Final Report

Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural areas.

FINAL REPORT

Client: REC Caucasus and UNEP, financed by GEF 12.12.2017

Project title: Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural areas. Client: REC Caucasus and UNEP, financed by GEF Local partner Financing: GEF Citation: Kirchmeir, H., Joseph, A., Huber, M. 2017: Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction

in rural areas: Final report. E.C.O. Institute of Ecology, Klagenfurt, 61 p.

Implementation: E.C.O. Institute of Ecology

Jungmeier GmbH Lakeside B07 b, 2. OG A-9020 Klagenfurt

Tel.: 0463/50 41 44 E-Mail: [email protected] Web site: www.e-c-o.at

Klagenfurt, November 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction 6 1_1 Context 6 1_2 Objective and tasks of the consultancy 6 2 Results & Deliverables 7 2_1 Draft outline for a model pilot (micro) L-SLM project with accompanying guiding notes 7 2_2 Recommendations on criteria and procedures for validation of partners pilot projects 10 2_2_1 Selection criteria 10 2_3 Selection process of 6 communities/hotspots for implementation of 6 pilot (micro) L-SLM projects 12 2_4 Report on selection of 6 pilot (micro) L-SLM project areas 13 2_4_1 Additional sites visited, but not selected 15 2_5 Pilot (micro) project proposals 19 2_5_1 Akhmeta: Improve degraded part of sheep migration corridor in Alaverdi community 20 2_5_2 Akhmeta: Improve productivity of pastures in Shenako community 26 2_5_3 Dedoplistskaro: Introduction of a crop rotation system 33 2_5_4 Dedoplistskaro: Rehabilitation of windbreaks 40 2_5_5 Gardabani: Improve degraded land through establishment of fruit orchards in Gamarjveba community 49 2_5_6 Gardabani: Rehabilitating of vegetation cover on degraded pasture land in Lemshveniera community 57 3 Annex 65 3_1 Overview on missions & meetings 65

I NTRODUCTION

List of Figures Figure 1: Talking to local land users on degradation phenomena and challenges. 12 Figure 2: Overview on the location of the proposed project sites (background: Google Physical). 13 Figure 3: Degraded pastures in Shenako (left). Degraded land on the migration route in close to Alaverdi community (right). 13 Figure 4: Location of sites selected to rehabilitate degraded windbreaks in Dedoplistskaro. 14 Figure 5: A local farmer demonstrating the degraded land in Lemshveniera. 14 Figure 6: Degraded pasture land south of Gamarjveba (left): Soil loss by wind erosion is indicated by enrichment of stones at the soil surface. 15 Figure 7: Migrations routs from the Higher Caucasus to the winter pastures in East Georgia (pink lines). 20 Figure 8: Location of sites selected to improve degraded pastures on the rest place at the sheep migration root (dashed lines). 21 Figure 9: Potential arrangement of paddocks at the rest place. 22 Figure 10: Change in land use practice in Shenako from the 19th to 21st Century (own scheme). 26 Figure 11: Location of sites selected to improve pastures and fodder production (red polygons) in Shenako. 27 Figure 12: Some parts of pastures show significant amounts of weeds (thistles) which are unsuitable as fodder for cows. 28 Figure 13: The maps is showing possible sites for pea growing in Dedoplistskaro. Fehler! Textmarke nicht definiert. Figure 14: Proposed rotation schema for wheat, pea and buckwheat. 35 Figure 15: Location of sites selected to rehabilitate degraded windbreaks in Dedoplistskaro. 42 Figure 16: Planting scheme for windbreak rehabilitation. 43 Figure 17: The Zemo Samgori irrigation system is located east of Tbilisi. 50 Figure 18: Degraded pasture land south of Gamarjveba. 51 Figure 19: Location of sites selected to improve degraded south of the village of Gamarjveba. 51 Figure 20: Optional phasing concept, fencing schema and availability of water pipeline. 53 Figure 21: The Zemo Samgori irrigation system is located east of Tbilisi. 57 Figure 22: A local farmer demonstrating the degraded land in Lemshveniera. 58 Figure 23: Location of site selected to improve degraded pasture land west of the village of Lemshveniera. 59 Figure 24: Potential sub-division of pasture land into paddocks. 60 1

Abbreviations

AMMAR - Agriculture Modernization, Market Access and Resilience MENRP - Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Center MoA - Ministry of Agriculture SLM – Sustainable land management ToT – Training of Trainers

I NTRODUCTION

1 INTRODUCTION 1_2 Objective and tasks of the consultancy The project is tendered by the Executing Agency Regional 1_1 Context Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC Caucasus) on behalf of the Implementing Agency: United Nations Environment Programme Inappropriate land use practices – especially in the context of climate (UNEP). The activities are financed by Global Environmental Facility change – are threatening food security, livelihoods and the functioning of (GEF). ecosystem services. In Georgia, unsustainable land use practices refer The task of the international consultant is the preparation of 6 pilot to phenomena such as deforestation, overgrazing and improper (micro) project proposals. The pilot projects shall address the application agricultural management systems. The result is, that valuable land of L-SLM for mitigating land degradation and shall contribute to poverty resources in Georgia are degrading – a process that is being enhanced reduction in 3 rural municipalities in Georgia. by the effects of climate change (e.g. droughts). The time frame of the assignment is from 1. September 2017 – 30. National and rural decision-making frameworks do not provide the October 2017 and comprises the following tasks: adequate legal parameters and tools to support Landscape and sustainable Land management (L-SLM). Current policies result in ▪ Based on already existing background information, field trips and disparate organizations responsible for various land management meetings/interviews with local stakeholders (local authorities sectors making unilateral decisions that lead to uncoordinated and farmers) facilitation of work to select 6 communities/hot approaches. Consequently, “on the ground” management decisions spots for implementation of 6 pilot L-SLM projects in the made by responsible communities and resource users do not benefit following 3 rural municipalities: Akhmeta, Dedoplistskaro, from the guidance of coordinated, national strategies. (Kakheti Region) and Gardabani (Kvemo Kartli Region) of Georgia The overall objective of the project is therefore, to support the integration ▪ Identification of 6 pilot (micro) L-SLM project areas within the of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) principles and practices into above 3 selected communities/hot spots –one pilot area (10-60 national policy and institutional framework to ensure adoption of ha in size) in each community economically viable practices by rural communities. ▪ Preparation of 6 pilot (micro) project proposals applying L-SLM The baseline analysis revealed that land degradation and climate change Deliverables are: trends are especially visible in the lowlands of Eastern Georgia. The regions Kakheti, Kvemo Kartli and Shida Kartli were identified as most 1) Draft outline for a model pilot (micro) L-SLM project with vulnerable to desertification – a territory with more than 700,000 people accompanying guiding notes that will become eco-migrants if there is no radical change in land 2) Recommendations on criteria and procedures for validation of management practices. potential partners (CBO/local farmers) and their selection process for implementation of the pilot (micro) projects With the implementation of six pilot projects, the L-SLM program wants 3) Report on selection process of 6 communities/hot spots for to demonstrate sustainable land management practices in three different implementation of 6 pilot (micro) L-SLM projects municipalities and to encourage the adaptation by local communities. 4) Report on selection of 6 pilot (micro) L-SLM project areas The pilot projects focus on agroforestry (windbreaks), sustainable 5) Draft 6 pilot (micro) project proposals – including their technical pasture management and soil protection. Set aim is the contribution to monitoring and evaluation plans an improvement of livelihoods, food security and rural development. 6) Final report

6 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2 RESULTS & DELIVERABLES contribute to rehabilitate vegetation cover, increase productivity and other ecosystems services?

