector in the planning area is the economic opportunities offered through tourism to a currently economically marginalized region.

The objectives of the proposed intervention is to embark on a capacity development strategy as an essential part of creating the right framework conditions to the infrastructure and marketing of interventions to be designed in a participatory fashion jointly with local stakeholders.

Tourism opportunities offered by the Region are diversified and aimed at different age- and target groups ranging from nature lovers to active outdoors people and common vacationers seeking an attractive spot for their summer vacation.

Creating favourable framework conditions for specialized tourism include: • Acceptable standards for accommodation and services offered; • Clean and garbage free villages; • Acceptable hygienic conditions of communities offering B & B places and guesthouses (organized sewage disposal, sustainable clean potable water supply, restricted livestock movement inside villages, livestock watering sites outside villages, etc.).

Promoting private sector involvement and community-based tourism initiatives will be Key to the overall tourism development strategy. iii) Expected Impacts and Benefits: All socio-economic and ecological impacts are expected to be positive, pending the successful creation of the right framework conditions. Tourists will learn about local culture and conservation needs raising the level of environmental awareness and interest in the target area. Site-specific adverse impacts from tourism as may be caused through “crowding” are unlikely to occur and could eas-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 202 ily be prevented through enforcement of existing policies applying to ecologically sensi- tive sites. iv) Risk Assessment. There may be a risk in achieving acceptable standards for accommodation, service and catering while at the same time lacking financial resources to upgrade facilities. The first issue could easily be overcome, however, through proper capacity development. v) Implementation and Cost. The implementation of the proposed intervention will be delegated to a suitable NGO and the private sector. The total costs related to the proposed capacity development initiatives will be an estimated EUR 25,000.

2.5 Conclusions The following tables summarizes the proposed project components, which shall start as soon as possible and the quick-start measures.

Table 1: Summary Table of proposed Project Components

Priority Title of proposed Project Components Estimated Cost in EUR 1 Environmental information campaign and establishment of 18,000 support groups 2 Kazbegi national park management plan, business plan and 80,000 support zone economic development plan 3 Integrated spatial land use planning (profile to be provided by 37,000 final report)

The profile for the proposed Integrated Spatial Land Use Planning as one of the project components to be implemented as soon as possible will be included in the final report of the feasibility study.

Table 2: Summary Table of Proposed Quick-start Measures

Priority Title of Proposed Quick-Start Measure Estimated Cost in EUR 1 Assessing and combating Brucellosis 163,000 2 Hydro-electric power plant (turbine) for Juta Village 54,000 3 Waste management 67,000 4 Tourism development initiatives 25,000 TOTAL 444,000 5 Land title registration (removed from the list) 200,000

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 203

The quick-start measures are organized in decreasing order of priority as perceived by local stakeholders. All quick-start measures selected have been proposed on a priority basis by local stakeholders. All measures meet the qualifying parameters described in the introductory chapter of this mid-term report and all measure were discussed, ranked and re-confirmed (approved) by community representatives from throughout the study area except for the proposed land title registry perceived by one faction as interference.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 204

APPENDIX A:

INTERVENTION 5: LAND TITLE REGISTRATION (ELIMINATED DUE TO LOP-SIDED INTEREST AND SUPPORT - LACK OF CONSENSUS AGREEMENT ON NEED AND URGENCY) i) Background and Problem Description. The land privatization process started shortly after the country’s independence in 1992 when the National Agency of Public Registry (NAPR) under the Ministry of Justice was first created. In absence of a functioning system the real push for land privatization followed Georgia’s first land reform in 1998 with active promotion of private land ownership and land registration through the national cadastre.

Following a bilateral aid agreement with Germany, KfW launched a large scale project in support of NAPR in 2000 establishing central and regional land registry offices and assisting NAPR in setting up a functioning land registry system.

Meanwhile the system is totally centralized with its headquarters in Tblissi and all land title applications are directly linked to the central office. Land title applications can be performed either on-line, through regional land registry offices or directly at the central office. According to NAPR all current land titles are accessible on-line as of December 2009, the web-link being regularly updated.

In parallel to KfW’s efforts in setting up a functioning cadastre system USAID with assistance of the Georgian NGO APLR (Association for Protection of Landowners Rights) embarked on an ambitious land registration process (2000-2005) transferring more than 2 Mio ha of land into private ownership, free of charge. The land reform allowed for a country-wide average of 1.25 ha per family to be registered, doubling and tripling the allocation of land for families living in sparsely populated high mountain regions of Georgia where more land was available than in densely settled and fertile lowlands of the country.

The method employed for land surveys by USAID through APLR was simple and cheap, relying mostly on primitive tools such as tape-measures and simple surveyor equipment residential village land was registered by block with each block containing several individual residential lots. Block size ranged from 20 to 200 plots. In close cooperation with KfW most of the more valuable and fertile agricultural lands of Georgia were geo-referenced and registered in the national cadastre through the NGO APLR with financial assistance from USAID. Unfortunately the Kazbegi District had not been included although all 24 villages of the District had been covered by APLR’s house- to house survey and property assessment. The Kazbegi survey resulted in un-refined block measurements which still need to be geo-referenced.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 205

The APLR land survey in the Kazbegi District covered only residential property (family plots inside village bounds), excluding all common law traditional property characterizing most of the Kazbegi District and all mountain slopes surrounding the villages. Today only a fraction of private residential properties in the Kazbegi District have been registered in the national cadastre. An estimated 80% of the Kazbegi District families are still without a legal land title. ii) Rationale, Justification, Objectives. The land registry process involves a legal property survey to be performed by a registered private surveyor to be contracted by a family trying to obtain a legal land title. The survey costs average 4 GEL/square meter of land surveyed. Apart from the resulting property survey document, the land owner has to prove its ownership by either providing the document received by the Government during the land reform in 1998 (numerous families not living in the target are at the time or during the later APLR survey never received such documents), or by proof through grandfathered rights which may involve certified affidavits to be obtained through neighbours and reliable witnesses. Both documents have to be provided at the land registry’s office jointly with an official application form at the price of 50 GEL. The approval process takes on average 2-3 months, provided completeness and correctness of the application documents.

The majority of the rural families in the target area, in particular families living below or at poverty level are unable to afford the costs associated with the land registration process. This leaves them exposed to land speculators and depriving them of opportunities in accessing bank loans (unregistered land is not accepted as collateral) and/or to sell their land at fair market value.

Poor families unable to register their land due to the lack of funds and/or families not bothering about land titles because of sheer ignorance constitute a risk for any investment related to organized local socio-economic development. It is argued that official land titles are a critical prerequisite when considering assistance to be provided to the predominantly rural population of the target region.

The objective of this intervention is to assist families in the target area in obtaining legal land titles for their residential properties. It is suggested that this could best be achieved through the services of an NGO such as APLR with local experience, and intimate familiarity with KFW’s cadastral project and USAID’s land registration efforts. ii) Expected Impacts and Benefits. The proposed intervention would assist in providing needy families with land security, one of the most important aspects of subsistence livelihood. The benefits are self-evident. Land titles are accepted by banks as collateral for bank-loans and also qualify people to sell land at fair market value. iv) Risk Assessment. A recognized risk may be that some families may not be interested in assistance offered for land registration out of pure ignorance. In order to miti- gate this risk it is important to provide sound advicee and information to local communi-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 206 ties prior to embarking on a larger scale assistance program in support of land registration. v) Implementation and Cost. The intervention would best be implemented by the well established and locally respected NGO APLR. Assuming that up to 80% of the 1366 registered families of the Kazbegi District are still without land titles, the total cost of land registry amounts to an estimated EUR 200,000 (average residential plot size of 500 square metre).

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 207

Annex 4.3:

Recommendations on the Waste Management

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 208

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING SITUATION

In consequence of the existed problems it is necessary to carry out the following activities:

1. Waste collection and transportation hardware. Purchase of special containers (with capacity of 1,1 m3 or 1100 l) and placing them on target territory; purchase of container’s emptying mechanism having a dust-cart. Particularly, in compliance with calculations of waste arising and collection it is necessary to place about 40-42 containers over the Stephantsminda borough’s territory but in the bordering villages (Ger- geti, Archa, Achkhoti, Sno, Sioni, Garbani and Vardisubani) - 40-45 containers accordingly. In total, it is necessary to purchase 85 metallic containers. It is expectable that the containers will be filled up twice per week. For each container there should be sufficient to have one dust-cart. The dust-cart must provide to serve these works in the winter. For the conditions of plenty of snow and freezing weather it is desirable to purchase the high passability trucks. Besides, it is necessary to develop the route and time-table for dust-cart runs.

Costs: Each container costs 900 Lari, 85 containers. Total -76500 Lari or 31875 Euro. (If we will purchase the containers of domestic manufacture the price of each container comes to 650 Lari or 270 Euro)

Dust-cart ( for new) - 50000 Euro

It is necessary to place over the streets the litter-bins. Number of litter-bins - 40-50. Costs – 20 euro X 50 = 1000 Euro

2. Opening the plastic and glass drop-off center which will be equipped with plastic waste grinding machine. Outputs for grinding machine manufacturing come to approximately 2000 Euro. Training the drop-off center. personnel on mastering the practical skills for sorting the plastic waste.

3. Organization of new landfill for burying the waste on the place convenient for transportation and allowed by existed standards (the landfills cannot be placed along the river’s protected line. Particularly, the protected line of the Terek River covers 50 meters in compliance with Georgia’s Low on Water.). The landfill must be fenced and there is necessary to take stock of waste. For the existend and new landfills needs it is necessary to purchase the bulldozer-excavator. The bulldozer-excavator costs (for new) – 80000 Euro.

4. To provide the neutralization of old landfill. For that it is necessary to level the territory, deliver the ground which should be used for covering the territory, forbid to throw the rubbish in there, place the appropriate special plates with warning inscrip- tions. To the persons who infringe upon these requirements it is necessary to impose

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 209 sanctions. The Sakrebulo has to develop and validate the rules and conditions for sanctions.

5. Conducting the trainings for municipal members on waste management Euro- pean Union policy and waste reducing contemporary methods. For that it is necessary to conduct the training-seminar and publish the brochure on the appropriate issues. It is necessary to invite the expert for conducting the training who will prepare the brochure for publication. The brochure publication costs = 200 Euro

6. Beneficial use of biomass 6.1. Mounting the demontrating biogas equipment in one of the villages (1,5- 2,5 m3) The average cost comes to – 1300 Euro 6.2 Holding the training with the purposes of biogas equipment maintenance and use of obtained gas issues for those persons who will be consumer for this equipment. 6.3. Developing the special informational sheet on exploitation rules for this equipment and distribution of them among habitants.

7. In order to raise the ecological awareness it is necessary to carry out the following activities:

7.1. Informational campaign. • To publish the booklets on environmental protection issues and distribute them among population. There should be described in the booklet why is so important to protect environment, what kind of damage is causing to the environment as result of human activities, how to protect our environment, description of Kazbegi region environment etc. The booklet’s circulation – 1000 copies. Colored printing. A4 format. Costs: 180 Euro • To publish the booklets on waste management contemporary methods and distribute them among population. There should be described in the booklet the meaning of waste recycling and reuse, how to use the waste with benefit, what is a policy of European Union relative to waste etc. The booklet’s circulation – 1000 copies. Colored printing. A4 format. Costs: 180 Euro • To prepare and print the informational sheets on organization of waste collection on the target territory, more particularly, on serving the placed containers, routes and time-tables for taking away the waste. The informational sheets will be distributed among population. Circulation – 1000 copies Colored printing. A4 format Black-white printing. Costs: 50 Euro

7.2. Ecological educational program for pupils There is envisaged: • to conduct cycle of lessons on ecological bases for primary grades in regional schools. The cycle consists of 4 lessons. The lessons themes are: what is an environment, animate nature and abiocoen, feeding chain, influence of human being on the environment and how to protect our environment: there will be con-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 210

ducted the training-seminars on ecological education issues, prepared 1 or volunteers for each school who then will conduct the cycle of lessons in their schools on ecological bases. There will be prepared and published the coloring drawing- book on environmental issues wherein will be described the appropriate themes of lessons. Also there will be printed the drawings to be colored and exercises. The drawing-book’s format – A4 (Album), number of pages – 16, circulation – 1000 copies; • to prepare and publish the booklet for children on “How to protect our environment” wherein will be described why is necessary to protect the environment, how can teenagers do their bit to environmental protection, how to reduce arising the waste in families and schools etc. The booklet’s circulation – 1000 copies. Colored printing. A4 format. The booklets will be distributed among pupils. Costs – 180 Euro • Organization of art contest and exhibition for nursery drawings on environmental themes. The contest will be organized in every school to reveal the best drawings and then to organize the exhibition of them. Authors will be awarded with certifi- cates.

7.3. Organization of sanitation actions involving the population. It is necessary to establish in the region special days for sanitation actions. During these actions there will be cleaned up the territories of borough and bordering villages, closed the illegal landfills.

8. In order to upgrade the motivation of local non-governmental organizations and increase their role in environmental protection it is necessary to hold the following:

8.1. the training-seminar on environmental and waste management issues. In particular on issues such as; urgency of environmental protection and results of anthropogenic impacts; environmental legislation of Georgia and international conventions; European Union policy in waste management issues; waste management new schemes.

8.2. The training-seminar on strategic planning issues of environmental protection. The training’s topics are: identification of problems, defining the goals and objectives, developing the action plans, ranking the actions, developing the indices etc.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 211

Annex 4.4:

Recommendations on the Tourism Sector Development

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 212

RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TOURISM SECTOR DEVELOPEMENT

Investment propositions (combination of grant/ loan/ self-contribution). Success of rural tourism development in the pure low income region can not be guaranteed only by capacity building measures. Beside of the intensive capacity building trainings, the successful local communities and individuals will require financial assistance to foster existing family businesses or begin new start-up entrepreneurship. Experience shows, that economic type of projects fully financed by donors grants might fail at the moment when donor leaves the project. To insure sustainability, local beneficiaries have to invest in-kind works or minimal cash contribution to prove commitment, develop business skills and increase creditability. The amount of contributions (grant/loan/self-contribution) depends on investment object, financial capacity of beneficiaries and project budget itself. Below, Consultant proposed type of grants & loans combination and required in-kind contributions per facilities presented in the following table:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 213

Table 1: Types of investment proposals Proposals Applicant Description Recomm Investme Donor Self- beneficiary end nt: contr. annual Grant/loa Cash/ Budget in n in-kind *1000 GEL 1). Guest Individual Extend bed 30 grant 40% 60% house with entreprene capacity of private capacity of 4 ur house by loan 0% double constructing 100% rooms. additional rooms and toilets up to 8 double rooms. 2). Mountain NGO - Provide mountain 25 Grant 90% 10% guide & national guiding and rescue rescue alpine services. Organize service association proff. trainings, rescue operations, design and operate marked trails, sports events. 3). Mountain NGO - Establish and 50 grant 80% 20% huts & national operate network of camps alpine mountain huts/ network association camps in the most visited trails. (5 huts) 4). Catering Individual Small café, dining 20 grant 50% 50% business Entreprene room, restaurant, ur fast food 5). Local NGO or Ltd Package tours and 20 grant 50% 50% travel local services for operator visitors, promote region, cooperate with visitors services. 6). Crafts Private, Production and 15 grant 50% 50% shop enterprise realization of start-up entertainme traditional hand- investme nt crafts, organize nt festival events

Proposal 1: Establishing of mountain rescue and guide service; Background/justification: Kazbegi region is the paradise for trekkers, mountaineers, climbers, skiers and other active sports lovers. The adventure activities became more and more popular amongst the youth and the number of visitors-backpackers will significantly increased during upcoming years. The proper establishment of NP and BR and increase of its popularity the summer tourists’ number should be doubled during the next 3-5 yours. Increase of visitors’ number, will result increase of travel risks, therefore will require proper establishment of local mountain rescue and guiding services.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 214

Objective: Project-proposal objective is establishing of local mountain rescue & guide services. The rescue & guide team should be small, but well trained and organized team of trained mountaineers compose of maximum of 12 persons, including team leader and coordinator. The core of team should be local and based in the region, pref- erable in the center of region and close to the most popular mountain destination – Mt.Kazbegi. Team should have a proper office, communication tools, rescue equipment, primarily first aid units, transport.

Expected results: The rescue team will oversee climbing/mountaineering/trekking groups’ activities and establish proper registration system. This will make possible to monitor and in case of need react on emergency request to identify or evacuate victims of accidents. The rescue team members will be trained in mountain guiding by professional mountain guides. Obtained skills will help them to establish best guiding practices.

Project costs: The project requires annual budget for initial instalment, insurance and annual operation costs. Total first year annual budget - 35,000 GEL. The project length recommended is 3 years with gradually diminishing annual budget in order to reach sustainability and long term operations. Total 3 years recommended budget – 70,000 GEL.

Proposal 2: Network of mountain huts & shelters; Background/justification: trekking and climbing is a primary attraction activities for international and domestic tourists. Currently, there are five major areas popular for trekking and climbing in the region: Trusso valley, Sno Valley, Juta and Chaukhi, Mt.Kazbegi trail, Khada gorge. It is easy to forecast that the number of visitors will be increased in upcoming years, especially when the BR/NP will be established. The development of network of mountain shelters and huts will establish simple accommodation facilities for overnight visitors and at the same time regulate environmental impact from visitors, simple by fixing guarded camp grounds in the specific locations.

Objective: facilitate increase of visitors’ number to the most attractive areas, establish common accommodation and environmental standards, conduct monitoring of trails. It is proposed to construct (or maintain existing one) 5 mountain huts/camps in the specific most visited locations – one per each trails. The huts should have similar accommodation conditions, camp ground, environmental standards and management regulations. They should be connected and corporate management should be in place.

Expected results: The “network of kazbegi huts” will help visitors to travel with more comfort and safety, will increase number of visitors, provide small earnings to the hut services, which will remains at the local community, help to set-up environmental monitoring system with support of Hut attendants, increase safety and in case of rescue

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 215 operations will provide appropriate bases for rescuers, help to extend the tourist season.

Project costs: Budget includes start-up investment to make design of huts, define place/location land tenure, procure construction materials and works, purchase camp- ground equipment, conduct training of hut attendants, set-up management team and cover operation costs.

Total estimated budget: GEL 50.000 (per each hut – GEL 10.000).

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 216

Annex 4.5:

Other Proposed Interventions

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 217

OTHER PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS

5.1.1.1 Legal framework adjusted Option 1: Biosphere Reserve: Taking account of the wide range of issues and objectives incorporated into the UNESCO’ concept of Biosphere Reserves, and following a comprehensive analysis of the current legal framework which is presented in Annex 1.11, it is recommended that a Framework Law on Biosphere Reserves is adopted by the Georgian Parliament. Such framework law would have a higher potential to accommodate trans-sector cooperation and stakeholder participation, as needed for sound BR development. Annex 1.11 lists the key issues to be addressed in this new law.

Beyond this, the FS Team agrees that: “all legislation regulating related issues would of course continue to apply and would retain its importance in the Biosphere Reserve, in particular in the outer transition area. Such issues include: agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishing, fauna and flora, protected areas, spatial planning and building, energy, traffic and communication infrastructure, economic development, environmental protection and use of water. All such sector legislation will be necessary for an optimum Bio- sphere Reserve development” (TJS 2009).

If a framework law is indeed established, the Law on the System of Protected Areas (1996) will also need to be amended, basically by removing provisions related to BRs. The MEPNR would then also be responsible for arranging the review of the draft Bio- sphere Reserve legislation by different Ministries and for consideration in a session of the Georgian Government before submitting it to the Georgian Parliament.

After an appropriate legal framework for establishing BRs compatible with the UNESCO concept is in place, each BR can be established by adopting a law on establishing that specific BR (see Annex 1.11 for details). The President of Georgia would be responsible for approving management plans/ development program for Biosphere Reserves after they are developed and agreed by all stakeholders. The President could establish a working group and assign the responsibility to the MEPRN to lead the participative process for preparing the management plan.

Option 2: Strengthening Existing National Park and Establishing Support Zone In several cases around the world, local communities and indigenous people of hinterland regions have negotiated self-government agreements with national governments that specify rights for use and self-management of important resources. But even in cases of negotiated self-government and comprehensive land claims, communities are embedded within broader legal institutions, creating a need for community rights that secures access to resources and systems that provide for cross-scale communication and accountability. In cases where communities share use of commons with other communities and there are potential issues of resource scarcity, there is a need to establish vertical (across levels of organization) and horizontal (across the same

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 218 level) linkages of resource governance among resource user communities, state agencies, and others. These arrangements fall within the rubric of co-management, defined as the sharing of power and responsibility in decision-making between state governments and communities in the functions of resource management (and conservation). Co-management functions may range from law enforcement and habitat protection, resource use management and monitoring, impact assessment, policy making, operational planning and budgeting. When implemented with a focus on learning-by- doing, these arrangements are referred to as adaptive co-management.7

Formal and informal co-management has proven critical in the development of strategies that support livelihoods and conservation initiatives, contributing to social learning and social–ecological resilience at local and regional scales. Examples of successful co-management arrangements related to conservation and sustainable land/ resource use exist although experience shows that co-management systems may not be easy to implement, even without the stresses of social–ecological change.

Because state governments are reluctant to give up authority in resource management to communities and national interests typically take precedence over local interests, communities involved in co-management may have to be creative and fully engaged to be heard in highly charged political processes as typical for the Kazbegi target area.

By signing the CBD, Georgia committed to “Develop mechanisms, guidelines and legislation to promote the effective participation of indigenous and local communities in decision-making, policy planning and development and implementation of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including access and benefit-sharing and the designation and management of PAs, taking into account the ecosystem approach” (CBD Decision V/16, 3 and CBD Decision V/16, Annex). Though, Georgia’s current Law on Protected Areas does not explicitly permit official co-management agreements involving community representatives on decision-making bodies. The current Law allows for “consultation” of local stakeholders only, although a precedence appears to have been set in Georgia for the Mtirala National Park which currently appears to be very successfully co-managed by community stakeholders and park authority.

It is argued that proper functioning and viability of the Kazbegi National Park may only be achieved through local ownership, to be achieved through empowerment of local stakeholders. Co-management that involves local community representatives in the decision-making processes related to conservation and overall resources use will be a crucial prerequisite to success. This requires legal changes to the existing Georgian frame law that currently is under review. It therefore is strongly recommended that the Law under review addresses inter alia the full range of Governance options for protected areas, permitting APA the flexibility to adopt management structures and authority most appropriate for a specific situation.

7 Nigel Dudley and Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, 2005. A tool to help selecting the appropriate IUCN categories and governance types for protected areas.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 219

4.7.1.2 Co-Management Structures established

Option 1: Biosphere Reserve The recommended administrative structure of BRs in Georgia that is presented below would meet the requirements for UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, while taking into account the specific institutional setup and the responsible authorities in Georgia. This structure is largely based on the model proposed by TJS (2009). The arrangements include a BR Administration, Coordination Council (or “BR Management Board”), a Scientific Advisory Board and a consultative regional Biosphere Reserve Forum.

It is suggested that the BR Administration function of the entire BR be given to the appropriate “Territorial Administration” of the APA. The BR administration would be subordinated to the APA. In this case, the statutory document of the Agency of Pro- tected Areas and the Typical Statute on Territorial Administrations may need to be amended to take into account the new functions of this agency and its subordinated Territorial Administrations.

The FS Team agrees that: “Assignment of the administration functions to territorial administrations would not mean that other already existing institutions will need to give up responsibilities. Communal or municipal authorities will keep on playing their important roles. Farmers will keep on managing their farmland, businessmen will keep on running their businesses. But they should all find support and assistance from the Biosphere Reserve administration to help them to develop and implement ideas that will contribute to the success of the Biosphere Reserve”. (TJS, 2009). Detailed tasks of the BR Administration are listed in DFS (2009).

It is further recommended that Biosphere Reserve Coordination Councils are established to allow the requested involvement and participation of all stakeholders, including local populations, in Biosphere Reserve development. In accordance with the setup laid out by TJS (2009), the BR Coordination Councils could act as a “Board of Directors or representation mechanisms to coordinate activities of all actors involved each within their own mandate and competence” (TJS 2009). The agencies that would need to be represented in the Coordination Councils are listed in Annex 1.11. This Council should provide a permanent structure for involvement of all stakeholders and coordination of actions and measures towards a sustainable development of the Biosphere Reserve. In addition, “the Biosphere Reserve administration should service the Council as secretariat preparing and inviting for meetings, providing minutes of meetings” (TJS 2009). Detailed tasks of the BR Coordination Councils are listed in DFS (2009).

A Biosphere Reserve Forum should be established at each BR, as an instrument to provide involvement of the entire local population and other interested sides. This forum should have more of a consultative rather than a decision making character. “The Biosphere Reserve Forum should be an offer to everybody in the Biosphere Reserve to get involved” (TJS 2009). In view of the importance given to science by the UNESCO

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 220 concept of Biosphere Reserves, and in analogy to the setup established for Georgian PAs, establishment of a Scientific Advisory Board could also be considered for each Biosphere Reserve. The Scientific Advisory Board should strongly involve the MAB National Committee, as far as warranted by that Committee’s capacity. Details regarding the Boards are discussed in Annex 1.11.

Legal establishment of the proposed institutional set-up: The status, tasks, authorities, functions and financing of BR Administrations would be established by the framework law on Biosphere Reserves or a specific law on establishment of a particular BR. MEPRN would be authorized to appoint Administrations and provide adequate financing. APA would submit the staff composition of the administration to the Minister for approval.

Objectives, tasks, authorities, and functions of the Coordination Council would be established by framework BR law or specific law on the establishment of particular BRs. BR Coordination Councils, which must have a broader representation and mandate than Scientific Advisory Boards have for their PA, should be established/approved for each particular BR by an authority higher than the Minister of Environment – e.g. the President of Georgia. However, a problem with this approach is that membership of the Council will need to be re-approved regularly, because of staff turn-over in the institutions involved. To avoid this problem, the law establishing specific BRs could also establish the institutional composition of the Council and then the APA or the MEPNR would ask respective institutions to nominate their representatives in the Council.

After a specific BR is legally established, APA should prepare a draft list of Scientific Advisory Board members and the MEPNR should approve this list, as it is current practice with PAs. Objectives and functions of such Scientific Advisory Board in relation to BRs should be established by the framework law on BRs.

The BR Forum’s meetings should be organized periodically (e.g. once a year), or whenever there is a need to consult with the wider stakeholder constituency of the BR, by the BR Administration, in cooperation with the administration of the municipality or municipalities concerned. Local people and NGOs should be invited to the forum, and there should be public announcements in addition. The composition of the forum would not need a formal approval. Objectives and functions of such Fora, as well as the responsibilities of the BR Administration to support their work, should be established by the framework law on BRs.

Additional details on the institutional setup for BRs in Georgia are given in Annex 1.11 and in TJS (2009).

5.1.1.2 Co-Management Structures established Option 2: Strengthening Existing National Park and Establishing Support Zone Proposed Co-Management Structure for Kazbegi Park

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 221

IUCN has identified the following four main governance types for NP: Type A: Protected areas with decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability in the hands of national (or sub-national) government. Type B: Co-managed protected areas (several social actors share decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability). Type C: Private protected areas (land and resource owners hold decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability). Type D: Community conserved areas (indigenous peoples or local-settled or mobile- communities hold decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability)

For this feasibility study the matrix-based method by Dudley and Borrini-Feyerabend8 which has been adopted by IUCN as an accepted tool to determine the most appropriate form of governance for a national park, has been employed. This method is based on a complex set of questions organized by theme blocks aimed at finding the most suitable approach for any particular site (see Annex 4.6). The matrix used for the analysis of framework conditions addresses a wide array of subjects such as traditional and actual land tenure and use, natural resource dependency by local people, attitudes towards authority and central Government, local acceptance of Government rules and regulations, sustainability of protected areas with or without local involvement, and many more.

Selecting the appropriate IUCN categories and governance types for protected areas

IUCN Adopted Method (by Nigel Dudley and Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, 2005) to help selecting the appropriate IUCN categories and governance types for protected areas.

The overall rating system of this matrix approach is based on questions which are grouped as follows.

Questions dealing with the issues of Land tenure, history, rights and equity: • Relevant resources and land owned by the state • State ownership has existed for a long time (more than 100 years) • State ownership has being strongly and repeatedly challenged by a substantial proportion of the population • Resources and land are privately owned • Private ownership has existed for a long time (more than 100 years)

8 Nigel Dudley and Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, 2005. A tool to help selecting the appropriate IUCN categories and governance types for protected areas.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 222

• The private ownership has been strongly and repeatedly challenged • Resources and land are under some form of community legal ownership or customary • ownership (possibly un-recognized by the government) • All concerned parties are reasonably in agreement about the protected area establishment and management issues • There are strong disagreements and conflicts about the protected area establishment and/or specific management issues involving a substantial number of stakeholders • Some parties mostly benefit from the protected area, while others consider themselves as net losers • The relevant resources and land are under some form of functioning customary management system

Questions dealing with issues related to People-Nature Interaction: • People historically present • People historically absent • Mostly negative with respect to desired biodiversity conservation • Mixed results with respect to desired biodiversity • Very positive results with respect to desired biodiversity • Mostly positive with respect to desired biodiversity

Questions dealing with issues related to Social values (livelihoods, economic etc.): • Area providing environmental services to one or more specific communities (water, soil, climate) • Area not providing environmental services • Area at the basis of economic livelihood of local communities • Area providing extractive socio-economic values for the local communities • Area providing non-extractive socio-economic values (e.g. tourism revenues) • Area providing few or no socio-economic values for the local communities

Questions dealing with issues related to Traditional Occupancy: • Area comprising traditional settlement/migration routes • Area empty of traditional settlements/migration routes

Questions dealing with issues related to Sacred and cultural Values: • Area with sacred or culturally valuable sites that are not regularly visited or appreciated • Area with sacred or culturally valuable sites that are regularly visited

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 223

• Areas without sacred or culturally valuable sites

Questions dealing with issues related to Relation to cultural Identity: • Area crucial for the cultural identity of a country (national patrimony) • Area crucial for the cultural identity of one or more indigenous people (indigenous patrimony) • Area crucial for the cultural identity of one or more local communities (community patrimony) • Area crucial for the cultural identity of one or more families (family patrimony)

Questions dealing with issues related to Integration in the landscape/ seascape • Area well integrated in the surrounding landscape/ seascape (absence of incom- patible surrounding • land uses) • Area poorly integrated in the surrounding landscape/ seascape (presence of in- compatible surrounding land uses) • Area forming a unit of its own (e.g. an island)

Questions dealing with issues related to Interest in management Strong interest amongst many stakeholder groups • Strong interest only among a minority of stakeholders • Interest in management • Generally low level of interest in management amongst stakeholder groups

As rightly pointed out by the authors of this method, the choice of management approaches or governance types is seldom a simple black and white decision which is reflected by the matrix approach; rather than leading to one single answer it shows which categories and governance types are likely to be the most successful in any particular situation. After answering all questions, the validated ticks and crosses for each governance type are summed up and filled into a score sheet. The sum totals provide an indication of the one or more governance types that appear as the most appropriate for the protected area tested.