This paragraph will describe the envisaged activities and discusses the systemic approach on community level.] 2_1 Draft outline for a model pilot (micro) L-SLM project with accompanying guiding notes Specification of pilot area [This section deals with the current degradation problems and the The chapters below are the draft template proposed for all 6 pilot- related driving factors within the pilot area. The physically observed microprojects. The individual sections have [explanatory remarks] inside problem (decrease of productivity, loss of vegetation cover, soil-loss and should serve for a comprehensive elaboration of microprojects. through erosive processes etc.) have to be analyses by the socio- Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L- economic environment. What are the driving factors, which leads to the SLM) for Mitigating Land Degradation and Contributing to currently observed problem? Is it linked to global changes?] Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas Planned activities Title of pilot (micro) project [Description of the activities. What should be done? How should it be implemented? Who will [The title should mention the main activity and the Municipality: eg. “Rehabilitation of windbreaks in Dedoplistskaro”] Short title of 1st planned activity Short title of 2nd planned activity ______Short title of 3rd planned activity … Introduction [Add detailed description of each planned activity: What should be done? How should it be implemented? Who is involved?] [Description of general context (e.g. situation and challenges of agricultural sector in Georgia), objective and activities of the GEF5 project, main focus of planned activities in the respective municipality] Involved stakeholders & ownership a. Ownership / responsibility Context of pilot project and pilot area [Who will take ownership on the further development of the project [Short description of the Municipality and the involved communities, idea?] map of the pilot area] b. Implementation of activities

Objective [Give names of persons or institutions which are needed for successful [What should be reached in the long term? What are the envisaged implementation, e.g. supervisor, local community members, …] changes in the land-use or land management and how this can c. Beneficiaries

7 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

[Who and how many people are benefiting from the implemented activities?] Labour (working days)

Activity Expert days Local worker Required material & equipment [Activity 1] [What materials and equipment is needed and what are the estimated costs?] [Activity 2] [Activity 3] Equipment

[Activity 4] Material unit price amount total cost e.g. electric fence x x x Total number of working days

… … … … Estimated total costs Total costs [Estimated cost separated in material and labour]

Costs

Applications Units/ha costs ha total

e.g. hay residuals (kg) … ...... … … ...... …

Total costs

8 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Detailed time schedule [planned time schedule for implementation]

Activity/ 10/17 11/17 12/17 1/18 2/18 3/18 4/18 5/18 6/18 7/18 8/18 9/18 10/18 11/18 Milestone Activity 1 Milestone Activity 2 Deliverables Finalization 3

Risks [Define risks that may hamper the implementation, effectiveness, sustainability of pilot project]

Outcomes & indicators [What will be the result and how can it be measured? Which indicators should be used for evaluation?]

9 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_2 Recommendations on criteria and procedures for General criteria validation of partners pilot projects The pilot activities aim at reaching a maximum number of people, which is more likely on community land than on private land. From the 2_2_1 Selection criteria investment done in the frame of the pilot project, the whole community To identify relevant partners for the implementation of micro-projects the should benefit, if possible. In addition, the site should be accessible as following criteria for the selection of communities are recommended: demonstration plot, to raise the awareness and engagement of other communities and decision makers within the wider region.

Natural criteria ▪ A maximum number of community members should benefit The „natural criteria” are the most crucial factors, as they look at the from the measure environmental conditions and determine whether the potential site is ▪ Priority is given to municipal/state owned land to have a larger subject to degradation and thus is appropriate for applying any kind of number of community members benefitting from the pilot measure against degradation: intervention ▪ Working history and positive experiences in the past are an ▪ The community or parts of it is a land degradation hotspot added value ▪ There are obvious problems or challenges regarding land ▪ Upscaling or extension of successful, local projects and management (overgrazing, erosion, decreasing agricultural initiatives is an option. productivity) Validation procedure Social criteria 1. Field assessment: visit of pilot municipality & identify areas with The interest and commitment of the community is crucial for ensuring a degradation phenomena fruitful cooperation, ownership and thus, a long-lasting effect of the pilot Potential pilot sites will be evaluated based on the above-mentioned activity. If the local population benefits from the activities also in socio- criteria. First, the potential site has to fulfil the “natural criteria”. This economic aspects, the project is more likely to be successful on the long assessment will be done on-sight during a field trip to the municipality. run. Based on prior information/vulnerability reports and/or local expertise of ▪ Commitment of individual farmers/community an expert, the area most susceptible to degradation within the members/community representatives & ownership (to ensure municipality will be identified. sustainability of measure) 2. Meeting & discussion with community representatives ▪ Ideas and concrete proposals for dealing with the SLM For those pre-selected “degradation hotspots” of the municipality, the problems already exist (prior discussions with RECC, existence interest and willingness of the local community members will be of community development plan, …) assessed by meeting and discussing land use challenges and potential ▪ There is a potential for not only ecological, but also social and pilot activities with the village representatives. socio-economic benefits from the implementation of measures

10 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

3. Assess different sites on their suitability as demonstration plot If degradation challenges and the commitment of the respective community is given, the potential local partners are already identified. The search for specific pilot sites will be the next step, trying to reach as many beneficiaries (community members) as possible. The selected site should be also suitable as demonstration plot for sharing experiences of pilot activities with other communities/stakeholder and decision makers.

11 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_3 Selection process of 6 communities/hotspots for implementation of 6 pilot (micro) L-SLM projects

During a field mission from 11th to the 22nd of September 2017 (see Overview on missions & meetings, page 65), the consultant Dr. Hanns Kirchmeir together with experts from RECC identified 6 pilot sites within the 3 pre-selected municipalities Akhmeta, Dedoplistskaro and Gardabani. The three municipalities were chosen based on prior assessments, which revealed them to be degradation hot-spots in Georgia. Each municipality has been visited at least twice. The first field mission allowed to visit each municipality during one day of the trip and to apply the selection criteria described above. Meetings with local stakeholders were held and degradation hotspots within the municipalities were visited and assessed. Then, draft implementation concepts have been developed and in a second visit follow up meetings with local stakeholders were held and the concepts have been refined with representatives of the land owners. Thus, the commitment of the local Figure 1: Talking to local land users on degradation phenomena and challenges. stakeholders could be assessed and their ideas and priorities for dealing with the degradation problems were discussed. In the field, the location of interventions was as discussed with local stakeholders and size and boundaries have been selected together. Based on those discussions, a set of 10 potential activities and pilot sites was identified. In a next step, those different options were reviewed within the expert team and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resource management (MoENRP) and 6 draft projects were selected out of the 10 proposals. For these 6 selected interventions detailed project proposals have been developed and have been presented to the deputy Minister of MoENRP on the 6th of November and have been approved by an expert team from different Ministries and public organizations.

12 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_4 Report on selection of 6 pilot (micro) L-SLM project Micro projects in Akhmeta areas In Akhmeta the communities Shenako and Alaverdi were selected, where the SLM-pilot activities will focus on the rehabilitation of eroded The following paragraphs give an overview on the 6 selected pilot and degraded pasture land. Activities include the fencing of heavily communities and sites and the foreseen micro project activities. degraded areas and the establishment of a paddock system at the migration route close to Alaverdi. The pastures in Shenako shall be improved through removal of disturbing weeds and shrubs, proper hay management, the introduction of a sustainable pasture management system based on land use maps. The cultivation of fodder crops will additionally contribute to a higher productivity of grazing livestock and thus enhance the income of the rural community.

Figure 2: Overview on the location of the proposed project sites (background: Figure 3: Degraded pastures in Shenako (left). Degraded land on the migration Google Physical). route in close to Alaverdi community (right).

13 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Micro projects in Dedoplistskaro Micro projects in Gardabani In Dedoplistskaro, one pilot project will focus on the establishment of a The municipality of Gardabani is located 40 km south of Tbilisi at the windbreak/agroforestry system to reduce wind erosion, which is the main floodplains of Kura river. The area is subject of frequent summer degradation factor and threatens agricultural production in the region. A droughts and strong winds; two factors which are limiting vegetation grow corridor of 6 km length has been identified, where heavily degraded and exacerbate degradation of land caused by unsustainable land use windbreaks on both sides of the road (in total 12 km) shall be restored. practices such as overgrazing and inappropriate or lacking irrigation Additionally, two windbreaks (700 m and 850 m length) south of the road systems. will be rehabilitated as well. Identified pilot communities are Lemshveniera and Gamarjveba. In the The second project in the municipality of Dedoplistskaro aims at community of Lemshveniera, the SLM-pilot activities will focus on the introducing a crop rotation system with legumes (pea) and buck-wheat, rehabilitation of eroded and degraded pasture land through different as soil quality in the region is constantly decreasing due to mono- measures, inter alia irrigation, mulching, fencing etc. In addition, the cropping practices. Since decades, only wheat is being planted on most formation of a cattle breeder cooperative shall be supported to fields, causing a depletion of soils (leakage of nutrients) and an increase strengthen land users and improve joint management of pasture land. of pests. Both proposed pilot projects will be implemented on state- owned land.

Figure 4: Location of sites selected to rehabilitate degraded windbreaks in Dedoplistskaro. Figure 5: A local farmer demonstrating the degraded land in Lemshveniera. The area was irrigated during Soviet period and was used as arable land. Now the area is used as pasture, but vegetation has been destroyed through overgrazing.