Applied to the framework conditions related to the proposed Kazbegi National Park as the category of best choice, the results of this very comprehensive analysis clearly favour a governance model based on co-management of the park with strong representation of community stakeholders. (see chapter 5.2).

Against this background the study team recommends the establishment of a Kazbegi National Park and Support Zone Management Board to be composed of: • The Kazbegi National Park (KNP) Director (permanent non-voting member) • One additional KNP staff member (permanent non-voting member)

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 224

• One representative of the Governor’s Office • One representative of the Ministry of Agriculture; • One representative of the Sacrebulo; • One representatives of the local NGO Forum, • Six representatives of the 25 Support Zone communities (one representative per Sacrebulo except for Stepantsminda with 2 representatives due to its large size).

The KNP staff, a representative of the Governor’s Office, Ministry of Agriculture, and Sacrebulo, would be permanent members of the Management Board. All other members are elected by their constituents. The community representatives are elected by ballot with candidates proposed by the following five Sacrebulos of the Planning Area: Goritsikhe, Kobi-Gudauri, Sioni, Sno and Stepantsminda.

Key functions and responsibilities of the KNP Management Board would be inter alia to approve the annual operational plan and budget of the KNP, to intervene and resolve all conflicts arising between the KNP and the local population, to co-decide on the selection and employment of key KNP positions, to oversee the implementation of the support zone economic development plan, to request expert advise on all issues which cannot be resolved by the Board, to catalyse all applications for development activities in the support zone and request professionally conducted environmental impact assessments as required.

The administrative structure of the Kazbegi National Park would remain a line-staff administration which allows for easy expansion and/ or staff reduction as needed. Pro- gram Chiefs would operate on the same administrative level and have equal reporting lines (Chief of protection, Chief of administration, Chief of tourism, Chief of research and monitoring, and Chief environmental education and awareness). Depending on the work volume of a Program, additional positions can be added or removed as required, still maintaining clear reporting lines and responsibilities.

The KNP administration would operate under the supervision of the KNP Management Board and the Ministry of Environment. The KNP would continue to be fully responsible for the day-to-day activities of the KNP and its overall protection and management in accordance with the Management Plan, Business Plan and Annual Operational Plans.

It is proposed that the Management Board elects its Chairperson (majority vote) for a three-year period from amongst the elected Board Members. The Chairperson of the Management Board will announce dates for re-election of Board Members well in ad- vance. It will be the responsibility of the Chair to: • Arrange and implement four Board meetings annually; • Prepare and elaborate the agenda for each meeting to be distributed amongst Board Members one week prior to each meeting; • Chair the Board meetings.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 225

Emergency Board meetings can be called by the Board Chair or his/ her representative at any time if required. An appropriate Charter for the Board needs to be elaborated in accordance with Georgian Law.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 226

1 Specific livelihood stabilization initiatives aimed at the improvement of living standards of the rural families mostly living of subsistence agriculture (livestock included)

1.1 Dairy Sector Rationale, Justification, Objectives. Cheese and oil from milk (Erbo) production has a longstanding history in the Kazbegi region. Erbo is used instead of sunflower oil, and is a famous product from Khazbegi. Especially cheese is known for its taste and qualitiy beyond Kazbegi. Via informal sales channels, cheese is sold in Tbilisi. However, there are no coordinated efforts to streamline and properly organize the marketing and sales of cheese and other dairy products such as yoghurt and butter. The rationale for this sub-component is to provide the basis for a local rural industry focused on manufacturing dairy products and enhancing the income of the rural population through their sales and marketing. This is the more so important since dairy farming is mainly in the hands of women. Quality controlled cheese manufacturing could result in a highly rated product with excellent returns if properly marketed. The principal objective of this sub- component would be to establish a central dairy products manufacturing operation in Stephantsminda thus enhancing the livelihood of participating families. A dairy farmers’ association will be established serving as facilitator of training and point of liaison for the National Park Management. Furthermore, the dairy farmers’ association will provide marketing and sales assistance for farmers and institute a forum for discussion and exchange of information.

Background and Description. Presently, most cattle farmers produce cheese mainly for their own consumption and for a limited local sale. According to the survey of the FS, there are 4221 heads of cattle in Kazbegi (3,481 permanent). Sioni, Garbani, Sno and Stephantsminda are the centres of the dairy industry. A pre-requisite condition for the production and sale of dairy products are brucellosis-free cattle, quality control, product consistency and sustainability, hygiene and professional packaging and processing. The dairy industry is mainly in the hands of women.

This project component will build on locally available know-how. A specific breeding programme would be established focused on the improvement of the local Georgian Highland Cattle enhancing the milk production quantity. Simmertaler cattle, anyhow already a genetic component of the Georgian Highland Cattle, could be interbred in order to provide positive results faster. The interventions would foresee the establishment of a central dairy products manufacturing operation in Stephantsminda. The milk would be collected at the farm gate wherever possible. The dairy operations will include processing, storage, packaging and testing facilities. At present, the annual output of milk is estimated at roughly 1.0 Mio kg milk (2,000 lactating cows at 500kg milk production per cow and year, fat content 4.3 to 4.6%)9. According to farmers, about 20% of

9 Porter, Valerie: Cattle. A Handbook to the Breeds of the World, London 2007

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 227 the milk production may be used for cheese/dairy production. Since for the production of 1 kg cheese 10 kg milk are needed, the present cheese production can be estimated at 20,000 kg10.

The diary sector can be viable if proper sales and marketing are established, the cattle disease-free (especially brucellosis), and the growing demand met with quality products. The input required for the sub-component consists of training, equipment and infrastructure investment (milk collection, transport to markets in Tbilisi). Training requirements will focus on aspects of breeding, feeding (two cut system for hay-making, silage fodder) as well as on topics such as simple bookkeeping, product quality management and monitoring. A suitable location for the operations could be Stephants- mainda. This would also be the location for the office of the dairy farmers’ association.

Expected Impacts and Benefits. The impacts would be positive by creating jobs and improving household income for dairy farmers, in particular for women.

Risk Assessment. The risk of failing due to bad quality of dairy products is rated “medium high” when considering the actual brucellosis situation. In order to reduce the risk it is crucial to implement a brucellosis eradication programme followed by adher- ence to strict rules of hygiene in the production process, to produce an outstanding quality product, and implement a well designed marketing campaign. The monitoring and quality control of dairy products will be one of the main tasks of the dairy farmers’ association.

Implementation and Cost. This project component would proceed under the guidance and supervision of the Dairy Farmers’ Association established under this plan. The Association would be responsible for the training needs, the establishment of the cheese producer groups, equipment purchase and supervision of creating the corresponding facilities, advertisement, product marketing and all financial matters. Products should be marketed under the Kazbegi Logo benefiting from the already established informal brand image for products from the region. Potential outlets for the cheese products would be the Kazbegi Shop in Tbilisi and Supermarkets. The proceeds would be split between producers with a percentage kept for operating expenses and wages of full-time employees. All equipment, furnishing and building(s) will become the property of the Dairy Farmers’ Association.

1.2 Beekeeping Rationale, Justification, Objectives. Apiculture has always been a part of agriculture in the Kazbegi region. 23 households in 10 of the 25 communities are keeping bees. The honey produced mostly for personal use. Presently, there is only one beekeeper in Kanobi with a commercial viable production (100 colonies). The overall objective of this sub-component is to improve the technical standard of beekeeping, to increase the

10 This figure could not be independently verified.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 228 production of honey per colony, to produce and market other hive products such as wax, propolis, pollen und bees venom, and to organize the sale and marketing of bee products. The establishment of a beekeepers’ association will be supported in order to facilitate technical transfer through training and to coordinate processing and marketing. Veterinarians should receive specific training in bee diseases.

Background and Description. The beekeeping sub-component will provide assistance to existing and future beekeepers in order to increase honey production per colony and broaden the base of bee products. This will be done through training in modern beekeeping techniques, improved marketing and sales channels as well as a specific veterinary information and training programmes. The level of beekeeping is rather basic. The numbers of colonies are rather increased by catching swarms than by controlled breeding. Training in modern beekeeping is therefore essential in order to further ad- vance beekeeping in the region. Since no reliable information was available on bee diseases, veterinarians must be informed and trained in detecting such diseases, in particular American Foulbrood and Varoatosis.

A Kazbegi beekeeper association would become the facilitator and coordinator of the relevant activities, in particular the organisation of training sessions, the establishment of sales channels, and the creation of new bee products. Technical transfer and capacity development are critical activities of this sub-component. Training would include among others: • Basic bee-keeping • Equipment and beehives • Honey production and processing • Other bee products • Basic ecosystem ecology • Disease prevention, hygiene, diagnosis, control and disease treatment • Marketing and sales channels.

Key functions of the beekeepers association would be tool- and equipment maintenance and rental to members, product storage and processing, and product marketing. Required infrastructure would include: • Meeting room and office • Extracting equipment • Room for product processing and labelling • Storage for equipment • Storage for products.

Expected Impacts and Benefits. Expected ecological impacts would be positive. More bees, more bee colonies would provide better pollination. The socio-economic benefits are expected to be very high. A relatively low input would result in an increased produc-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 229 tion of honey and other bee products such as beeswax, pollen, propolis, and bees venom. Furthermore, all technical equipment can be produced locally. Therefore, beekeeping induces a cascade-effect where other small businesses and craftsmen would benefit from respective investments.

Risk Assessment. Recognized risks are: (a) spread of diseases since no assessment of the disease situation has been made recently rated “high”; (b) problems associated with the establishment of a beekeepers’ association due to non-interest on the beekeepers’ side rated “medium”; and (c) problems in marketing large quantities of honey, rated “medium”.

Risks related to the introduction of contagious disease can be mitigated through training of veterinarians, regular monitoring and disease eradication programmes. The beekeepers’ association would be central in coordinating the monitoring.

Implementation and Cost. Funds are needed for (a) support and technical advisory services, (b) purchase of extracting equipment as well as equipment for other bee products (all equipment manufactured locally), and (c) for the functioning of the beekeepers’ association. Revenues from equipment rental, centralized sales and marketing would finance the operational costs of the association. Related costs are specified in the draft budget.

1.3 Niche Products 1.3.1 Wool Processing Rationale, Justification, Objectives. Wool Processing is gender-specific providing especially women with an opportunity to get involved in an economically viable business of long-standing tradition in Georgia and provide a higher return to families involved in sheep breeding. ii) Background and Description. Following its independence, the Sheep industry in Kazbegi collapsed due to the loss of the winter pasture, which was located in Russia. There are less than 15,000 sheep now in Kazbegi. It is not the intention of the project to re-vive the Kazbegi sheep industry since the availability of adequate winter pasture is limited. Given this uncertainty, it seems reasonable to start in concert with the Arsha women’s association a small wool processing operation and to tailor traditional clothes. Training in wool spinning and production, basic marketing, and bookkeeping are required. The facilities required accommodating the wool processing would encompass space to wash, dry, spin and store the wool.

Expected Impacts and Benefits. Although it is difficult to quantify the economic impacts of the proposed project component it may safely be assumed that the overall impacts would be positive. The Arsha Women’s Association would train young women in traditional clothes tailoring thus providing new business opportunities.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 230

Risk Assessment. The main risk is related to the absorption potential of the market for such products. A proper marketing campaign integrated into the overall regional marketing efforts is needed. As the success of this intervention depends to a large extent on the overall development of the region the risks associated with the sub-component is rated “medium to high”.

Implementation and Cost. The proposed intervention will be implemented under guidance of the Arsha Women’s Association. Potential outlets for products could be the proposed Kazbegi Shop in Tbilisi as well as small businesses catering to the tourism industry. The revenues from products sold would also serve to cover the costs for operating expenses of the facilities. All equipment, furnishing and building would become the property of the Arsha Women’s Association.

1.3.2 Medicinal Plants and Wild Herbs Rationale, Justification, Objectives. One of the suggestions of the FS is the commercial use of herbs, medicinal and edible plants traditionally collected in the target area from the wild for household use only. Due to the high value and popularity of some of the plants it is recommended to establish a cottage industry on a trial basis in an attempt to determine the market potential for processed products. The overriding objective is to contribute to the household income of families with interest in this trial. More specifically, to provide women with additional employment opportunities, make use of traditional knowledge on native plant values, and utilize a product growing in the wild for free.

Background and Description. The following plants have been identified as the most promising for potential commercial use: • Seabuckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) is a dioecious shrub with separate male and female plants. It is wide-spread in the region, in particular along river beds and on hill slopes. The female plants carries orange berries (6–9 mm in diame- ter). They are soft and juicy. The seeds are rich in oils. The berries are used to make juices, while the pulp and the seeds are not used. Seabuckthorn is an important component of traditional medicine. Sea-buckthorn juice is said to have potential anti-carcinogenic activity11. • Caraway (Carum carvi) is a biennial plant wide-spread in the region. It is used as a kitchen herb, in several Georgian dishes such as ‚Khinkali’ and ‚Shila’, and for medicinal purposes • Broadleaf garlic (Allium nigrum) is another common species, a member of the Alliaceae family. It is used for cooking.

11 Teng BS, Lu YH, Wang ZT, Tao XY, Wei DZ (Sep 2006). "In vitro anti-tumor activity of isorhamnetin isolated from Hippophae rhamnoides L. against BEL-7402 cells". Pharmacol Res. 54 (3): 186–94.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 231

• Thyme (Thymus vulgaris), a common plant which is used as kitchen herbs or for medicinal purposes such as lowering the risk for several diseases of the heart, the cardiovascular system, the eyes and cancer12. • Bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) is a low-growing shrubs of the Ericaceae family with edible fruits. The fruits are linked with several medicinal uses, including

It is planned to establish a small facility for processing a specific number of selected plant species of presumably high market value and popularity found in the wild and also easy to grow in house gardens. The processing facility will be located in a community showing specific interest in participating in this trial.

Expected Impacts and Benefits. No negative ecological impacts are expected since the species targeted for use are common and can easily withstand harvesting on a larger scale without ecological footprint. The expected socio-economic impacts are positive, favouring women employment and contributing to household income.

Risk Assessment. The highest risk will be establishing a market for the products. Rated “high”, it will not be of significant consequences should the intervention fail, due to the relatively low capital investment involved to establish a small processing facility on a trial basis.

Implementation and Cost. This project component would proceed under the guidance and supervision of the Niche Products Association. The Association would be responsible for the training, the establishment of the small processing facility, equipment purchase and supervision of plant material processing, conserving, packaging, advertisement, and product marketing as well as all financial matters. Products should be marketed under the Kazbegi Logo. Potential outlets for the products would be the Kazbegi Shop in Tbilisi, local distributors and – as a long-term goal - possibly the international market. Revenues would be split between producers with a certain percentage kept by the Association Niche Products for operating expenses. All equipment and furnishing will be the property of the Niche Products Association.

1.3.3 Greenhouses and Regenerative Energy Rationale, Justification, Objectives. As established by the FS commercial use of greenhouses as done previously is no longer viable. While in former times, gas for heating the greenhouses was ‘free’ because illegal connections, nowadays the costs for heating greenhouses eclipse by far the revenues from such operations. Of the 580 greenhouses once in use, none is in production presently. All of them are in a dilapidated stage and would need considerable investment to be refurbished. Traditionally agricultural products grown on greenhouses were tomatoes, pepper, cucumber and other vegetables. However, if regenerative energy could fill the gap, some of those greenhouses could be brought back into production. This would give farmers the opportunity

12 Roy S, Khanna S, Alessio HM, et al. (September 2002). "Anti-angiogenic property of edible berries". Free Radical Research 36 (9): 1023–31

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 232 to grow special herbs/vegetables outside the usual growing season, which would allow them to ask for a higher price. This in term would not only further contribute to the household income of the rural population but also lower the dependency on just a few agricultural products..

Background and Description. Presently, there are hardly any vegetables grown outside the normal growing season. Based on findings and observations of the FS, a pilot trial with greenhouses heated by regenerative energy sources be launched. The energy requirements for a small greenhouse are about the same as for a house of 100 qm. For a respective biogas installation, the size of the digester size would be 3,5 m3. The sales and marketing of the vegetables would be supported by the Niche Products As- sociation.

Expected Impacts and Benefits. No negative ecological impacts are expected. The expected socio-economic impacts are positive, favouring women employment and contributing to household income.

Risk Assessment. The highest risk will be the reliability of the energy supply solution through biogas. The investment for the installation is relatively high when compared with other interventions. Risks must therefore be rated “high”. Since immediate and real life experience with biogas in the Kazbegi region are not available, a pilot should be established to further explore the possibilities and provide a basis for a decision whether to broaden the scope of this sub-component or not.

Implementation and Cost. This project component would proceed under the guidance and supervision of the Niche Products Association. Interested greenhouse owners will be asked to participate in an biogas facility pilot. They would have to agree to refurbish- ing their greenhouses in a way that they are energy-efficient. The Niche Products As- sociation would be responsible for the training, the monitoring of the pilot and the re- cording of the results pilot phase. The sale and marketing of special herbs/ vegetables would be through the niche products association.

2 Community enhancement and regional initiatives 2.1 Avalanche and Land Slide Control Rationale, Justification, Objectives. Avalanches are very common natural disasters in Kazbegi. They endanger villages and people. The communication and transport infras- tucture of the region is very often interrupted in winter times. Traffic to and from the villages is blocked. The same holds true for land slides. Villages such as Djuta are regularly cut off for months from the outside world. These villages suffer greatly during winter. It is not only the possible destruction caused by avalanches and land slides but also the lack of physical access to and from the respective village. There is only one repair-prone caterpillar based at district level available to clear roads. This leads to villages located at the end of the valleys having to wait months for road clearance pro-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 233 vided the fact that the caterpillar does not break down. It is the objective of the intervention to assist the villages in clearing their part of the roads on their own. Avalanche control such as terrain modification (protective walls etc.) is beyond the scope of the proposed project. Snow modification (voluntary releasing avalanches) may be considered. However, it would not solve the overarching problem of villages cut off the outside for months.

Background and Description. According to the Caucasus Environment Outlook 200213, avalanches are particularly typical in highlands of the Kazbegi region, which are classified as avalanche-prone. Avalanches occur in Kazbegi frequently (risk rate in the high mountain areas 75 – 80%). The avalanche danger period may last up to six to eight months14. While it does not seem possible for the proposed project to equip the endangered villages with new caterpillars, the principal thought of assisting the villagers to help themselves in clearing the roads is proper way to go. It is therefore suggested to purchase 8 – 10 small tractors with snow-ploughing equipment. These tractors will be stationed in the affected villages. The tractors should also be able to carry mowing and earth moving equipment.

Expected Impacts and Benefits. The expected impact is rather obvious. Villagers would be placed into the position to help themselves instead of waiting for the district caterpillar which might take months. Open roads are a pre-requisite for the economic development of villages in the higher altitudes, which already suffer from limited access. In addition, in emergencies (accidents, sickness) the villagers depend on open roads if they want to quickly reach a doctor or take the patient/victim to the hospital in Stephantsminda.

Risks Assessment. The risk associated with the intervention is rated ‘medium to low’. The villagers can maintain the equipment. The costs for maintenance can be borne by the villagers as well. Only in case of large scale avalanches, outside help might be needed.

Implementation and Cost. The proposed intervention would require the purchase of 8 – 10 small tractors with snow-ploughing and earth-moving equipment. In addition, the tractors should equipped with mowers.

13 Caucasus Environment Outlook (CEO) 2002, GRID Tbilisi, Georgia 2002 14 dto.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 234

Annex 5.1:

Project Executive Agency (MEPNR) and Project Implementation Agency (APA)

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 235

Project Executive Agency (MEPNR) and Project Implementation Agency (APA) Present Situation

Mission and task: The Agency’s core mission is: (a) to manage protected areas of IUCN Categories I -IV, and other PAs in cooperation with other institutions; (b) maintaining and supervising PAs; (c) PA system and capacity development planning, and (d) the development of plans, draft laws and guidelines related to PAs. There are some additional functions, such as the monitoring of rules established by the law, the planning and development of new protected areas, their popularization and the development of ecotourism, as well as the planning and arrangement of protected area infrastructure. The mandate of the APA is laid down in the Statute of the Agency of Protected Areas (2008).

Organisation Chart of APA The Agency for Protected Areas (APA) is part of the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Natural Resources (MEPNR). In legal status of APA is a legal entity of public law of Georgia, established in 2008. The position of APA in the MEPNR is indicated to be under the supervision of one of the 4 Deputy Ministers.

The structure of APA itself is outlined in the Organisation Chart below. The administration and implementation of activities in the protected areas are under the responsibility of individual PA administrations.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 236

Capacity of APA APA manages independently all protected areas in Georgia. These are according to the data provided by the World Database on Protected Areas, in Georgia there are 3 National Parks(52 149 ha), 22 Nature Reserves (216 027 ha), 4 Nature Sanctuaries or Partial Reserves (4 436 ha), and 5 Hunting Reserves (41 743 ha), in total 314 335 ha. According to the Convention of Biodiversity WebSite covering the protected areas in Georgia cover total of 467 329 ha of national territory and is split among the following types: 18 Nature Reserves (171 727 ha), 5 National Parks (211 067 ha), 3 Natural Monuments (239 ha), 11 Managed Reserves (56,393ha) and 1 protected Landscape (27,903ha). Since both sites rely on the data provided by the country the difference indicates the need on consolidation of data and reporting.

Staff capacities in project management The APA central office currently consists of 7 divisions with 34 staff. The APA is financed from the State budget (with increasing contributions over the last few years), donations, and to a lesser degree from revenues originating from PAs. It has recently developed a national PA System Development Strategy and Action Plan - in cooperation with IUCN POSC - which aims at an overall increased capacity of the national PA system.

Some overlap and unclear situations with other legislation, the lack of implementing legislation, the limited institutional memory of APA and missing specialist qualifications (e.g. management planning) constrain this capacity development.

Technical Capacities The technical capacities of APA headquarters concentrate on the legal and administration field with about 60 % of the officers having an educational background as lawyer of business economics expert. Less than 20 % of the staff is specialist in biology or ecology and planners for land and resources management are very rare with only one officer having a background on that subject. The educational background of managing field staff in the protected areas concentrates on technical engineering, forestry and timber industries and economics. Very few are having a background in ecology and none in tourism development and land and resources planning. A total of 8 positions in APA headquarters are presently vacant, 3 of them are division heads and with two vacancies out of five positions in the planning service division and two vacancies out of 3 in the juridical services, these sectors are understaffed.

Field of Expertise Staff in APA HQ PA Directors Law, Business Administration and Economics 14 58 % 5 28 % Forestry, timber industry 1 4 % 6 33 % Technical engineering 5 28 % Biology and Ecology 4 17 % 1 6 % Politics and Communication 3 13 % 1 6 % Tourism Management 1 4 % Landscape planning, Resources management 1 4 %

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 237

planning Table : Staff of Agency for Protected Areas

The capacity of the Kazbegi NP Administration to fulfil its mission is extremely limited. There are 12 staff, nine of which are rangers with a monthly salary of GEL 300. Kazbegi NP does not have a separate budget but is financed from the APA budget (30,000 Gel/annum with no funds available for operations). The physical infrastructure of the administration is extremely limited and in poor condition (e.g. only one car, no computers, no ranger uniforms). The park boundaries are not demarcated and no tourism- related infrastructure exists.

Special rights and situations As a legal entity of public law, the APA is entitled to conduct certain economic activities and to collect the revenue of these activities for re-investment in PA system development. One of the sources of such revenues has been ecotourism, and the APA has been actively promoting ecotourism in Georgian PAs.

Present Annual Budget of APA According to the Economic Department and State Treasury Records is the budget of APA constantly remaining at about 3.5 million Lari within the last 3 years.

Year Budget Amount Currency 2010 3,461,000 Georgian Lari 2009 3,892,000 Georgian Lari 2008 3,589,600 Georgian Lari

Structural Analysis The administration of APA, as is probably true for most government agencies in Georgia, is strictly centralised and following a hierarchical structure. Decisions are made on the highest level, at least for the formal procedures. Delegation of responsibility is in most Georgian Government Institutions not exercised, delegation remains on the level of tasks, responsibility and power of signature remains with the head of agencies. The example of approval for field trips of agency officers demonstrates well the centralization and decision making structure in APA and confirms the delegation arrangements.

According to the General Administrative Code of Georgia, Articles 51 and 52, the basis for the field trip approval is the Act by the chairman of the Agency. An officer planning to go on a field trip, writes a memo to the Chairman of the Agency. The memo is approved by a direct supervisor and is then indorsed to the chairman for approval. Upon approval it is forwarded to the administrative department where the decree is issued. This is forwarded to the economic department for reimbursement of the per diems and other expenses.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 238

Example: According to the administrative department’s decree record book Mr. Lasha Moistsrapishili, Deputy Head of the Agency who is in charge of all the administrative territorial units has been sent to the field trips for 56 times in 2009, requiring the chairman of the agency to read an approve at least 56 administrative documents.

Analysis of Interests Analysing the interest of APA in the context of the envisaged Kazbegi project requires a closer look at the different actors and groups of actors in the project context. The actors, users and responsible government agencies in the region with regards to management of land and natural resources are quite diverse. The government agencies are by nature all connected and formally follow the central government policy on land management and resources use and protection. As supervising agencies they are sharing a strong feeling for need of control of users of land and resources, since they are to ensure its continued existence. Their goal is an improved and complete protection of the resource and land under a strong central institution. Regarding regional development it is to be noted that income from NP-Tourism may be used directly by APA (legal situation als LEPL would allow that) to improve institutions financing.

Analysis of Power The complex situation of establishing a regional system of protection with different categories of area protection and area management involves a number of government agencies, which have in a local representation to exercise their power of control and supervision on the lowest level (see graph below). All organisations may block a project with a diverse approach through narrow interpretation and application of their internal rules. Involvement of all responsible government agencies in decision making processes and establishment of principles and procedures for communication and participation in the project implementation will be needed to incorporate all in a shared responsibility for the project progress and success.

Graph : Actors and Government Agencies in the project area

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 239

Risk Analysis The diverse responsibilities for managing the different area types and resources in the project area (as indicated in the graph above) it will be necessary to maintain good communication lines and communication and decision making procedures for the implementation of a complex project involving different users and different administrations. Here is room for capacity building and improvement, since communication and decision making procedure in centralised government is usually a one direction communication. Depending on good communication and arrangements for decision making procedures, the project may succeed or fail. This diversity constitutes the major risk for the project regarding organisation and implementation arrangements.

Protected Areas

Administration of Algheti National Park

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Vacant

Administration of Chachuna Managed Nature Reserve

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Nodar Teteloshvili Indrustial expert in the science of commodities

Administration of Liakhvi Strict Nature Reserve

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Vladimer lafachi Forester Technician

Administration of Kazbegi National Park

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Otar Tsamalaidze Rural economy speciality of timber industry

Administration of Ajameti Managed Nature Reserve

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 240

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Gocha Gibradze Technological- engeneer

Administration of Kintrishi Protected Areas

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Amiran Khinikadze Engineer of timber industry

Administration of Mariamjvari Strict Nature Reserve

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Zurab Gotsadze Automation of electric equipment and industrial instruments

Administration of Katsoburi Managed Nature Reserve

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Aleqsandre kacharava Economist

Administration of Gardabani Managed Nature Reserve

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director DaviT Maghradze Lawyer

Administration of Tbilisi National Park

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Davit Jibladze Timber industry

Administration of Sataplia Strict Nature Reserve

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Zaal Kvantaliani Biomedical ecology

Administration of Mtirala National Park

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Davit Khomeriki Engeneer of communication

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 241

Administration of Lagodekhi Protected Areas

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Zurab Rekhviashvili Economist

Administration of Batsara-Babaneuri Protected Areas

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Vakhtang Giunaidze Civil-engeneer

Administration of Tusheti Protected Areas

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Anzor Gogotidze Economist

Administration of Borjomi-KharagauliNational Park

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Toma Dekanoidze Timber industry

Administration of Kolkheti National Park

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Zurab Jibladze hydrotechnician

Administration of Kobuleti Protected Areas

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Revaz Moistsrafishvili Mechanization of rural economy, engeneer- technician

Administration of Vashlovani Protected Areas

# Held post name, surname education 1 Director Merab Firosmanishvili Lawyer

Proved by the 02.01.2008 order #5a/1 $2 of the Chairman of the Agency of Protected Areas

Central apparatus of the Agency

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 242

Post name Name, Surname Education 1 Chairman of the Agency Giorgi Shonvadze Lawyer, economist 2 Deputy Head Lasha Moistsrafishvili Lawyer, economist 3 Deputy Head Mariam Mrevlishvili International relations, Political Science 4 Assistant of Chairman Sofio Tsulukidze Administration of business

Development Service 5 Head of Division Avtandil Miqaberidze Forester 6 Main Specialist Khatuna Tsiklauri Biologist 7 Main Specialist Kristine Asatiani Management of tourism 8 Specialist Nato Sultanishvili Ecologist

Internal Monitoring Service 9 Head of Division 10 Main Specialist Erasti ChiChinadze Organization and economy of agriculture 11 Specialist Giorgi Lomsadze Lawyer

Administration Service 12 Head of Division Tamar Kvaratskhelia Lawyer 13 Main Specialist Sofio Gagnidze Faculty of philology, speciality of Georgian grammar and literature 14 Main Specialist Giorgi Tsirekidze Lawyer

Marketing and Public Relations Service 15 Head of Division 16 Main Specialist Ana Jafaridze Business administration 17 Specialist Ana Mamaladze Public Relations