14 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_4_1 Additional sites visited, but not selected On the pilot site in Gamarjveba, overgrazing caused a reduction of the During the selection process several additional sites have been visited vegetation cover to only 30-60%. Wind erosion leads to the loss of the but have been dismissed in the final selection. These sites should be top soil layer, and an accumulation of stones on the surface. The area described shortly in this section. shall be restored by the establishment of an extensive fruit orchard. The draft concept will be further developed with the community. River erosion in Alvani (Akmetha) Problem: Alazani river washed away arable land (0.6ha in last 2 years) Solution: protect river bank by bioengineering measures • Willow-fascines along river bank • Spure dyke to direct water to center of riverbed and slow down water near river bank

• Regulate gravel extraction from river bed Figure 6: Degraded pasture land south of Gamarjveba (left): Soil loss by wind Expected effects: erosion is indicated by enrichment of stones at the soil surface. • Main flow of Alazani directed into central part of riverbed Right: Optional phasing concept, fencing schema and availability of water pipeline. • Water speed near riverbank reduced • River bank stabilised by willow hedgerow In summary, the selection process of suitable micro project sites and • Arable land erosion stopped activities was based on the following steps: • Visit with the municipality/community representatives Not selected because: river management goes beyond the aims of the project • Visit of degradation hotspots • Discussion of potential measures on site with community representatives • Elaboration of a draft outline project • Presentation of draft project idea to MoENRP

The selection process was implemented in October 2017 and involved an international expert as well as staff and experts from REC-C who were already familiar with the potential pilot communities, their challenges and development goals regarding the challenge of land degradation

15 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

• Set up of local stakeholders cooperative on pasture management • Develop long-term program on weed management implemented by local stakeholders Expected effects: • Invasive plant species stopped • Increase of effective grazing land by 80% • Increased milk productivity Not selected because: low desertification risk

Figure 7: Map of Alvani river erosion site

Figure 8: Eroded river bank in Alvani.

Figure 9: Map of Alvani degraded pasture.

Pasture degradation by invasive plants in Alvani (Akhmeta) Problem: a common used pasture on municipality land is heavily degraded by unpalatable plants (Xanthium spinosum, Ambrosia artemisiifolia) Solution: Removal of invasive plants • Removal of stones and mowing of land

16 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Figure 10: Degraded common pastures in Alvani. Figure 11: Map of Alaverdi degraded forest.

Degraded forest in Alaverdi (Akhmeta) Problem: unregulated fuel wood extraction leads to degraded forest ecosystem Solution: improve forest structure • Satisfy local fuel wood demand by removal of not-natural plantations in forest from Alaverdi Monastery • Regulate and control forest management in degraded forest area to increase timber volume form useful species (Hornbeam, Maple …) Expected effects: • Increase carbon storage in forest ecosystem Figure 12: Degraded forests in Alaverdi.

• Increase productivity in sustainable fuel wood production Degraded winter pasture in Gamarjveba (Gardabani) • Reduce not-natural trees in natural forest ecosystem managed Problem: High grazing intensity leads to reduced vegetation cover and by monastery exposure to wind and water erosion Not selected because: low desertification risk Solution: Establish pasture rotation system • Create working group with all 6 shepherds using this area

17 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

• Set up of paddock system with mobile electric fence system • Elaborate rotational grazing schema with shepherds Expected effects: • Stop soil erosion closed vegetation cover • Increased growth of grass and herbs leads to increased nutrition of cattle • Higher milk and meat production due better nutrition Not selected because: lower desertification risk than the other two sites in Gardabani

Figure 14: Degraded winter pastures in Gamarjveba.

Figure 13: Map of degraded winter pasture in Gamarjveba.

18 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_5 Pilot (micro) project proposals ▪ Land degradation is occurring and has negative impacts on agricultural production Introduction ▪ High commitment and interest of local population to improve their situation and to pilot SLM measures Georgia’s agricultural sector plays a key role in the country’s economy, ▪ Activities can be replicated with minimal expenditures by though it is dominated by smallholder agriculture and small-scale farmers and other municipalities livestock management resulting in low-level incomes and often rural ▪ Municipal or state-owned land is prioritized to yield positive poverty. Generally, the climatic and soil conditions are favourable in results for the whole community Georgia and should support a wide range of different agricultural activities. The decline of agricultural production since the 1990´s is a result of declining soil quality and productivity, which in turn is triggered by unsustainable land use practices.

Especially the Eastern part of the country suffer from land degradation phenomena, such as waterlogging, salinization and wind erosion. They are mainly caused by inadequate cultivation practices (e.g. overgrazing, lack of landscape structures and permanent soil cover, inappropriate irrigation practice), while being exacerbated by climatic effects, such as reduced precipitation. As a result, much of this land is no longer in agricultural production.

The GEF5 project “Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural areas”, implemented by the Regional Environment Centre for the Caucasus (RECC) on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia, aims at introducing and supporting sustainable land management (SLM) practices throughout Georgia. Besides activities that address an improvement of the national policy and institutional framework for the adoption of SLM practices, pilot projects on municipal and community level shall yield concrete positive social and environmental impacts.

In total, three municipalities (Dedoplistskaro, Gardabani, Akhmeta) that are typical agricultural and livestock production areas and at the same time affected by severe land degradation have been selected for the pilot activities. Based on the following criteria, two communities in each municipality were identified as pilot areas:

19 R E S U L T S & D ELIVE RABLES

2_5_1 Akhmeta: Improve degraded part of sheep migration corridor in Alaverdi community In Akhmeta, the SLM-pilot activities will focus on the establishment of rehabilitation of eroded and degraded pasture land.

Context of pilot project and pilot area The proposed site of intervention is located at the sheep migration route from the High Caucasus to the winter pastures in Vashlovani region. The selected site is at a location, where the migration route crosses a river, which comes from the south towards the Alazani river. This location is a resting place for the sheep on their long path between winter and summer pastures.

Migration routes are important elements of transhumant land use. To maintain this traditional form of shepherd breeding, it is important to maintain the migration routes. The migration route is on the one hand a corridor connecting winter and summer pastures. On the other hand, the migration route should provide grazing area and fodder resource during the 2 months lasting journey between the winter and summer pasture. So finally, the sheep are 4 months on the summer pasture, 4 months on the winter pasture and 2 times 2 months on the migration route.

Migration routes got under pressure as settlements and agricultural use was intensified in the lowlands and conflicts between transhumant shepherds and their flocks with the permanent residents and farmers are observed frequently.

Conflicts are also reported from the resting place south-west of the village Alaverdi.

The community of Alaverdi is located on the foot plain south of the Caucasus main ridge in the Akhmeta municipality. The main income is agricultural production. The village is located at 460 m elevation on the Alazani river floodplain and is surrounded by arable fields. Figure 15: Migrations routs from the Higher Caucasus to the winter pastures in East Georgia (pink lines). Source: Spatial Planning maps provided by Studio 21 & Geographic, 2017

20 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Objective By establishing four fenced compartments (paddocks) on the resting area at the migration route, overgrazing effects and pasture degradation should be avoided and degraded pastures can be rehabilitated. By the new grazing compartment or paddock system, the grazing pressure can be distributed equally to the resting place and conflicts with neighbouring residential farmers can be avoided.

Having good nutrition conditions along the migration route helps to reduce grazing pressure from winter and summer pastures. In the case of bad grazing conditions on the migration route, the flocks will migrate faster and will arrive too early in the summer/winter pasture and vegetation might not be well developed at this early stage. This can lead to overgrazing effects, as vegetation biomass does not reach a critical volume to balance growth and browsing. Figure 16: Location of sites selected to improve degraded pastures on the rest place at the sheep migration root (dashed lines). Specification of pilot area To rehabilitate the eroded pasture land and to stop soil erosion, grazing The proposed site of intervention is located in the Alazani floodplain must be regulated and more evenly distributed through a south-west of the village Alaverdi. Main annual precipitation is 600 mm paddock/rotation system. and mean annual temperature is 13°C (CHELSA global climate data, Karger et al. 2016). Planned activities

The resting area along the migration route is about 174 ha and a 1. Establish working group of representatives of migrating shepherds neighbouring community pasture land has another 19 ha. and local farmers 2. Develop paddock concept with shepherds While the southern part of the resting area shows severe degradation by 3. Improve pasture quality by removal of weeds and shrubs overgrazing, the northern part is less intensively used. The northern part 4. Set up fencing and water supply has still a low quality due to large amounts of weeds and shrubs 5. Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded spreading into the pastures. pastures

21 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Establish working group of representatives of migrating compost could be used in the following years to fertilize the pastures. If shepherds and local farmers possible, tractors should be used for this clearing. As an alternative brush-cutters can be used and the clearance from weeds could be done Changes and improvements at the rest place of the migration route in several steps until autumn. affects several stakeholders: shepherds and sheep owners, local farmers, administration of local river management and other users of this Set up fencing and water supply site. According to the paddock plan, which is agreed between representatives It is of uppermost importance for the success of the initiative, to of shepherds, local farmers and municipality administration, the electric communicate with all relevant stakeholders from the very beginning. The fences are installed. Gates give separate access to each of the Tusheti Sheep Association, the Akhmeta municipality, and neighbouring paddocks, so no flock need to cross the paddock used by others. farmers should be informed and invited to planning meetings. If needed, pipes and drinking troughs could be used to supply each In January a first planning meeting should be envisaged, to get an paddock with water, if the water in the river is not available. Depending overview of the relevant stakeholders and how to establish on the amount of financial resources, shelters for shepherds could be communication to all affected stakeholders. During the migration period constructed at each paddock. in spring 2018 (April-Mai), a person providing information to the shepherds should be provided in place. This person should also guide the shepherds how to select the proper paddock and how use the gates of the fencing.

Develop paddock concept with shepherds In March and April, a steering group of the shepherd association together with the local farmers and representatives of municipality administration should decide on the number, size and distribution of paddocks in the field. The number of paddocks depends on the maximum number of flocks that are expected to be in the resting area at the same time. The design of the paddocks should acknowledge, that all paddocks need access to water. This should be possible by the river running through the resting site.

Improve pasture quality by removal of weeds and shrubs Before the fencing, pasture weeds and shrubs should be removed to Figure 17: Potential arrangement of paddocks at the rest place. clear the paddocks and increase space for fodder plants. This should be Open corridors for the migration routes are kept open beside the done in spring and repeated in July/August again. The residuals from the paddocks. Total area of fenced paddocks: 150ha. cutting have to be removed and composted close to the resting site. The

22 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded project. Friends of Tusheti or the Tusheti Sheep Association could be pastures first starting point for partner search.

Monitoring should be done to document the rehabilitation of degraded Required material & equipment pastures. Indicators are: Equipment: • Vegetation cover (the higher the better) Equipment/material Amount • Amount of unpalatable plants (the lower the better) Fence (including energizing-unit with solar This vegetation monitoring should be done by permanent plots marked panel, 3-wires, posts, and assesset before isolators) 11.5 km 25.000,00 € Interviews with shepherds and local farmers before and after the pipes and 4 drinking intervention should help to find out acceptance of the measure and ideas troughs 2.500,00 € for further improvement of the situation. Information board 300,00 € 4x Shepherds shelter 5.000,00 € Involved stakeholders & ownership Total 32.800,00 € Ownership / responsibility Labour (work days): The rest place is located in municipality land (has to be verified). Arable nat. local fields in the direct neighbourhood are privately used. It would be helpful Activity expert worker to find a responsible organisation for long term maintenance of the site. Establish working group of On option could be the Shepherds association or the Friends of Tusheti1. representatives of migrating shepherds Beneficiaries and local farmers 10 The main beneficiaries are the shepherds and the local farmers: The Develop paddock concept with shepherds find better pasture a clear compartments for their sheep as shepherds 5 well as shelters and water supply. The fields from local farmers are Improve pasture quality by removal of protected from grazing of migrating sheep. weeds and shrubs 5 100 Implementation of activities Set up fencing and water supply 10 100 A NGO or association closely related with the sheep keeping and migration corridors would be a good implementation partner of the Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures 20 Total 50 200

1 Based on the available documents, it was not clear, if also shepherds from Tusheti are using this rest place.

23 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Estimated total costs Materials and tools: 32.800€

Labour: 13.000€

Detailed time schedule

Activity no. Activity

Jul 18 Jul

Okt17 18 Apr Okt18

Jan18 Mai 18 Jun18

Mrz18

Feb 18 Feb

Nov17 Dez17 Aug 18 Sep 18 Nov18 Dez18

Establish working group of representatives of FI 1/ A1 migrating shepherds and local farmers

FI 1/ A2 Develop paddock concept with shepherds

Improve pasture quality by removal of weeds FI 1/ A3 and shrubs

FI 1/ A4 Set up fencing and water supply

Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation FI 1/ A5 success of degraded pastures

FI 1/ A6 Synthetic analysis and final report

24 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Risks Outcomes & indicators Establish working group of representatives of migrating shepherds and local Outcome: open soil (without vegetation cover) in the eroded parts of the farmers pastures will decrease by 25%. Shepherds accept the new infrastructure As shepherds are in the winter pastures, it might be difficult to integrate and more than 50% classify it as positive for them them into the discussion processes. It would be important to find good representatives, which are accepted by a majority of the shepherds. Proposed output indicators: ▪ Steering board with representatives of local stakeholder Improve pasture quality by removal of weeds and shrubs groups established If the area is not manageable by machines (tractors), removal of weeds ▪ Fencing and water supply of at least 3 paddocks and shrubs could be a long lasting task. In this case, only a small part of established the area can be managed within the budget. ▪ More than 50% of shepherds accept and use the new Set up fencing and water supply paddocks It might be not easy to procure electric fence in Georgia. Experience from ▪ Open soils on eroded pastures decrease by 25% Armenia showed, that local procurement led to significant increase of prices compared to a GIZ-Tender made in Germany or prices available References from online distributors. But for sustainability, it would be important to Karger, D.N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, establish local providers, that also can help with spare parts and service. R.W., Zimmermann, N., Linder, H.P. & Kessler, M. (2016): CHELSA Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas Changes in vegetation rehabilitation might be not visible already in the (Version 1.0). World Data Center for Climate. first year. Permanently marked monitoring plots (e.g. with iron markings doi:10.1594/WDCC/CHELSA_v1. below ground or wooden posts) would enable to repeat the survey in the upcoming years to compare long term effects.

25 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_5_2 Akhmeta: Improve productivity of pastures in Shenako community

Context of pilot project and pilot area The community of Shenako is located in the Tusheti protected landscape within the municipality of Akhmeta in the High Caucasus ridge at the boarder to Dagestan. The main income is agricultural production and tourism. The village is located at 1900m elevation and is surrounded by subalpine meadows and pastures and some arable fields. Within the village there are 4 cattle breeding families and in close neighbourhood there are 3 sheep farmers. On farmer was permanent resident also during winter, the other farmers left Tusheti in winter. In 2017, a second farmer decided to stay permanently in Shenako during winter with at least some part of his cattle.

The advantage of having the cattle permanently in Shenako is the cost saving for buying additional fodder, which they would need along the migration route on the way to the winter pastures. Farmers that stay with the cattle for the whole year in Shenako can make use of the hay meadows and harvest their own fodder for winter.

The land use practise has changed during the last centuries significantly. Until the begin of the 20th century the permanent settlement was in the villages up in Tusheti. In the Soviet period, the Tush population was resettle to newly created settlements in the lowlands (Alvani) and the complex traditional land use in Tusheti (pastures, hay meadows, arable fields) have been replaces by pure sheep breeding.

After the Soviet period, land use was changing again and mixture of sheep and cattle breeding as well as tourism developed. But grazing is not applied in a traditional or regulated form, which lead to overgrazing effects and erosion especially of steep pastures close to the villages.

Tourism gives new income opportunities for local stakeholders. But it is also important to keep agricultural use alive. The agricultural land use Figure 18: Change in land use practice in Shenako from the 19th to 21st Century (livestock breeding, growing potatoes and vegetables) should be (own scheme). sustainable in ecological and economical dimension.

26 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

For the economic sustainability, number of livestock increase per household to make a living from (but the number of cattle breeding families has decreased in parallel). Currently, each family does it’s on milk processing and chees production. To run a cooperative diary in Shenako, a total volume of 400-500 litres of milk would be needed, while at the moment 300 litres are produced. An increase of productivity cannot be reached by increasing the number of cows, but by increasing quality of fodder.