Economic Service 18 Head of Division Vakhtang Tukvadze expert in the science of commodities of industrial production, Lawyer 19 Account General Qetevan Gagishvili Economist, specialist of

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 243

finances 20 Accountant Irakli Lekishvili Accounting 21 Main Specialist Rusudan Kapanadze Lawyer 22 Main Specialist Ramaz Metreveli Merchant-expert in the science of commodities 23 Main Specialist Vacant 24 Senior Specialist 25 Driver (I) Irakli Benashvili 26 Driver (II) Giorgi Javaxishvili

Planning Service 27 Head of Division Tea Barbakadze Biologist 28 Main Specialist Vacant 29 Senior Specialist Lia Salia Biologist 30 Specialist Vacant 31 Specialisti Rusudan Chochua Landscape Planner

Juridical Service 32 Head of Division Vacant 33 Main Specialist Irakli Dvali Lawyer, economist 34 Specialist Vacant

Total: 34

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 244

Annex 5.2:

Implementation Schedule

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 245

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Result / Output Area 1 Protected area regime is established and operational i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv 1.1 Legal framework adjustment 1.2 Co-management strucutures (management board) establishment 1.3 Community ranger service establishment 1.4 Business plan for protection and support/transition zone elaboration 1.5 Management plan for protection and support/transition zone elaboration 1.6 NP administration strengthening 1.7 Improving the relationship between APA and local population Result / Output Area 2 Eco-Tourism is established in the region 2.1 Improvement of quality of private guesthouse services 2.2 Establishing mountain rescue and guide service 2.3 Improvement of network of mountain huts and shelters 2.4 Improvement of marketing of tourism through branding of local products Result / Output Area 3 Livelyhood stabilization is supported 3.1 Fighting of brucella abortus is supporting(QM) 3.2 Diary production enhancing 3.3 Local beekeeping is improvement 3.4 Supporting of wool processingsupporting 3.5 Supporting of ollection and marketing of cullinary herbs and medical plants 3.6 Establishing of pilot project using biogas for greenhouses Result / Output Area 4 Regional development and stakeholder institutions are supported 4.1 Conducting environmental awareness and project information campaign 4.2 Implementing participatory and integrated spatial land use planning 4.3 Improvement of accessibility on roads during winter 4.4 Improvement of regional waste management 4.5 Establishing village energy supply of Djuta village as model 4.6 Improving sewage treatment in the region 4.7 Supporting Land title registration 4.8 Community based hunting cooperative establishment

Preparatory Phase / Internal feasibility studies / Design of the measure Main Implemenation Phase / application of design / conduct of activities Post implemenation evaluation / assessement of impact / lessons learnt

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 246

Annex 5.3:

Draft Budget

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 247

OVERALL COST AND FINANCING PLAN Project Cost Project Financing Total Cost Unit Cost Georgian Financing German Grant Financing Description Unit Quantity GEL GEL Euro % GEL Euro % GEL Euro % Euro % 1 Quickstart Measures 438.750 187.021 80,2% 87.750 37.404 4% 351.000 149.617 4% 187.021 3,9% 1.1 Brucellosis Campaign no 2 190.000 380.000 161.978 3,4% 76.000 32.396 20% 304.000 129.582 80% 161.978 3,4% 1.2 Private Guesthouse Development d 25 2.350 58.750 25.043 0,5% 11.750 5.009 20% 47.000 20.034 80% 25.043 0,5% 2 Kazbegi National Park Measures 2.225.500 948.636 18,2% 344.000 146.633 15% 1.881.500 802.003 21% 948.636 19,9% Kazbegi NP Management Plan, Business 2.1 Plan and Support Zone Plan d 125 1.500 187.500 79.923 1,7% 18.750 7.992 10% 168.750 71.931 90% 79.923 1,7% 2.2 Infrastructure 1 1.450.000 1.450.000 618.073 13,0% 290.000 123.615 20% 1.160.000 494.458 80% 618.073 13,0% 2.3 Equipment 1 235.000 235.000 100.171 2,1% 35.250 15.026 15% 199.750 85.145 85% 100.171 2,1%

2.4 Promotion/PR - Image Media NP-APA-KfW no 1 353.000 353.000 150.469 3,2% 0 0 0% 353.000 150.469 100% 150.469 3,2% 3 Transportation 1.170.000 498.721 1,5% 100.000 42.626 4% 1.070.000 456.095 12% 498.721 10,5% 3.1 Vehicle procurement (4WD) no. 2 85.000 170.000 72.464 1,5% 0 0 0% 170.000 72.464 100% 72.464 1,5% 3,2 Vehicle Operational Expense km 400.000 3 1.000.000 426.257 8,9% 100.000 42.626 10% 900.000 383.631 90% 426.257 8,9% 4 Equipment 1.528.521 651.543 13,7% 263.404 112.278 12% 1.265.117 539.265 14% 651.543 13,7% 4.1 Milk Processing no 1 164.500 164.500 70.119 1,5% 0 0 0% 164.500 70.119 100% 70.119 1,5% 4.2 Cheese Processing no 1 47.000 47.000 20.034 0,4% 0 0 0% 47.000 20.034 100% 20.034 0,4% 4.3 Pasture Improvement ha 1000 70 70.000 29.838 0,6% 14.000 5.968 20% 56.000 23.870 80% 29.838 0,6% 4.4 Greenhouses - Biogas no 2 11.750 23.500 10.017 0,2% 4.700 2.003 20% 18.800 8.014 80% 10.017 0,2% 4.5 Training Facility in Stephantsminda no 1 120.000 120.000 51.151 1,1% 24.000 10.230 20% 96.000 40.921 80% 51.151 1,1% 4.6 Mountain Huts & Shelters no 1 50.000 50.000 21.313 0,4% 10.000 4.263 20% 40.000 17.050 80% 21.313 0,4% 4.7 Snow Plough no 1 115.000 115.000 49.020 1,0% 23.000 9.804 20% 92.000 39.216 80% 49.020 1,0% 4.8 Latrine Improvement Support no 1000 300 300.000 127.877 2,7% 60.000 25.575 20% 240.000 102.302 80% 127.877 2,7% 4.9 Hydro-Electric Power Plant Djuta no 1 126.900 126.900 54.092 1,1% 25.380 10.818 20% 101.520 43.274 80% 54.092 1,1% 4.10 Waste Management Component d 1 386.621 386.621 164.800 3,5% 77.324 32.960 20% 309.297 131.840 80% 164.800 3,5% 4.11 Office Equipment L.s. 1 75.000 75.000 31.969 0,7% 15.000 6.394 20% 60.000 25.575 80% 31.969 0,7% 4.12 Others (e.g. wool processing) L.s. 1 50.000 50.000 21.313 0,4% 10.000 4.263 20% 40.000 17.050 80% 21.313 0,4% 5 Project management incl. Audit yr 5 140.000 700.000 298.380 6,3% 175.000 74.595 25% 525.000 223.785 75% 298.380 6,3% 6 Operational Cost yr 5 2.087.740 889.916 18,7% 908.075 387.074 15% 1.179.665 502.842 85% 889.916 18,7% 6.1 Environmental Information Campaign d 30 1.408 42.240 18.005 0,4% 0 0 0% 42.240 18.005 100% 18.005 0,4% 6.2 Integrated Spatial and Land Use Planning d 60 1.500 90.000 38.363 0,8% 9.000 3.836 10% 81.000 34.527 90% 38.363 0,8% 6.3 Milk Processing yr 5 37.000 185.000 78.858 1,7% 27.750 11.829 15% 157.250 67.029 85% 78.858 1,7% 6.4 Training Facility in Stephantsminda yr 5 37.000 185.000 78.858 1,7% 27.750 11.829 15% 157.250 67.029 85% 78.858 1,7% 6.5 Hunters' Association yr 5 20.000 100.000 42.626 0,9% 15.000 6.394 15% 85.000 36.232 85% 42.626 0,9% 6.6 Mountain Resque Service yr 3 23.500 70.500 30.051 0,6% 10.575 4.508 15% 59.925 25.543 85% 30.051 0,6% 6.7 Operational Costs Community Rangers yr 5 20.000 100.000 42.626 0,9% 15.000 6.394 15% 85.000 36.232 85% 42.626 0,9% 6.8 Land Title Registration yr 1 470.000 470.000 200.341 4,2% 70.500 30.051 15% 399.500 170.290 85% 200.341 4,2% 6.9 NP Staff Salaries- Management yr 5 94.000 470.000 200.341 4,2% 470.000 200.341 100% 0 0 0% 200.341 4,2% 6.10 NP Staff Salaries Administration yr 5 45.000 225.000 95.908 2,0% 225.000 95.908 100% 0 0 0% 95.908 2,0% 6.11 Operational Costs NP yr 5 30.000 150.000 63.939 1,3% 37.500 15.985 25% 112.500 47.954 75% 63.939 1,3% 7 Training 548.250 233.697 4,9% 7.500 3.197 0% 540.750 230.500 6% 233.697 4,9% 7.1 Milk Processing yr 5 2.350 11.750 5.009 0,1% 0 0 0% 11.750 5.009 100% 5.009 0,1% 7.2 Cheese Production yr 5 2.350 11.750 5.009 0,1% 0 0 0% 11.750 5.009 100% 5.009 0,1% 7.3 Community ranger Corps yr 5 21.000 105.000 44.757 0,9% 0 0 0% 105.000 44.757 100% 44.757 0,9% 7.4 Selective Breeding - Cattle yr 5 4.700 23.500 10.017 0,2% 0 0 0% 23.500 10.017 100% 10.017 0,2% 7.5 Production of Kitchen/Medicinal Herbs yr 5 2.350 11.750 5.009 0,1% 0 0 0% 11.750 5.009 100% 5.009 0,1% 7.6 Beekeeping yr 5 2.350 11.750 5.009 0,1% 0 0 0% 11.750 5.009 100% 5.009 0,1% 7.7 Wool Processing yr 5 2.350 11.750 5.009 0,1% 0 0 0% 11.750 5.009 100% 5.009 0,1% 7.8 Maintenance of Biogas Plants - yr 5 1.000 5.000 2.131 0,0% 0 0 0% 5.000 2.131 100% 2.131 0,0% 7.9 Marketing of Rural Products yr 5 4.700 23.500 10.017 0,2% 0 0 0% 23.500 10.017 100% 10.017 0,2% 7.10 Rural Associations' Capacity Development yr 5 44.500 222.500 94.842 2,0% 0 0 0% 222.500 94.842 100% 94.842 2,0% 7.11 Training Hunters' Association yr 5 5.000 25.000 10.656 0,2% 0 0 0% 25.000 10.656 100% 10.656 0,2% 7.12 Land Title Reg. Awareness Campaign yr 2 5.000 10.000 4.263 0,1% 0 0 0% 10.000 4.263 100% 4.263 0,1% 7.13 APA Capacity Development yr 5 15.000 75.000 31.969 0,7% 7.500 3.197 10% 67.500 28.772 90% 31.969 0,7% 8 Consultancy 1.551.000 661.125 13,9% 0 0 0% 1.551.000 661.125 17% 661.125 13,9% 8.1 National Consultancy PM 36 11.750 423.000 180.307 3,8% 0 0 0% 423.000 180.307 100% 180.307 3,8% 8.2 International Consultancy PM 24 47.000 1.128.000 480.818 10,1% 0 0 0% 1.128.000 480.818 100% 480.818 10,1% Sub Total 10.249.761 4.369.039 157,3% 1.885.729 803.806 84% 8.364.032 3.565.233 93% 4.369.039 91,6% 9 Contingencies 351.900 150.000 16% 586.500 250.000 7% 400.000 8,4% 9.1 Physical & Price Contingencies 938.400 400.000 351.900 150.000 16% 586.500 250.000 7% 400.000 8,4% Total 11.188.161 4.769.039 157,3% 2.237.629 953.806 20,0% 8.950.532 3.815.233 80,0% 4.769.039 100,0%

Exchange Rate 1 € = 2,35 GEL As per exchange rate March 2010 Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 248

Annex 5.4:

Flow of Funds

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 249

FLOW OF FUNDS

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Description i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv i ii iii iv 1 Quickstart Measures 1.1 Brucellosis Campaign 1.2 Private Guesthouse Development 2 Kazbegi National Park Measures 2.1 Kazbegi NP Management Plan, Business Plan and Support Zone Plan 2.2 Infrastructure 2.3 Equipment 2.4 Promotion/PR-Media NP-APA-KfW 3 Transportation 3.1 Vehicle procurement (4WD) 3.2 Vehicle Operational Expense 4 Equipment 4.1 Milk Processing 4.2 Cheese Processing 4.3 Pasture Improvement 4.4 Greenhouses - Biogas 4.5 Training Facility in Stephantsminda 4.6 Mountain Huts & Shelter 4.7 Snow Plough 4.8 Latrine Improvement Support 4.9 Hydro-Electric Power Plant Djuta 4.10 Waste Management Component 4.11 Office Equipment 4.12 Others 5 Project management incl. Audit 6 Operational Cost 6.1 Environmental Information Campaign 6.2 Integrated Spatial and Land Use Planning 6.3 Milk Processing 6.4 Training Facility in Stephantsminda 6.5 Hunters' Association 6.6 Mountain Resque Service 6.7 Operational Costs Community Rangers 6.8 Land Title Registration 6.9 - 6.11 Operational Costs NP 7 Training 7.1 Milk Processing 7.2 Cheese Production 7.3 Community Ranger Corps 7.4 Selective Breeding - Cattle 7.5 Production of Kitchen/Medicinal Herbs 7.6 Beekeeping 7.7 Wool Processing 7.8 Maintenance of Biogas Plants - Greenhouses 7.9 Marketing of Rural Products 7.10 Rural Associations' Capacity Development 7.11 Training Hunters' Association 7.12 Land Title Reg. Awareness Campaign 7.13 APA Capacity Development 8 Consultancy 8.1 National Consultancy 8.2 International Consultancy Sub Total 9 Contingencies Not allocated 9.1 Physical & Price Contingencies Total

Preparatory Investment Phase (approx. 15% of total spread over time) Main Investment Phase (approx. 70 - 75% of total spread over time) Post Investment Phase (approx. 10 - 15% of total spread over time) Main Deployment Phase Intermittent Deployment Phase

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 250

Annex 5.5:

Caucasus Protected Area Fund

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 251

CAUCASUS PROTECTED AREA FUND

In its work with the governments, the CPAF has three fundamental requirements: (i) in their applications for funding, the responsible Ministry and the PA must submit to and vet with the CPAF budgets and business plans, and ultimately management plans, meeting international standards; (ii) for existing PAs, the Governments must maintain their existing budgetary funding for the PA’s ordinary operations; and (iii) the CPAF’s funding cannot exceed 50% of the total funding for operations. This latter point assures government “ownership” of its PA activities but, in effect, allows the CPAF to double the government’s budget if justified by the proposed PA business plan.15

The CPAF was founded with only € 8 million in permanent endowment funding (on which only the investment earnings are spent) in full knowledge that far more than that- -in the order of € 50 million--is required to bridge the funding gaps in all the priority PAs. The idea was to begin support for the PAs, show that the mechanism can work, and complete the necessary funding once that is accomplished.