The ecological sustainability could be reached by regulating grazing on eroded and degraded steep slopes and by an adapted management of the wetland near to the hay meadows and pastures. Figure 19: Location of sites selected to improve pastures and fodder production (red polygons) in Shenako. Objective Hatched areas show degraded and eroded pastures. By developing an innovative land use plan together with the local stakeholders and by implementing appropriate land management Within the GIZ-IBiS project (former GIZ-Project on Erosion Control in the measures, eroded pasture land will be rehabilitated, and productivity will Southern Caucasus) an area of 23 ha of heavily eroded pasture have be increased. This will be in line with the land degradation neutrality been excluded from grazing by electric fencing and a test site of 6 ha for targets as well as increasing income to local farmers. rotational pasture system have been installed.

To rehabilitate the eroded pasture land and to stop soil erosion, grazing Specification of pilot area must be stopped for 2-3 years and after this rehabilitation phase, grazing The proposed site of intervention is located in the village of Shenako. has to be strictly regulated on these steep pasture lands. Main annual precipitation is 750-900mm and mean annual temperature is 2-4°C (CHELSA global climate data, Karger et al. 2016). Planned activities The area of field, hay meadows and pasture around Shenako is about To compensate the loss of pasture land and to avoid overgrazing on the 280 ha and ranges from 1800 up to 2400m above sea level. In the remaining pasture lands, a set of activities should be implemented. northern and eastern part, there are step slopes with inclination more than 30° with signs of heavy erosion. The area of this erode pastureland 6. Land use map and integrated land use plan is about 50-60 ha. 7. Improve productivity of pasture land by weed control 8. Improve yield of hay meadows by proper hay management 9. Introduce crop rotation on potato fields with fodder crops 10. Extend rotational pasture system 11. Monitoring & documentation

27 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Land use map and integrated land use plan Based on the assessment of grassland-biomass by remote sensing applied for Tusheti in the GIZ-IBiS program and current satellite images as well as field justification, a land use map will be developed describing the following categories:

▪ Settlements ▪ House-gardens ▪ Roads and infrastructure ▪ Arable fields (used/unused) ▪ Hay meadows (high biomass/ medium biomass/ on wetlands) ▪ Hay meadows on wetlands ▪ Pasture (high/ medium biomass/ degraded with low biomass) ▪ Forest (30-70% tree cover / >70% tree cover) ▪ Rock and open soil (unused land)

Together with the local stakeholders a land use plan will be worked out. Figure 20: Some parts of pastures show significant amounts of weeds (thistles) In the land use plan the future land use (pasture land, land excluded from which are unsuitable as fodder for cows. use for rehabilitation, hay meadows and arable fields) will be described. Based on the experience on productivity of different land use practices, Thistles should be cut with a motor-cutter (string trimmer, brush cutter) a potential carrying capacity for livestock will be calculated. in mid-summer before seeds are ripe. At this stage of development, most energy is put into the flower and seeds and less energy is stored in the Improve productivity of pasture land by weed control root system. Thus, cutting the above ground part of the thistle will affect As large areas of the former pasture land need to be excluded from regeneration power significantly. After cutting the thistles, intensive grazing for rehabilitation, it is important to improve the quality of the grazing can help to reduce re-sprouting of thistles. The cutting of thistles remaining pasture land to feed the livestock without being overgrazed. must be repeated over several years to show long term effects. One activity to increase the available fodder biomass on pastures is to remove thistles, which cover 10-25% of the pasture land especially on The pasture land that needs thistle cutting is about 10 ha. A motor-cutter sites with good soil conditions. is available in the village from the former GIZ-Project.

Improve yield of hay meadows by proper hay management No suitable machinery and less man power is available to do the hay cutting on the approximately 35 ha of available hay meadows. The hay mowing starts in July and last till the end of September. Because livestock management and maintenance and harvest of potato fields and work in the green house takes also a lot of time, only limited work power

28 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES is available to do the hay cutting. This leads to the effect, that even very 1. During the rehabilitation phase of 4-6 weeks, much more productive hay meadows are only cut once a year and a significant biomass can re-grow than on permanently grazed pastures. portion (>50%) of the hay is cut in an unsuitable late stage of 2. High grazing intensity during a short period leads to cleaning development with lower nutrition value. up of unfavourable herbs and grasses so less human maintenance work is needed. By improving the machinery, the time needed for harvesting the hay will But rotational pastures need also additional investments and workload: be significantly reduced. This enables the two farmers staying in Shenako during winter to cut enough hay in July, when it has the best 1. Fences have to be bought and built up as well as to be nutrition factor. It will even enable the farmer to make use of hay fields, managed which are unused by now and to give additional fodder to the livestock in 2. Drinking water has to be supplied to each paddock the morning and or evening after milking. 3. A farmer/shepherd is needed to bring and fetch the cattle from the fenced paddock each morning and evening Introduce crop rotation on potato fields with fodder crops

There is around 5-10 ha of fields, that were used for crop growing on former times. Currently, some part of this is used for growing potato. But no crop rotation is applied to the potato field by now. By introducing sainfoin (leguminous) and barley for crop rotation, productivity of the fields should be increased and additional fodder with high nutrition factor can be produced. This additional fodder will help to increase milk production even with having less pasture land available due the erosion control measures on the steep and degraded pastures.

Expand rotational pasture system In 2016 an area of 6 ha was divided into 3 paddock units for rotational pasture system. It turned out, that this area was too small to be used for the milking cows and therefor was used for the calves instead.

Rotation pastures systems are working with several pasture units divided by fences. While one pasture unit (paddock) is used, the grass and herbs Figure 21: Example of pasture rotation schema. on the other paddocks can regrow. While a high number of livestock is The details of a rotation schema has to be developed with the shepherds grazing a relatively small pasture unit, the grazing pressure is at the end and farmers. The time of grazing has to be estimated for each paddock of the grazing time very high and even not preferred pants like thistles (pasture unit) by each size, pasture quality and number of livestock. The are browsed by the cattle. After this intensive grazing, the paddock is left real grazing duration will be decided by the farmers based on the for regeneration without grazing for a couple of weeks (4-6) before being individual state of the pasture and can vary because of different climatic grazed again. conditions from year to year. Monitoring & documentation The rotational pasture system has two advantages: Documentation should be done to monitor the improvement of productivity in milk and meat production as well as in rehabilitation of

29 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES degraded pastures. A cost-benefit analysis should analyse which type of Required material & equipment investment shows best results. The cost-benefit analysis should Equipment compare the investment in the fence and the additional workload for Equipment/material Amount fencing, fence maintenance, weed control and additional logistics with Fence (including energizing-unit 7.500,00 € the additional income of increased milk production. with solar panel, 3-wires, posts, Indicator isolators) 3000m

• Milk productivity (average milk productivity per cow and month) Hay cutting equipment for tractor 5.000,00 € from rotational pasture systems in comparison to traditional Hay turner equipment for tractor 5.000,00 € (uncontrolled) grazing

Seeds for sainfoin and barley 500,00 € Total 18.000,00 € Involved stakeholders & ownership Ownership / responsibility Labour The pastures are located in municipality land. Arable fields and hay internat. nat. local meadows are privately used. As the village of Shenako (including the Activity Expert expert worker guest houses) are embedded in the pastures and arable lands, a close Land use map and land use plan 6 6 cooperation between all village stakeholders is needed. Improve productivity of pasture land Beneficiaries by weed control 6 20 The two farmers staying during winter are the main target group for Improve yield of hay meadows by improved hay management and fodder production. All cattle breeders proper hay management 6 6 10 can benefit from better pasture quality and availability of additional fodder Introduce crop rotation on potato crops to improve animal nutrition and milk/meat production. fields with fodder crops 10 10 Implementation of activities Extend rotational pasture system 5 20 The farmers should be key persons for implementation of measures. The Monitoring & documentation 20 NGO friends of Tusheti could support project implementation and do Total 12 53 60 bookkeeping and accounting. Friends of Tusheti would be a good partner for upscaling these activities to other villages in Tusheti. Estimated total costs NACRES could be a good partner in supervision and monitoring the Materials and tools: 18,000€ effect on pastures and milk/meat productivity as they are involved in the Labour: 20.000€ pasture management in Tusheti for several years.