In Armenia and Georgia, the CPAF has signed the so-called “Framework Agreement” which will govern its operations. The two Ministries are working to prepare pilot proposals for funding in 2010 (the sites funded will be Borjomi Kharagauli NP in Georgia and Khosrov Forest Reserve in Armenia). The CPAF has offered up to € 250,000 for each three-year pilot project, which, in principle, should be renewable indefinitely as long as the CPAF considers that the funds are supporting sustainable PA operations.

The CPAF has also offered a similar sum to Azerbaijan, but so far has not succeeded in signing the framework agreement with Azerbaijan. With its existing funding, the CPAF is not capable of supporting more than the initial pilot project in each country. There are a minimum of 10-15 PAs in Armenia and Georgia in urgent need of support. Accordingly, the CPAF is in the process of seeking additional funding.

In an effort to secure additional funding a concept paper has been spearheaded by WWF for a partnership between MAVA, a Swiss-based private family foundation, and the CPAF. Although MAVA’s key focus is on ecosystem conservation of the European Alps, Mediterrainain and West Africa (85% of funding allocated to the three ecoregions), 15% of MAVA’s annual budget is channelled to Mongolia, Inland Turkey and the Caucasus.

GEF has committed $2 million ($1 million per country) to separate 7 year sinking funds for Armenia and Georgia. The sinking fund in effect allows CPAF to spend $ 300.000 per year in GEF money over 7 years. As is usual, the commitment is based on the CPAF obtaining co-financing of at least an additional $1.5 million per country ($3 million in total). The total of $5 million or more would mean that annual spending on protected areas in Armenia and Georgia would be a minimum of $700K per year ($350K

15 From WWF 2009 MAVA Proposal to GEF. WWF Archives.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 252 per country). This is being positioned as a 7-year bridging measure to get CPAF “jump- started” while more permanent financing is secured.16

The proposal would be for MAVA to agree to contribute to the 3 Mio. € of the required co-financing of CPAF’s 7-year sinking funds beginning in 2010. This could be done in any number of ways: (a) as a single donation to the sinking funds; and (b) a 3- 7-year per year annual project type commitment to the sinking funds.

If CPAF can bundle GEF and MAVA funding, the CPAF will be positioned to make a real difference over the medium-term. The ability to infuse $700,000 per year (or even more, depending on how many partners CPAF can attract to this initiative and at what level) into the Armenian and Georgian PA systems would plug a large share of the systems’ existing funding gaps.

Any MAVA money invested in the CPAF project could thus be properly viewed as “lev- eraging” $2 million in funding from GEF.

16 MAVA draft concept proposal 2009. Confidential paper not meant for circulation.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 253

Annex 6.1:

Inception Report

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 254

INCEPTION REPORT

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project

Table of Content

1. Study Progress ...... 254

2. Outlook ...... 259

Annex A: Time and Staffing Schedule

Copies to Mr. Andreas Weitzel/ KfW [email protected] Mr. Günther Haase/ KfW [email protected] Mr. Felix Klauda/ KfW [email protected] Ms. Mariam Mrevlishvili/ APA [email protected] Ms. Tea Barbakadze/ APA [email protected] Ms. Lali Tervzadze/ TJS [email protected] Mr. Mike Garforth/ TJS [email protected] Mr. Götz Schürholz/ DFS Team Leader [email protected] Mr. Ralph Lennertz/ DFS [email protected] Mr. Christian Schade/ DFS [email protected] Ms. Bettina Kupper/ DFS [email protected] Mr. Harald Himsel/ AGEG [email protected] Ms. Beate Neumeyer/ AGEG [email protected]

Study Progress The Inception Report is structured in line with the proposed seven main stages of the Feasibility Study.

Stage 1: Team Mobilization and Start-up Phase. The kick-off meetings at KfW Frankfurt and APA were implemented (and reported on) as scheduled (s. Minutes of Meetings 23rd of September and 5th of October 2009). The FS Field Work in Georgia officially started on the 5th of October with the meeting at APA, Georgia.

Due to the request of APA, several team-members as presented in the Technical Pro- posal were substituted at the onset of the FS in Georgia, resulting in the revision of the time and staffing schedule. Meanwhile, most tasks have been successfully re- distributed amongst the new team members as demonstrated in Annex 1/ Time and Staffing Schedule.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 255

Stage 2: Stakeholder Analysis. The stakeholder analysis commenced with an internal joint team discussion resulting in a comprehensive list of stakeholders related to the target region and subject-matter. Stakeholders were grouped into: Government Agencies (national-, regional- and local level), a) Donor Organizations, b) Local and international NGOs and CBOs, and c) Private Sector Representatives of local and regional importance. Subsequently, the majority of identified stakeholders were visited within calendar week 41 by Tobias Garstecki and Goetz Schuerholz in Tbilisi and during calendar week 42 within the Kazbegi District.

The stakeholder meetings centered on semi-structured interviews aimed at a general assessment of the stakeholder’s interest and current or planned involvement in the target area. Stakeholders not visited during calendar week 41 will be contacted during week 43. First results appear to indicate that, while there is very strong support in favour of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the Kazbegi District, the knowledge of and support to the biosphere reserve concept is very limited. The response to the question whether the application of a biosphere reserve concept to the Region would be advantageous from a conservation and sustainable land use development perspective ranged from rejection, indifference to scepticism with little interest in any support. None of the stakeholders contacted so far has shown enthusiasm in favour of a biosphere reserve for Georgia and/or the target area. Arguments against the establishment of a biosphere reserve, however, were generally weak and not well founded.

The national framework and stakeholder analysis has revealed that there are several ongoing and/ or planned projects (both in the area of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation) at the national level and the Kazbegi District offering good potential for synergies by enhancing the development impact of the future project.

Stage 3: Project Assessment and Trust Building Measures in Kazbegi. Team members Goetz Schuerholz (Team Leader), Tobias Garstecki (Nature/ Biodiver- sity Conservation Specialist) and Alexander Gavashelishvili (Conservation Biologist and GIS Specialist) left for the target area on the 10th October for a first field reconnais- sance and comprehensive discussions on conservation values and threats to conservation in the Kazbegi District. The three team members were joined in the field by Iago Kazalikashvili (geologist and locally highly respected community mobilization specialist from Stepantsminda with an intimate knowledge of the target area and its people). Three additional local team members arrived in the field on the 12th October (Vakhtang- Wato Asatashvili – Ecotourism Specialist/ Logistics, the Rural Development/ PRA specialist, and Ivan Vashakhmadze – Workshop Coordinator/ Ecotourism Specialist) in support of the two workshops implemented in Stepantsminda during calendar week 42.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 256

The rationale of the first workshop (12th of October), aimed at the local and regional authorities, was to officially introduce the team to the local authorities, inform the workshop participants on the planned FS, the proposed project and field work, and to receive official approval for the up-coming field work and participatory approach to the planning involving all communities of the target area. The 26 participants of the workshop included municipal council members (sakrebulo17), municipal administration members (gamgeoba), and representatives from the Mtskheta-Mtianeti Governor’s Office, as well as relevant state agencies (i.e., state register office, land register office, state tax office and national park administration). Although the outcome of the workshop was generally positive, it became evident that there is an urgent need for informing the local authorities on nature conservation, protected areas, the concept of biosphere reserves and how all this relates to sustainable economic development in the region benefiting the rural poor and the region at large. There was a strong opposition to any additional land- and resource use restrictions as might be imposed through the establishment of, for example, a biosphere reserve buffer zone. The concept of trust-building measures received a positive response. The Sakrebulo confirmed its cooperation and approved the proposed field data assessment and team activities. It was agreed to maintain an open dialogue throughout the project preparation phase.

For the second workshop held on the 14th of October in Stepantsminda, an open- invitation to all 18 project area communities was extended encouraging community members to make use of the opportunity to be familiarized with the feasibility study and issues at stake; to openly voice their opinions, anxieties, resentments, and to report on their problems and livelihood constraints.

The rationale for the implementation of one single kick-off workshop instead of several workshops in different locations dealing with the same subject matter was to open one single dialogue based on a common understanding of problems related to the project area and one common vision for its sustainable economic development to be in compliance with the overarching conservation objectives inherent to the proposed project.

At the workshop the more than 45 representatives of the 18 communities were familiarized with the purpose of the feasibility study and briefed on the nature and characteristics of biosphere reserves and national parks, expected impacts on people and land use and how this relates to the proposed sustainable economic development of the target area. It was explained that the approach taken by the FS team was to involve communities and their constituents in the planning- and decision making process (participatory bottom-up approach).

17 In the past, the term „Sakrebulo“ has been used for “communities” (comprising several villages) as the lowest level of self-governing body. Since the enactment of the new “Organic Law on Local Self-Government” of 2005 the self-governing status has been taken away from the communities. The lowest territorial level of local self-governing body now is a settlement (self-governing city) or the Municipality (agglomeration of settlements, formerly called District or Rayon). In line with the new legislation, the term “Sakrebulo” now defines the representative body and “Gamgeoba” the executive body of the local self-governing unit.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 257

The second part of the open workshop focused on a participatory problem analysis resulting from the outcome of group discussions (five groups). Each group elected a spokes-person to guide the group discussions and summarize the results which subsequently were presented and discussed. Based on the problem analysis a vision statement (20-year horizon) for the planning area will be developed.

In a final session the purpose and nature of “trust-building measures” within the framework of the FS was explained to the workshop participants. This was followed by re- assembling the work groups who were asked to discuss and propose measures which would meet the following key criteria: • To address a key problem/ concern of local significance; • To benefit as many community members and households as possible; • To be highly visible and appreciated (exposure) by community members; • To be targeted at specific age groups, gender etc. of community importance; • To be suitable for in-kind contributions; • To require low capital investment (micro-project); • To be completed within short time-frame; • To reflect the urgency of the problem to be resolved; • To be related to environmental issues; • To fit into overall context of the feasibility study and the expected future project.

Eleven of the proposed trust-building measures developed and proposed by the community members were tentatively selected meeting the majority of the qualifying criteria but being subject to a joint assessment on site.

The five spokes-persons of the work groups were chosen to form a supervisory committee that will assume the overall responsibility for the selection, supervision, timely implementation and quality control of the trust-building measures on site. Elia Kazalis- kashvili has been hired as a Campaign Assistant (formerly N.N.) to coordinate the proposed trust-building measures. After a detailed scrutiny on site the following trust- building measures fulfilling most of the qualifying criteria were jointly selected by the Committee: 1) Providing heating and potable water to the combined kindergarten/ elementary school in the village of Gergeti, 2) Purchase of basic dental equipment for the regional hospital Kazbegi, 3) Garbage disposal and related clean-up campaign for Stepantsminda, 4) Establishment of a woman group for the production of traditional handicrafts (region), 5) Upgrading of funeral hall (the main social building) of the Garbani village, 6) Establishing an internet café in Stepantsminda,

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 258

7) Implement environmental awareness campaign involving all 11 schools of the Region, 8) Garbage collection and clean-up Sno village (village initiative and implementation) 9) Emergency repair of the defunct potable water system of the Sno village. 10) Heating system for the changing rooms and shower stalls, Gymnasium Stepants- minda.

The trust-building measures will be started as soon as approved by KfW and APA.

Note: The above mentioned list has been discussed with Mr. Weitzel/ KfW and DFS on 22nd of October.2009 with following result: Proposals nr. 3), 4), 6), 7) and 8) were agreed and implementation can start already. Further trust building measures are currently being modified to strengthen the environmental aspects and the relevance to the project. The subsequent measures will be communicated with KfW and APA in the course of calendar week 44 and resubmitted for final approval.

In parallel, community profiles are being elaborated for the 18 villages of the target area in support of the final participatory design of livelihood- and community enhancement interventions (on-going expected to be finalized by the 6th of November). The community profiles entail quantitative and qualitative socio-economic and demographic information, complemented through a community-specific problem analysis and need assessment. The community mobilization and socio-economic assessment is implemented by the Iago Kazalikashvili (Community Mobilization Specialist) in support of the work of Pavle Dolidze (PRA Specialist/ Rural Development) and Harald Himsel (Agronomist/ Socio-Economist) who will join the team on the 1st of November.

Fact sheets and information materials on the FS, the biosphere reserve concept, the nature and purpose of a national park and support zone and how all this relates to the proposed sustainable regional development, livelihood enhancement, and how this may impact future land- and resource use, have been elaborated and are being distributed in the communities by the community mobilization and PRA specialists.

The issues of integrated spatial planning in the planning area, as well as possible BR zoning, Kazbegi NP strengthening and possible expansion, and the designation of additional areas of high conservation value are being addressed through a combined effort by Goetz Schuerholz, Tobias Garstecki and Alexander Gavashevishili, using international best practice approaches and methodologies.

The diagnostic analysis and elaboration of sustainable development opportunities related to the tourism sector with focus on community involvement/ benefit is currently being implemented by Vakhtang-Wato Asatashvili assisted by Ivan Vashakmadze to be completed by mid-November.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 259

On the 15th of October a meeting was held at Gudauri in order to discuss with local stakeholders the pros and cons of Gudauri forming part of a potential BR. The highly transient character of Gudauri’s population however (Gudauri is a typical winter ski resort with most hotels and private dwellings shut down for the summer season) made it difficult to conduct a meaningful meeting with fair representation of all stakeholders. A SWOT analysis was conducted related to the key issue followed by a general discussion of key environmental problems of concern to the Gudauri area and mitigation potential. The SWOT analysis will assist in the final decision whether to include Gudauri, which forms part of the Stepantsminda District and contributes most to the property tax income of the District’s budget.

Outlook The next milestone of the FS will be: • the multi-stakeholder mid-term review workshop to be implemented in Tbilisi on the 5th of November. At the workshop the first tentative results of the FS will be presented and discussed, including a critical review of options suitable to meet the overarching objectives of the study: to link nature protection with sustainable economic development which addresses local people’s needs. • Completion of field-work by week 46 and entering Stages 4 and 5.