30 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Detailed time schedule

Activity

Activity 18 Jul

Jan18

Jun18

Okt 17 Apr 18 Okt 18

Feb 18 Feb 18 Sep

Dez 17 Dez 18 Dez

Mai18

Aug18

Mrz18 Nov18 no. Nov17

FI 1/ A1 Tendering experts, fence and hay harvesting tools FI 1/ A2 Integrated land use plan FI 1/ A3 Improve productivity of pasture land by weed control FI 1/ A4 Improve yield of hay meadows by proper hay management FI 1/ A5 Introduce crop rotation on potato fields with fodder crops FI 1/ A6 Extend rotational pasture system FI 1/ A7 Monitoring & documentation FI 1/ A8 Synthetic analysis and final report

Extend rotational pasture system Risks Farmers are not willing to spend additional labour for bringing and fetching the cattle to/from the fenced pasture. Maintenance of fence is Land use plan not applied. Sheep-farmers do not accept the fenced cattle pastures as Interest of farmers, guesthouse providers and local residents are they limit their daily migration routes. conflicting. Monitoring & documentation This should be limited to good facilitation of focus groups discussions Positive impact on milk and meat production is not easy to access and between different stakeholder groups need good cooperation with farmers. Improve productivity of pasture land by weed control Thistles are re-growing fast. If cutting is not successful, removing thistle Outcomes & indicators with root is an alternative, but much more time consuming. Outcome: Milk and meat production is increased by 20% and vegetation Improve yield of hay meadows by proper hay management cover on eroded pasture land is increased by 10% The old existing tractor is not suitable to access the hay field. A new Proposed output indicators: tractor or alternative machinery has to be bought. Cost calculation has to ▪ Land use plan is agreed with local stakeholders and is in be done to estimate the return of investment place Introduce crop rotation on potato fields with fodder crops ▪ Hay harvest is finished already in August Additional tools for sowing and harvesting crops are needed. This should ▪ 3 additional paddocks, each of 5-6 ha are fenced be a minor problem for sainfoin, as only cutting is needed. But barley ▪ Thistles are cut on 10 ha of pasture land needs additional treatment. ▪ Crop rotation of sainfoin and/or barley are established on 30% of former potato fields

31 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

References Karger, D.N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, R.W., Zimmermann, N., Linder, H.P. & Kessler, M. (2016): CHELSA climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas (Version 1.0). World Data Center for Climate. doi:10.1594/WDCC/CHELSA_v1.

Rosenow, St. 2015: Socio-Economic Analysis and Recommendations. Annex 5 to the Socio-Economic and Environmental Baseline Study including the Elaboration of a Monitoring System. GIZ-Project Integrated Erosion Control in the Southern Caucasus.

32 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_5_3 Dedoplistskaro: Introduction of a crop rotation system In total, three municipalities (Dedoplistskaro, Gardabani, Akhmeta) that are typical agricultural and livestock production areas and at the same Municipality & community time affected by severe land degradation have been selected for the pilot activities. Based on the following criteria, two communities in each Municipality of Dedoplistskaro / Kakheti Region; Name or number of municipality were identified as pilot areas: communities depending on the farmers applying during the selection process (see selection process below). ▪ Land degradation is occurring and has negative impacts on agricultural production Introduction ▪ High commitment and interest of local population to improve their situation and to pilot SLM measures Georgia’s agricultural sector plays a key role in the country’s economy, ▪ Municipal or state-owned land is prioritized to yield positive though it is dominated by smallholder agriculture and small-scale results for the whole community livestock management resulting in low-level incomes and often rural ▪ Positive collaboration in the past poverty. Generally, the climatic and soil conditions are favourable in Georgia and should support a wide range of different agricultural activities. The decline of agricultural production since the 1990´s is a In Dedoplistskaro, the SLM-pilot activities will focus on activities to result of declining soil quality and productivity, which in turn is triggered combat the widespread problem of wind erosion, which is here the main by unsustainable land use practices. degradation factor and threatens agricultural production. The introduction of a crop rotation system shall demonstrate options to Especially the Eastern part of the country suffer from land degradation improve soil quality and soil stability. phenomena, such as waterlogging, salinization and wind erosion. They are mainly caused by inadequate cultivation practices (e.g. overgrazing, Context of pilot project and pilot area lack of landscape structures and permanent soil cover, inappropriate irrigation practice), while being exacerbated by climatic effects, such as The large basin of Shiraki Valley in the Kakheti region, East Georgia, is reduced precipitation. As a result, much of this land is no longer in an important wheat production area. More than 30.000 ha of arable land agricultural production. are located in this area. The area is located on a flat plateau in about 500m above sea level. Mean annual temperature is 10 to 11 C° and The GEF5 project “Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land mean annual precipitation varies between 500 and 700 mm/a (CHELSEA Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to Climate Data, Karger et al. 2016). poverty reduction in rural areas”, implemented by the Regional Environment Centre for the Caucasus (RECC) on behalf of the Ministry One factor for decrease of productivity is the fact, that since decades of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia, aims at only wheat was planted on the fields without crop rotation. Mono- introducing and supporting sustainable land management (SLM) cropping and zero-rotation is common amongst farmers (Westerberg practices throughout Georgia. Besides activities that address an 2016). This leads to leakage of nutrients and increase of pests. improvement of the national policy and institutional framework for the First tests of growing pea showed, that this could be an economically and adoption of SLM practices, pilot projects on municipal and community ecologically interesting alternative. level shall yield concrete positive social and environmental impacts.

33 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Objective Agricultural production is an important source of income for the To convince local farmers incentives of 40-60% of the production cost for Dedoplistskaro municipality (Agricultural Census of Georgia 2014). 74% pea-growing should be funded by the project. The subsidy rate should of the Georgian wheat productions is in Kakheti region and Shiraki valley be according to the farm size. Small farmers (< 5 ha) should receive has a great share on this. The area of wheat production in Dedoplistskaro higher subsidies (60%) than medium farmers (5-20 ha; 50%) and large is 13 693 ha (Census 2014). Securing the productivity of arable land and farmers (>20 ha, 40%). Field that are selected for the pea growing within to stop degradation by loss of soil fertility is of local and national this project should fulfil the following criteria: importance. The introduction of pea as an alternative crop, that could be used in rotation with wheat and other crops, should help to increase ▪ Size minimum 1 ha and maximum 5 ha sustainably and ecologically the soil fertility. Pea is a plant from ▪ At least 10 years of permanent wheat growing without crop leguminous plant family. Pea can fix nitrogen from air by symbiotic rotation bacterial in the root systems. This helps to increase the C/N proportion ▪ 20-30 ha (ca. 25%) of the field located on productive soils (wheat in the soil which leads to higher decay rates of organic carbon (e.g. from yields >4t/a), 50 ha (50%) on average soils (wheat yields 2-4t/a) straw residuals) and higher fertility of soils. and 20-30 ha (ca. 25%) on less productive soils (last wheat yields less than 2t/ha) This GEF-funded project should encourage local farmers from different communities in the Dedoplistskaro municipality to use pea as an Involved stakeholders & ownership alternative crop on wheat fields. Ownership / responsibility The aim is to grow 100 ha of peas on approximately 25-35 fields (size of The test field are in private property. The subsidy offer for testing peas 1-5 ha each). will be communicated by public means and the selection of sites will be done by the criteria above. The farmers are responsible for sowing, The showcase should demonstrate local farmers and regional as well maintaining and harvesting the peas. The subsidy will be a fixed amount national policy makers the economic and ecological positive effect of pea per ha, according to the size of the farm, different subsidy rates are to improve soil fertility. The initiative should also provide information and provided. experience on pea growing in the region and to support local chains of production. A monitoring component in the project should reveal Implementation of activities economic costs and benefits, problems and risks as well as quantifying A local project team for the implementation of the incentive schema has the impact on soil fertility. to be set up. Subsidy contracts have to be cross-checked by independent experts. Subsidy contracts have to include monitoring measures.

Specification of pilot area Beneficiaries Beneficiaries are the local farmers. The showcase should be The proposed sites of intervention are in different regions of the wheat documented by scientific studies to demonstrate for the pea-fields the production area of Dedoplistskaro. The selection of sites should include positive impact of crop rotation on soil fertility as well the economic return fields of different fertility (sites with high fertility along the Alazani of investment. This should motivate farmers to start crop rotation as well. riverbanks, medium fertility in the centre of Shiraky Valley and low fertility at the boarders of Shiraky Valley (especially from the eastern part).