Goetz Schuerholz

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 260

Time and Staffing Schedule Sept. 2009 October 2009 November 2009 Dec. 2009 January 2010 Team Leader Int. Expert Int. Expert Int. Expert Nat. Expert Nat. Expert Nat. Expert Nat. Expert Nat. Expert Nat. Expert Back up 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 1 2 3 4 Schuerholz Hoppenstedt Garstecki Himsel Vashakmadze Dolidze Asatashvili Kazalikashvili Gvashelishvili Adeishvili Schade/Kupper STAGE 1: Preparation and team mobilization Kick off Meeting with KfW, Frankfurt 23.09. Submission of Minutes of Meeting 24.09. Internal preparation and data review zzzzzzzzz Kick off Meeting with PEA, Tbilisi 05.10. z Submission of Minutes of Meeting 07.10. Internal Briefing of the FS Team, discussion of work programm and task,Tbilisi 05.& 06.10 z zzzzzz Consultation with PIA, discussion of work programme and data needs, Tbilisi (joint objective, approach, expectations), Tbilisi zz STAGE 2: Study on current situation and framework conditions in Tbilisi Data collection, meeting with other relevant government agencies and other stakeholders zzz Analysis of key problems and theats and justification of necessity of Financial Cooperation zz z A) Framework analysis zz A) Institutional/ stakeholder analysis zz Preparation of baseline study zz z Finalization and coordination of work programme prior to field visits zzz STAGE 3: Project assessment in Kazbegi and trust building measures Travel to Kazbegi zzz 1st Workshop (presentation, study approach) 12.10. M2 z B) Assessment of general ecological conditions (environmental sensitivity, waste problem, land use conflicts) zz C) Assessment of livelihood conditions & income opportunities, first orientation list zz 2nd Workshop (baseline study, information and trust building measures) 14.10. z z Assessment of tourism potential, further options for income generation and design of adequate approaches zzzz Information, identification and preparation of trust building activities (contest), implementation M5 zzz STAGE 4: Participatory project design Development of project components, sub components, masures and their results (incl. costs, capacity, impacts) A) Component on legal establishment and institutional set-up z z Design of different models and recommendations for legal establishment z z Design of different models and recommendations for institutional set up and arrangements z z B) Design of ecological component zz Draft zoning (land use categories, conservation and management guidelines) zz z Proposal for integrated participative land use planning process zz Proposals for wastemanagement zz C) Design of socio-economic component z Proposals for tourism zzz Proposals for livestock/ sustainable rangeland management zzz Proposals for marketing of traditional/ local products zzzz Poposals for alternative livelihoods zzz D) Infrastrucutre/ Design of Quick Start Measures (referring to ranking) zzzz 3rd Workshop/ Midterm Workshop (institutional arrangement, ranking of Quick Start Measures) M3 z Analysis of the expected social financial, economic and structural project impacts z z Design of Logical framework/ participatory project management and implementation concept z 4th Workshops (Reconfirmation of designed component activities with local target groups) zzz Assessment of capacity/ training needs; necessity of management and implementation consultant zzzz Specification of Quick Start Measures (Mid-Term Report incl. cost & impact estimations, evaluation & selection criteria) z STAGE 5: Evaluation of adequacy and feasibility of the project Analysis of the expected ecological impacts/ environmental impact assessment of project z z Overall costs and funding of project proposal z Overall costs and funding of future BR z Evaluation of added value of BR and feasibility of recognition of the future BR z z Risks and influence analysis, definition of preconditions z Consolidation of logical framework, definition of objectives, results, activities and indicators z Steering Workshop (3), (final presentation and discussion) M6 zz Travel to Tbilisi zzzzz STAGE 6: Wrap-up presentations Consolidation of data and findings zzzzzzzzz Preparation of main findings and results and draft MoM Presentation of “executive summary” and draft MoM, Tbilisi M7 Team demobilization, departure zzz Revision of MoM Wrap-up meeting to finalize and conclude MoM, final vote z Presentation of mainfindings and results (“executive summary”), Frankfurt M8 STAGE 7: Finalize Project Design and Report Presentation Finalize detailed Feasibility Study Report with detailed technical annexes Reports Submission of Inception Report (via e-mail) M1 Submission of Mid-term Report (via e-mail) M4 Submission of Feasibility Study (Draft) M9 Presentation of Feasibility Study (Final Report) M10 Milestones

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 261

Annex 6.2:

Minutes of Meeting:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 262

MINUTES OF MEETING: KICK-OFF MEETING IN FRANKFURT, 23.09.2009

Participants: Mr. Andreas Weitzel/ KfW Mr. Günther Haase/ KfW Mr. Felix Klauda/ KfW (presence during sum-up only) Mr. Götz Schürholz/ Team Leader Mr. Harald Himsel/ AGEG Mr. Ralf Ludwig/ DFS Ms. Bettina Kupper/ DFS

1 Consulting Contract

• Changes in the financial proposal due to replacement of personnel are eligible as long as the contract amount remains the same. • The affected attachments (Time Schedule/ Work Programme; Staffing Schedule and Statement of Costs) will be adjusted to the final contract.

2 Changes in the ToR

• As mentioned in the ToR, the overall objective is to provide the necessary information for the joint appraisal mission. This means, that prioritisation or shift of tasks within the study could be necessary. They can be undertaken after approval of APA and KfW.

3 Comments on the Technical Proposal of the Feasibility Study Kazbegi Project d) Biosphere Reserve Approach: o Participants discussed the appropriateness of the Biosphere Reserve Ap- proach versus an Integrated Spatial Land Use Planning, respectively the establishment of a National Park with Support Zone, and the possibility of the combination of both approaches. o KfW conveyed that BMZ, APA and KfW itself accord high priority towards establishing a Biosphere Reserve. It was agreed, however, that achievement of UNESCO recognition of the area as BR appears unrealistic during the envisaged project implementation period of four or five years. Assess- ment of structural and organisational difficulties which may lead to proposal of a different legal form of the reserve should be discussed with APA and KfW. e) Stakeholder Analysis: o TJS and the donor community should be included in the analysis. A formal cooperation-project (KV) of GTZ/ KfW is not intended, however there are synergies as GTZ supports consulting services in the fields of environ-

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 263

mental law and marketing, especially certification of products under a bio label. f) Problem Analysis: o The problem analysis shall comprise the livelihood systems and a the land- use systems as prevailing in the Programme area. Using of “model families” (clusters of family types due to typical livelihoods/ sources of income) the problem analysis should encompass also the socio-economic effects of biosphere reserve protection regulations on the local population’s income and livelihood base. o The problem analysis shall in addition to a detailed analysis of the current situation also consider the future perspective of the development of the region (trend analysis), taking into account population census, migration processes, the opening of the Russian Border and further opportunities/ threats to be identified ; o The issue of land tenure and related conflicts shall be looked at not only regarding the present status but also possible upcoming changes (opening of the Russian border, establishment of communal land). g) Delimitation: o The proposed expansion of the NP is understood as a draft proposal and does not necessarily define the zoning or delimitation of the future BR. However, the exact status and current thinking of APA needs to be ascertained during the course of the FS. o Regarding the inclusion of Gudauri in the BR opportunities and risks will have to be assessed; Based on the currently available information, KfW would suggest not to include Gudauri. The study may also suggest to start in the implementation phase with a test inclusion of a partial area to monitor impacts and effects for possible inclusion of the whole area. o Delimitation and visualisation of key areas and possible zoning will be provided on an overview map in scale of 1:50 000 or 1:25 000, which does not claim to be accurate in details when enlarged. h) Participation Process: o Participatory approaches are a priority for the feasibility study and the future implementation phase. To avoid any misunderstanding and false expectations, the limits of the future project must be communicated at an early stage in the participation process. The project is understood and shall be communicated as “Environment-Natural resources management- Ecotourism” development. E.g. the future project does not provide funds for overall infrastructural investments such as for the improvement of roads, but for measures that are directly related to the improvement of protected areas management and the improvement of the local livelihoods, through activities like the establishment of touristic paths or training of tourist guides.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 264

o During the FS no “Project Council” or “Steering Committee” will be set up. This should be done during project implementation. The FS will work with “meeting” or “work shop” members, consisting of both government representatives (APA) and relevant stakeholders from Kazbegi Region, to ensure the commitment for the project. The respective planning meetings shall preferably take place in Kazbegi Region. o Temporary migrations for work in the industrial centres due to the limited work possibilities in winter time in Kazbegi shall be considered in the situation assessment and the participatory project planning, to make sure those peoples interest are adequately considered in the project proposal. o Migrating herders from outside may not be found in the field during the study, yet they need to be considered in the project appraisal. Efforts should be made to identify representatives and their needs and impact shall be included in the stakeholder assessment. i) Quick Start Measures: o The FS should aim at identifying and ascertaining the feasibility of three measures which can be implemented already at the beginning of programme implementation, i.e. before the detailed planning of development and buffer zone activities is completed. The Quick Start Measures are considered as “no regret” measures within the holistic understanding of the project sustainability (environmental, economic and social dimension). If economic impact is expected, QM shall be rapidly evaluated for economic feasibility without the need of detailed economic assessment. Return of investments is for many measures not possible, such as contests, trust building measures. o A contest of ideas regarding Natural Resource Management and the proposed photo-voice are considered as promising approaches as first measures during the FS, eg. for identification of further Quickstart Measures. Such contests (or others like eg. “establishment of school garden”) can be developed for different target groups in various villages. The distribution of the price and the evaluation of results could be resolved by the participants themselves, avoiding high administrative costs for the study / project team. j) Other Measures: o Larger scale measures to realize in the implementation phase should be targeted at improving the livelihood of those sections of the communities which are expected to suffer most from an expansion of the protected areas (due to incurred restrictions on use of natural resources). o The study cannot include a detailed ecotourism strategy, but only a development framework for tourism activities and strategies, which are further detailed and tested in the implementation phase. The study shall provide general recommendations / conceptual pillars for the touristic development of the region and an assessment of the potentials of branding/ regional marketing in regard to the future BR.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 265 k) Project Components: o Project components should be defined. These can be split into: Capacity building & training (including awareness raising, excursions, etc); Planning (elaboration of management plan; spatial planning, etc.); Equipment (cloth- ing, furniture, instruments, mobility, etc.); Park-Infrastructure (Buildings, paths, delimitation, etc.) and investments in socio-economic development. Costs for this components should be estimated. l) Implementation Process: o A financial cooperation project can be started by APA, the municipality, park management or others with a national budget already before the mobilization of the consulting services. This should be considered in the project design through description of first steps that can be undertaken. o The Study needs to consider the exit-strategy of the Project to ensure sustainability of project benefits. m) Back-stopping o Back-stopping is considered very important for the project and must be provided throughout the study phase, hence the backstopping Director Mr. Schade/ DFS shall additionally be present for a mid-term workshop with APA and be readily accessible for the entire period of FS implementation. n) Reports o The adjusted version of the time plan will be attached to the Inception Re- port o After approval of KfW, the draft report will be translated into Georgian to facilitate its review by APA. The final report shall be submitted by 15. Janu- ary 2010, as the Joint Appraisal Mission is scheduled for 25. January.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 266

MINUTES OF MEETING: KICK-OFF MEETING TBLISSI, 05.10.2009

Prepared by Goetz Schuerholz, Team Leader

Participants: Ms. Mariam Mrevlishvili/ APA Mr. Otar Tsamalandze/APA (Director NP Kazbegi) Ms. Lali Terzadze/ TJS Mr. Götz Schürholz/ Team Leader Mr. Tobias Garstecki/ DFS Mr. Ivan Vashakmadze/ DFS Mr. Vakhtang Asatashvili/ DFS Mr. Iago Kayalikashvili/ DFS

1 Consulting Contract

• The FS Team was informed by Ms. Mrevlishvili that the contract has not been signed yet pending the response by KfW to comments by APA. APA will contact KfW and DFS on 5th October for clarification (and final agreement to the contract). It was pointed out by Ms. Mrevlishvili that the consultants cannot start the FS process prior to final contract approval. This issue to be discussed with DFS on a priority basis. No more contract changes are expected except for additional funds from FS Budget to be allocated to “trust building measures”. Ms. Mrevlish- vili will discuss this issue with DFS and KfW directly. (DFS is not aware of additional funds. Additional funds can be covered by an addition to the contract later). With the approval of Mr. Adeishvili by both APA and KfW the current FS team composition appears to be final. • Logistical Support to be provided by APA to FS Team will be a working space for the team at the Ministry’s premises. Ms. Mrevlishvili indicated that it would be the contractual sole responsibility of the Consortium to provide all other technical and logistic support (printing-, copying services, beamer and other workshop equipment/material needs. (Now agreed: DFS provides transportable printer, beamer and all other workshop needs).

2 Changes in the ToR

• As mentioned in the ToR, the overall objective is to provide the necessary information for the joint appraisal mission KfW/APA. This means, that priorities and/or shifts of tasks within the study may become necessary. It was suggested that shifts of tasks within the team as a result of changes in the FS Team should be left to the discretion of the Team Leader (in agreement with DFS).

3 Comments on the Technical Proposal of the Feasibility Study Kazbegi Project a) Biosphere Reserve Approach:

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 267

APA’s expressed goal for the Kazbegi Region is to support sustainable economic development initiatives while focusing on biodiversity conservation. APA expects the FS to provide answers on how this goal may best be achieved. APA is open to suggestions. b) Stakeholder Analysis: APA agreed to include TJS, the donor community and relevant NGOs in the analysis, but to postpone stakeholder meetings until official signing of the contract. (The signature of the contract needs to be accelerated to ensure the implementation of the time schedule). c) Co-management of Protected Area(s): The issue of co-management involving local stakeholders in decision-making processes of protected areas was briefly discussed. APA will inquire into legality related to potential co-management and provide answer on APA’s/Ministry’s position on this issue prior to mid-term review of the FS. d) Participatory Analysis of Key Problems and Threats: The method of “Photovoice” as proposed by DFS was briefly discussed. Since none of the team members and/or APA has any experience with this approach the subject was dismissed in favour of other options to be adopted expected to achieve the same results. e) NP Expansion: APA expects the FS to provide additional input into this subject matter. Current expansion plans of the existing NP appear flexible. APA is open to suggestions on how best to deal with this issue. f) Supporting Maps: The FS team will produce its own overview maps at a scale of its discretion. It is understood that the mostly general overview maps will not provide geo- referenced details. g) Participation Process: o APA’s overriding goal of “sustainable economic development and biodiversity conservation” for the target area will be communicated to all stakeholders. o The participatory process on the regional level will involve two information workshops involving targeted regional and local Government representatives, NGOs and the Private Sector. This will be followed by one single large-scale local stakeholder workshop with an open invitation to all community members of the target area to participate. Subsequent sessions with communities and interest groups will be arranged at the local stakeholder workshop. h) Trust-building Measures: APA will supply the Team by the 7th of October with its own list of trust-building measures. However the Team was given the chance to add to and/or modify the measures suggested by APA. It is understood that final approval by APA and KfW will be needed prior to implementation of any measures.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 268 i) FS Communication: o APA requested the Team to copy TJS on all correspondence between the Study Team and APA related to the FS. o APA requested weekly verbal or written updates on work progress throughout the FS. o During the FS no “Project Council” or “Steering Committee” will be set up. This should be done during project implementation. The FS will work with “meeting” or “work shop” members, consisting of both government representatives (APA) and relevant stakeholders from Kazbegi Region, to ensure the commitment for the project. The respective planning meetings shall preferably take place in Kazbegi Region. o Temporary migrations for work in the industrial centres due to the limited work possibilities in winter time in Kazbegi shall be considered in the situation assessment and the participatory project planning, to make sure those peoples interest are adequately considered in the project proposal. o Migrating herders from outside may not be found in the field during the study, yet they need to be considered in the project appraisal. Efforts should be made to identify representatives and their needs and impact shall be included in the stakeholder assessment. j) Quick Start Measures: o The FS should aim at identifying and ascertaining the feasibility of three measures which can be implemented already at the beginning of programme implementation, i.e. before the detailed planning of development and buffer zone activities is completed. The Quick Start Measures are considered as “no regret” measures within the holistic understanding of the project sustainability (environmental, economic and social dimension). If economic impact is expected, QM shall be rapidly evaluated for economic feasibility without the need of detailed economic assessment. Return of investments is for many measures not possible, such as contests, trust building measures. o A contest of ideas regarding Natural Resource Management and the proposed photo-voice are considered as promising approaches as first measures during the FS, eg. for identification of further Quickstart Measures. Such contests (or others like eg. “establishment of school garden”) can be developed for different target groups in various villages. The distribution of the price and the evaluation of results could be resolved by the participants themselves, avoiding high administrative costs for the study / project team. k) Other Measures: o Larger scale measures to realize in the implementation phase should be targeted at improving the livelihood of those sections of the communities which are expected to suffer most from an expansion of the protected areas (due to incurred restrictions on use of natural resources).

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 269

o The study cannot include a detailed ecotourism strategy, but only a development framework for tourism activities and strategies, which are further detailed and tested in the implementation phase. The study shall provide general recommendations / conceptual pillars for the touristic development of the region and an assessment of the potentials of branding/ regional marketing in regard to the future BR. l) Project Components: o Project components should be defined. These can be split into: Capacity building & training (including awareness raising, excursions, etc); Planning (elaboration of management plan; spatial planning, etc.); Equipment (cloth- ing, furniture, instruments, mobility, etc.); Park-Infrastructure (buildings, paths, delimitation, etc.) and investments in socio-economic development. Costs for this components should be estimated. m) Implementation Process: o A financial cooperation project can be started by APA, the municipality, park management or others with a national budget already before the mobilization of the consulting services. This should be considered in the project design through description of first steps that can be undertaken. o The Study needs to consider the exit-strategy of the Project to ensure sustainability of project benefits. n) Back-stopping o Back-stopping is considered very important for the project and must be provided throughout the study phase, hence the backstopping Director Mr. Schade/ DFS shall additionally be present for a mid-term workshop with APA and be readily accessible for the entire period of FS implementation. o) Reports o The adjusted version of the time plan will be attached to the Inception Re- port . o After approval of KfW, the draft report will be translated into Georgian to facilitate its review by APA. The final report shall be submitted by 15. January 2010, as the Joint Appraisal Mission is scheduled for 25. January.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 270

MINUTES OF MEETING: PRESENTATION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN TBILISI, 01.12.2009

1 Introduction 1.1 The overall goal and objectives of the bilateral aid agreement and the proposed project are the harmonization of sustainable economic development and biodiversity conservation in the Kazbegi District. Key objective of the feasibility study is the identification of the most suitable and locally acceptable option of reaching the goals and objectives agreed upon by Germany and the Republic of Georgia. In accordance with the terms of reference emphasis in the feasibility study is to be placed on the investigation of the biosphere reserve land use planning concept as a preferred option by KfW to achieve the overall goal

1.2 The Project Executing Agency (PEA) is the Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia (MEPNR). The Ministry has assigned the Agency for Protected Areas (APA) as project implementation agency (PIA). KfW, on behalf of the Ministry, contracted the consulting services of the Consortium “Deutsche Forst Service GmbH (DFS)” and “AGEG Consultants AG” for the implementation of the Feasibility Study to be conducted between the 2nd of October and the 15th of December 2009.

2 Approach 2.3 At the onset of the feasibility study the team met with APA to discuss and agree on the ToR. This was followed by a comprehensive stakeholder analysis in Tblissi, two different workshops in the target area, the first aimed at the local and regional authorities, the second at the 25 identified communities of the study area. The community workshop served as basis for the participatory elaboration of a problem analysis covering the entire planning area and the participatory identification and selection of ten trust-building measures to be completed on termination of the feasibility study. A SWOT analysis was conducted in Gudauri in support of the decision on whether to include Gudauri in the planning area.

2.4 This was followed by a six week field assessment with focus on the elaboration of (25) comprehensive village profiles, participatory actual land use mapping, and the identification of key biodiversity conservation areas in need of protection. Information dissemination and a continuing dialog with key target groups and local stakeholders were mainstreamed into all field activities. A mid-term workshop during the 45th calendar week served the team to present preliminary findings and to obtain feedback on the two options selected to reach the overall goals and objectives. The 47th and 48th calendar weeks were used to analyze and process the field data presented in a wrap-up workshop to APA and the Trans-boundary Joint Secretariat on the 27th of November.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 271

3 Results 3.5 Based on the discussions with key stakeholders, a comprehensive literature review, and the field work the Study Team could verify the problems related to the study area. Key environmental problems are uncontrolled waste disposal and poaching of large mammals and game birds protected by law; key economical problems are the breakdown of the local sheep industry and greenhouse produce production following Geor- gia’s independence, the dramatically decreasing and aging local human population in the target area, and the poor potential for economic alternatives except tourism and dairy cow production both hampered by the lack of available work force; and social- cultural problems related to the strong and historical independence of the Kazbegi people manifested through its pronounced resentment to authorities, government and any interference with land issues preferred to be handled by the people amongst the people.

3.6 Against this background the application of a biosphere reserve concept appears not to be feasible and/or the most desirable option to meet the project’s overall objectives. The dwindling and rapidly aging population, the strong local opposition to any land use restrictions and protected areas, the rather low level of threats to the higher alpine ecosystems and the unfavourable topography, are factors not conducive to a biosphere reserve. This is in light of the key reason for the man and biosphere concept being the harmonization of sustainable economic development (not feasible without work-force) and biodiversity protection (minor issue in absence of serious threats to the ecology of target area).

3.7 In search for a more suitable alternative the team compared the option of the existing national park jointly with a to-be designated support zone subject to sustainable economic development with the biosphere reserve land use concept. The comparison clearly proved to be in favour of the national park and support zone resembling a proven tool embedded in an existing legal structure and administrative framework and being locally more acceptable than an untested and rather outdated biosphere reserve land-use concept.

3.8 Independent of the final choice of the client, the study team, in following the ToR, decided on the size and boundaries of the proposed planning area which now includes all of the five sakrebulos of the Stepantsminda Municipality coinciding with regional land use guidelines currently being developed by Georgia’s new Ministry for Regional development (i.e., to include entire water catchment areas, in this case the entire Tergi River catchment area forming one contiguous ecological entity).

3.9 Based on a scientific ecological gap analysis key biodiversity “hotspots” were identified to be included in conservation areas contributing to Georgia’s currently incomplete protected area system. This applies in particular to high mountain grassland ecosystems in the project area interspersed with unique mostly forest covered gorges and highly dissected terrain characterized by unique plant-ecological associations harbouring numerous rare and endangered plant- and animal species.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 272

3.10 As part of the field work the study team produced comprehensive community profiles for all 25 communities of the planning area serving as basis for the design of the project and its interventions, addressing local needs as perceived by community constituents on a priority basis and to be compatible with the overarching conservation objectives for the planning area.

3.11 The ten trust-building measures identified and selected by community members at the kick-off workshop have successfully been completed within the given timeline of the feasibility study. The success of the highly time- and energy consuming quick-start measures, especially in terms of the “trust” in the project and the team is difficult to gauge at this point. It is suggested that the close interaction contributed more to trust- ing team members than the project concept. This indicates the urgent need to continue the dialogue started.

3.12 A critically important part of the community profiling activities was the participatory mapping (scale of 1:50000) of actual land use by villagers, villages and seasonal livestock herder families. The actual land use map combined with the tentatively designated conservation areas of high importance are the tools used for the identification of potential conflict areas between conservation needs and land use. Although the production of a land tenure map as a third map layer to be superimposed appeared not feasible or essential, since no registered private land exist in the target area except for residential land parcels all concentrated in the valley bottoms and lower foothills of the Tergi River watershed and the rather narrow Sno Valley.

3.13 Based on the ecological need assessment and actual land use map the team recommends the expansion of the existing Kazbegi National Park to be composed of two contiguous sections. The eastern section (i.e., approximately 7000 ha contiguous high biodiversity area) bordering Russia to the east and the western section extending from the valley floor to the highest peak of the Kazbegi glacier, covering 15,000 ha of highly diversified and ecologically highly valuable habitat. Potential land use conflicts for both sections are considered low and negotiable.

3.14 Two smaller areas in need of protection are the Sea-buckthorn shrub communities located to the north and south of Stepantsminda within the flood plain of the Tergi River (total of less than 300 ha). The fourth area is the Kaberjini Range harbouring critical vulture colonies and providing habitat to other unique wildlife (i.e., 500 ha). The fifth identified area of extremely high biodiversity importance is the 2500 ha large Ghudo Gorge.

3.15 In due consideration of the combined assessment results of the feasibility study the team proposes the following zoning of the planning area: (a) proposed conservation areas, (b) support zone of Kazbegi National Park, (c) Community-based Hunting Co- operative, and (d) the general ISLUP planning area. The rationale for the proposed hunting cooperative is that experience show the advantage of a legal operation which

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 273 in form of a community cooperative is expected to result in peer pressure reducing illegal hunting, at the same time legally empowering highly traditional mountain communities to pursue an activity that is a fundamental part of the local culture.

4 Recommendations 4.16 The findings of the feasibility assessment indicate that the proposed expansion and consolidation of the Kazbegi National Park would provide legal protection of locally, regionally, nationally and globally important alpine ecosystems of the High Cau- casus. The findings also clearly indicate that the successful establishment of the conservation areas and their sustainable protection will only be possible in close collaboration with local communities as key-stakeholders and traditional custodians of the land to be placed under protection. In this context it is emphasized that this may only be achieved through full empowerment of local constituents, to be effected through full involvement in the planning and decision-making processes related to the conservation areas and the proposed economic development of the extended support zone of the national park to include all 25 villages.

4.17 Based on the feasibility study results the assessment following recommendations are made: • To modify and expand the existing Kazbegi National Park as described; • To designate the four other conservation units as protected areas equivalent to IUCN category III; • To establish the Kazbegi National Park Support Zone; • To start the following interventions at the earliest stage following the project inception: o Design and implementation of a comprehensive information and awareness campaign (use of support groups); o Participatory elaboration of the Kazbegi Management Plan and complementary Business Plan; o Participatory elaboration and implementation of the Kazbegi National Park Sustainable Support Zone Development Plan; o Participatory Implementation of Integrated Land Use Planning (ISLUP) covering the entire Tergi River water catchment area (in collaboration with the Ministry of Regional Development);

4.18 The following Quick-start Measures, subject to the mid-term report, have been designed and re-confirmed by target area constituents to be started at the onset of the project: • To Implement the proposed Brucellosis campaign (cattle only); • To implement the proposed waste management campaign; • To construct the proposed hydro-electric power plant at Djuta village; • To implement the proposed tourism development initiatives.

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 274

4.19 With respect to the expansion of the national park and based on the recommendations of the management plan and business plan following recommendations are made: • To provide all personnel, infrastructure and equipment specified in the business plan; • To establish a Co-Management Board with equal representation of community representatives (Responsibility for National Park and Support Zone); • To provide operational costs for the national park and affiliated conservation units for the duration of the project (5 years).

4.20 With respect to the planning, establishment, and development of the park’s support zone the following is recommended: • To support the dairy production industry (stock improvement, value-added products and marketing); • To Support niche industry (interest groups and cooperatives); • To support wool industry; • To support woman’s cooperative Ashra; • To establish community ranger corps.

4.21 With respect to the project and project implementation: • To establish Project Implementation Unit (Independent Consulting Group); • To assist in the development of spatial land use planning and management planning processes for the park and support zone; • To initiate Quick-Start Measures • To actively pursue international donor support and international UNESCO label if desirable.

Recommendations to APA • To develop a strategic plan aimed at APA’s image improvement on a local level; • To show more presence on the ground and start a dialogue with national park support zone communities; • To make an effort to involve local stakeholders in a bottom-up approach which also applies to the need for participatory elaboration of management plans; • To entertain acceptance of future co-management proposals for protected areas and/or other best governance options to be assessed on a site-specific basis;

CONSULTANT VOTUM The Consultant has come to the conclusion that the optimum approach to reaching the overarching goals and objectives of the proposed project (sustainable development of the Kazbegi Region to be harmonized with the needs for nature protection) requires the expansion and strengthening of the existing Kazbegi National Park, the protection of

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 275 other identified key conservation areas, and the designation and sustainable development of a national park support zone which includes all 25 communities located in the target area. Furthermore that a critical prerequisite to success and the development of local ownership will be the creation of a multi-stakeholder Kazbegi National Park Man- agement Board with equal representation of local communities.

Statement This Letter of Understanding expresses the opinion of the Consultant and does not reflect the opinion of KfW.

Signed at Tblissi, Georgia oon the 27th of November 2009

______Giorgi Shonvadze Director Agency of Protected Areas, Georgia

______Prof. Dr. Goetz Schuerholz Teamleader Kazbegi Feasibility Study

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 276

MINUTES OF MEETING: PRESENTATION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, KFW FRANKFURT, 09.12.2009

Participants: Mr. Felix Klauda/ KfW Mr. Andreas Weitzel/ KfW Mr. Harald Himsel/ AGEG Mr. Ralf Ludwig/ DFS Ms. Bettina Kupper/ DFS Mr. Götz Schürholz/ Team Leader (via telephone)

COMMENTS ON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RELEVANT FOR FINAL REPORT

1) BR vs. NP + support zone • Presentation of both options as SWOT analysis • Option of NP should stress innovative aspects (participative approach) and impacts to the NP sector of Georgia / in the region (strukturelle Wirkungen) • Make clear which aspects apply to both options • Demonstrate difference of both options regarding local acceptance

2) Inclusion of Gudauri • Give arguments for inclusion (entering point for tourism development; value chain, ….) • Demonstrate link of inclusion of Gudauri to sustainable development of the region • Explain, what should be done in Gudauri (measures, different implementation intensity between Gudauri and Stepansminda)

3) Problem analysis • Argumentation not sufficient: Demonstrate key problem regarding nature/ biodiversity protection, threats and challenges in a situation with declining population and linkage to expected development of local population, future scenario (external threats: opening of Russian Border; mass tourism, land speculation)

4) Budget & Financing • 4 mio have been designated to Georgia in the frame of the Ecoregional Nature Conservation Programme, which need not necessarily to be spent in Kazbegi Region. Money can be kept for further implementation phases or spent in other projects or subcomponents, e.g. Capacity Building for APA; elaboration of Par- ticipation Guidelines for the Establishment of Protected Areas; Production of a movie on Kazbegi Region • Capacity Development Component for APA: o Demonstrate need for capacity building/ consultancy

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report GEO - ERP III Draft Final Report Feasibility Study Kazbegi 277

o share of responsibility and work load TJS/ Consultant o Potential collaboration with CIM expert is an option but should not yet be considered as human resource. • An overall project concept is missing: demonstrate approach and exit-strategy. How can Park Administration gain income, return of revenues, etc.; demonstrate in-kind contributions

5) Risks and options to influence risks • Local acceptance not as risk but as an result • Coordinated administrative structure required

6) Time Schedule • Before 24.12.: Draft Report to KfW & APA • Comments of KfW & APA to Consultant (between 11.01. and 15.01.2010 • One week for preparation of Final Report • Appraisal Mission by the End of January

TELEFON CONFERENCE WITH TEAM LEADER

7) SWOT • ToR was imprecise regarding MoM. Comments of APA/ Local Government should be reflected in the Report. • Teamleader provides KfW with current state of the discussion • As soon as possible, the SWAT analysis regarding strengths/ weaknesses of both options should be presented in an comparative overview applying a SWOT analysis 8) APA Capacity Building: • which support is required for a) implementation of the project and b) regarding participative approaches in general • Kazbegi as example for participative establishment of PA; elaboration of guidelines for participative establishment of PAs • APA remains with lead role in Co-management; role of TJS? • Discussion in frame of a regional Workshop 9) Budget: see above 10) Time Schedule: see above

Further notes • Mr. A. Weitzel provides DFS with comments of KfW/ G. Haase • Mr. A. Weitzel is out of office 16.12.2009 – 07.01.2010

Feasibility Study for the Ecoregional Programme III (Georgia), Kazbegi Project Draft Final Report