34 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Outline of planned activities Activity GEL/ha Euro/ha The subsidy (incentive) program has to be announced in public to give ploughing 100 GEL 35.71 € equal chances for stakeholders to participate. The farmers have to submit standard forms for application. Beside name and address, the harrowing 40 GEL 14.29 € form should indicate the size of the proposed field for pea-crop rotation, pea-seeds (250kg) 375 GEL 133.93 € the number of years under permanent wheat production, the average yield of wheat of the last 3 years in t/ha, the community and cadastre seeding 25 GEL 8.93 € parcel of the spatial location. apply herbicides 15 GEL 5.36 € Beside this, the farmer should announce which schema he/she wants to implement: herbicide (1l) 100 GEL 35.71 €

▪ Pea production harvesting 100 GEL 35.71 € ▪ Pea intermediate crop unforeseen 100 GEL 35.71 € ▪ Buck-Wheat production 855 GEL 305.36 € 1: Pea production The purpose of this application is to produce peas for food or fodder production. Incentive rate 1ha 1ha 100 ha The old stubbles from the previous wheat cultivation should be incorporated into the top soil (8-10 cm depth) e.g. with a disc harrow. In 40% 342 GEL 122 € 12,214 € October/November the conventional ploughing with 25 cm depth or with 50% 427 GEL 153 € 15,268 € a field cultivator (grubber) at 10-15cm should be applied. 60% 513 GEL 183 € 18,321 € Pea should be seeded in March 2018 and harvested in June/July 2018. The sowing norm for peas is 60-80 seeds/m² (drill seed) or 50-65 in Table 1: Estimated costs and incentive rates for pea production. single seed. Seed depth is 4-6cm on clay rich and 6-8cm on light soils. Row distances of 25cm is optimal. 2. Pea as intermediate crop Because of risk of pests (e.g. by. Ascochyta pisi) an intermediate period This application mainly focuses on the improvement of soil. Peas will be of 4-6 years should be kept. A possible rotation scheme could look like seeded in July right after wheat harvest. It is expected, that there is not this: sufficient rain for a full production cycle to harvest peas before ploughing in October again. The green biomass of the peas should be incorporated to the field to increase soil fertility. As no pea production is envisaged, no pesticide application and no harvesting are needed. Estimated production costs: Figure 22: Proposed rotation schema for wheat, pea and buckwheat.

35 R E S U L T S & D ELIVE RABLES

Table 2: Estimated costs and incentive rates for pea intermediate crop. Field 2 t/ha 267 https://www.ag.nd http://www.saskcr peas USD/t su.edu/publication opinsurance.com/ activity GEL/ha Euro/ha s/crops/field-pea- ci/prices ploughing 100,00 GEL 35,71 € production harrowing 40,00 GEL 14,29 € Wheat 2,4 t/ha 191,8 GeoStat http://www.fao.org USD/t Agriciltural /giews/food- seeding 25,00 GEL 8,93 € statistics 2014 prices/internationa pea-seeds (250kg) 375,00 GEL 133,93 € l-prices/en/

total 540,00 GEL 192,86 €

Table 4: Proposed area of activity implementation (ha) Incentive rate 1ha 1ha 100 ha Good soil Average soil Poor soil 40% 216,00 GEL 77 € 7.714 € (Wheat yield > (Wheat yield 2- (Wheat yield < Tot 50% 270,00 GEL 96 € 9.643 € Schema 4t/h) 4t/h) 2t/h) al 60% 324,00 GEL 116 € 11.571 € Pea- production 15 40 20 75

Pea- 3. Buck-wheat production intermediate 5 5 5 15 Beside peas, also buck-wheat should be tested for production on a small number of fields to gain experience on this crop as an alternative to Buck-wheat 3 5 2 10 wheat. Costs and incentives are the same as for the pea production Total 23 50 27 100 scheme.

Table 3: Comparison of yield and prices.

Crop Yields Price Source yield Source price Buck- 0,9 t/ha 551 https://www.agmr https://www.agmrc wheat USD/t c.org/commodities .org/commodities- - products/specialty products/specialty -crops/buckwheat- - profile/ crops/buckwheat- profile/

36 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Selection of farmers 1. Site conditions and soil fertility before activity is implemented Each farmer can only apply with one field to the program. All submissions 2. Field preparation, type of pea-variety used sowing date and are put into anonymous envelopes and are mixed. One by one envelope method, application of herbicides (if needed) is chosen and the number of ha of the field are recorded according to 3. Date of harvest and yield of crop Table 3. As soon the maximum of the area for one category (given in the 4. Soil fertility after the harvest of pea / buck-wheat table) is reached, further applicants for the same schema and soil-type 5. Report with statistical analysis of impact of different schemata are rejected. 6. See example for soil fertility assessment in Westerberg, Costa & Scientific monitoring Showcases should be evaluated by scientific monitoring. The different Ghambashidze 2016 (GIZ-IBiS report on Cost Benefit Analysis of Agricultural Burning Practices in Dedoplistskaro Municipality, Georgia). planting schema (pea production, intermediate cop, buck-wheat) on different soil types should compared on their economic and ecological impact. For this purpose, an independent field monitoring team should be in charge to document the activities.

Activity Activity Time frame Responsible Involved stakeholders Budget no. person FI 1/ A1 Preparation of subsidy-tender program Nov. 2017 Not nominated xx (REC-C?) FI 1/ A2 Announcement of subsidy program and public Nov-Dec. 2017 NN Community administrations; communication farmers FI 1/ A3 Final date of application to the subsidy program Dec. 2017 NN Local farmers 31.12.2017 FI 1/ A4 Selection of farmers and fields according to the Until 15. Jan. 2018 NN REC-C selection schema and signed subsidy contracts to all farmers FI 1/ A5 Scientific assessment of soil fertility before seeding Oct.2017-Nov. 2018 NN Scientific research centre of the MoA FI 1/ A6 Seeding, maintaining and harvesting March-October 2018 Local farmers FI 1/ A7 Scientific assessment of soil fertility before seeding October 2018 Scientific research centre of the MoA

37 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Estimated total costs Required material & equipment Incentives (100 ha, depending of mix of activities and size As the sowing, maintaining and harvesting of the crops will be done by of farmers applying to the program): 12,000-20,000 Euro the farmers, only minor materials are needed for project implementation. Mainly means transport (promoting the subsidy program, helping farmers Implementing incentive program: 8,000 Euro in the application procedure …) and some printing materials are needed. Soil monitoring: 6,000 Euro

______

Detailed time schedule

Activity

no.

Okt 17 Okt 17 Nov 17 Dez 18 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mrz 18 Apr Mai18 18 Jun 18 Jul 18 Aug 18 Sep 18 Okt 18 Nov 18 Dez Preparation of subsidy-tender FI 1/ A1 program Announcement of subsidy program FI 1/ A2 and public communication Final date of application to the FI 1/ A3 subsidy program 31.12.2017 Selection of farmers and fields according to the selection schema FI 1/ A4 and signed subsidy contracts to all farmers Scientific assessment of soil fertility FI 1/ A5 before seeding FI 1/ A6 Seeding, maintaining and harvesting Scientific assessment of soil fertility FI 1/ A7 before seeding, Synthetic analysis and final report

38 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Ahouissoussi, N., Neumann, J.E., Srivastava, J.P., Okan C., and Risks Droogers, P. 2014: Reducing the Vulnerability of Georgia’s Agricultural A risk to the project is low cooperation of local farmers. But it seems, that Systems to Climate Change. Impact Assessment and Adaptation the incentive is quite attractive, as pea has a good market price at the Options. A World Bank Study. 139p moment.

To ensure sustainability, marketing options should be developed to give also small and medium- size farmers the option to sell their peas to the national/international market.

Outcomes & indicators

Output indicator: alternative crops are sown and harvested on 100 ha in different communities in Dedoplistskaro municipality.

Success-indicator:

1. Harvest of peas shows a positive cost-benefit balance to the farmers 2. Soil fertility has been increased in average on the tested fields

References Müting, A. 2016: How to make agriculture more biodiversity-friendly in Dedoplistskaro, Georgia – Concept Paper. Report prepared for GIZ-IBiS Program Georgia. 10p

Karger, D.N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, R.W., Zimmermann, N., Linder, H.P. & Kessler, M. (2016): CHELSA climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas (Version 1.0). World Data Center for Climate. doi:10.1594/WDCC/CHELSA_v1.

Westerberg, V., Luis Costa, L. & Ghambashidze G. 2016: Cost Benefit Analysis of Agricultural Burning Practices in the Dedoplistskaro Municipality, Georgia. Report prepared for GIZ-IBiS Program Georgia. 83p

39 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_5_4 Dedoplistskaro: Rehabilitation of windbreaks ▪ Land degradation is occurring and has negative impacts on agricultural production Introduction ▪ High commitment and interest of local population to improve their situation and to pilot SLM measures Georgia’s agricultural sector plays a key role in the country’s economy, ▪ Municipal or state-owned land is prioritized to yield positive though it is dominated by smallholder agriculture and small-scale results for the whole community livestock management resulting in low-level incomes and often rural ▪ Positive collaboration in the past poverty. Generally, the climatic and soil conditions are favourable in Georgia and should support a wide range of different agricultural activities. The decline of agricultural production since the 1990´s is a In Dedoplistskaro, the SLM-pilot activities will focus on the establishment result of declining soil quality and productivity, which in turn is triggered of a windbreak/agroforestry system to reduce wind erosion, which is here by unsustainable land use practices. the main degradation factor and threatens agricultural production. The proposed pilot project at hand will be implemented on 6 kilometres along Especially the Eastern part of the country suffer from land degradation a main road on state-owned land. phenomena, such as waterlogging, salinization and wind erosion. They are mainly caused by inadequate cultivation practices (e.g. overgrazing, lack of landscape structures and permanent soil cover, inappropriate irrigation practice), while being exacerbated by climatic effects, such as reduced precipitation. As a result, much of this land is no longer in agricultural production.

40 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Context of pilot project and pilot area Objective Agricultural production is an important source of income for the The proposed pilot project aims at securing the productivity of arable land Dedoplistskaro municipality (Agricultural Census of Georgia 2014). The and to reduce land degradation caused by wind erosion through large basin of Shiraki Valley in the Kakheti region, East Georgia, is an contribution to re-establishment and rehabilitation of a dense windbreak important wheat production area. More than 30,000 ha of arable land are system in Dedoplistskaro. located here. The area is located on a flat plateau in about 500 m above sea level. Mean annual temperature is 10 to 11 C° and mean annual The GEF-funded pilot project will test and evaluated a new planting precipitation varies between 500 and 700 mm/a (CHELSEA Climate scheme for rehabilitation of windbreaks. The aim is to re-establish a full Data, Karger et al. 2016). Productivity (yield of wheat per ha/a) was tree cover in heavily degraded windbreaks of 13 km length and 10 m decreasing in the last years (GEOSTAT [mike: Quelle]. width. Through this rehabilitation, a dense forest belt of 8-12 m height will be established within the next 10-20 years, yielding positive effects Among others, wind erosion and increase of evaporation by wind are for the surrounding arable land in terms of micro climate and erosion driving factors for decreasing wheat yields. To reduce the negative reduction. impact of wind to the soil and to increase productivity of land, windbreaks are a suitable and sustainable measure as they reduce wind speeds Experiences gathered within prior GIZ-pilot projects give the opportunity close to the soil surface significantly (Müting 2016; Ahouissoussi 2014; to design the concept in a way to make the pilot activities as cost efficient Westerberg 2016). Research findings indicate that windbreaks and sustainable as possible (e.g. by increasing survival rates). Measures contribute to increase crop yields by 25% and pasture yields by 20-30%. to stop illegal fuel wood extraction and to stop or at least control wild fires In addition, windbreaks can be a viable source of edible fruits, honey, are crucial to yield sustainable results, thus trainings and awareness firewood, fodder and timber and have positive impacts on biodiversity raising activities for local farmers are part of the concept. (Alemu 2016). The proposed pilot measures shall demonstrate local farmers as well as During the Soviet period, a system of windbreaks was installed to reduce regional and national policy makers the economic and ecological wind speed and thereby counteract land erosion and degradation. The importance of windbreaks and to encourage them to expand the total length of windbreaks in Shiraki Valley summed up to about 290 km. restoration of windbreaks to the rest of the Shiraki Valley. After the transition phase, the need of fuel wood and a newly introduced burning practice of the fields after wheat harvest led to a decrease of windbreaks by 90%.

Pilot activities on replanting wind breaks in Dedoplistskaro have been initiated in the framework of the GIZ SMBP and IBiS programs. The pilot project concept at hand builds up on those experiences. Aiming at sustainable results and a high ownership of local communities, capacity building and awareness raising activities will be crucial elements of the pilot project.

41 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Specification of pilot area Planned activities The proposed site of intervention is located along the main road from Larger gaps without trees will be reforested with locally adapted tree and Dedoplistskaro in eastern direction to the Shiraki Valley. A corridor of 6 shrub species. The following work steps are needed within the windbreak km length has been identified, where heavily degraded windbreaks on rehabilitation process: both sides of the road (in total 12 km) shall be restored. Additionally, two windbreaks (700 m and 850 m length) south of the road will be 1. Select and mark gaps within windbreaks with low tree density rehabilitated as well (see Figure 1). There are still parts of the old By walking along the windbreaks, gaps larger than 100 m² will be located windbreaks left, but they show low density and significant gaps. The and marked in the field (e.g. by coloured bamboo sticks). A minimum selected sites are close to the GIZ-pilot sites, but do not overlap. The area of 100 m² (10x10 m or 20x5 m) is chosen to have minimum 20 trees sites have been selected close to the road to act as show cases and to at one specific site of intervention. Smaller gaps might be rehabilitated be easily accessible for management and demonstration purpose. by natural regeneration, when wild fires are under control.

The proposed width of windbreaks is 10 m. The total size of the 2. Cut dry grass and herbs and remove dead trees intervention is 13.5 ha. About 40-50% of this area requires reforestation activities (5-7 ha). In a next step, tall grasses and herbs must be cut. Dead trees or shrubs have also to be cut close to the ground. The dead biomass will be removed from the windbreaks in order to reduce the amount of bio-fuel and thereby fire intensity in case of a wild fire. The removal of high- growing grasses and herb cover is needed to enable efficient working during the plantation and maintenance phase. Living trees and shrubs should NOT be removed or cut, even when there are single individuals within the reforestation plot.

3. Protection of soil structure

No ploughing or harrowing should be applied to the reforestations plots to ensure an undisturbed soil structure. It is of high importance, that the dense root system of the herb layer is not disturbed. Experiences of other pilot sites showed, that ploughing and removal of natural vegetation layer

led to deep soil cracks during drought. The cracks enhance water Figure 23: Location of sites selected to rehabilitate degraded windbreaks in evaporation from the soil which leads to less water availability for tree Dedoplistskaro. seedlings.

4. Planting scheme and selection of tree seedlings

The favourable planting season is autumn (after seedlings have naturally lost their leaves, October or November). Trees should be planted in a

42 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES raster of 2x2 m (2,000 seedlings per ha). Only small planting holes of max. 20 cm diameter should be drilled. Depth of plant holes should be 50 cm. A small portion of water accumulating granulate (e.g. STOCKOSORB, TERRAVIT) is placed into the plant hole before planting the seedling. Containerised tree seedlings seem to be more robust against drought than bare rooted seedlings, as the system of fine roots is less damaged during the planting process in the case of containerised seedlings.

The success rate of the pilot plantations in Shiraki Valley by GIZ showed that the following tree species have high resistance against drought and high survival rates:

▪ Pistacia mutica (large tree, slow growing, fire resistant, endemic) Figure 24: Planting scheme for windbreak rehabilitation. ▪ Robinia pseudoacacia (large tree, re-sprouting after fire from root system) Five different tree and shrub species will be planted along a ▪ Pinus eldarica (large tree) 2 m x 2 m raster with the main large trees in the inner two rows and one ▪ Ulmus minor (= Ulmus foliacea) (shrub, small tree) row with lower shrub species on each side of the windbreak. 2 m distance ▪ Cotinus coggygria (shrub) will be kept to the adjacent agricultural fields. ▪ Elaeagnus angustifolia (shrub, small tree) ▪ Wild almond (Prunus argentea) Along the outer lines of the wind breaks, shrub species like Ulmus minor, Cotinus coggygria, Prunus argentea or Elaeagnus angustifolia should be Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) was introduced to Europe more located. In the central part of the windbreak larger trees like Pistacia than 300 years ago and is spread nowadays throughout the world due to mutica, Robina pseudoacacia and Pinus eldarica should be located. The its well adaptability to a wide variety of ecological conditions. The exact number of seedlings are listed under “material and equipment”. arguments for using an invasive species for the windbreak rehabilitation Seedlings should be protected by degradable protection-tubes, which in Dedoplistskaro refers to its characteristic as fast growing and drought are fixed by a small post (bamboo-sticks have proofed to be a good tolerant species (Rédei et al. 2015), its high survival rates, its resilience solution). The protection tube will protect the tree from wind, which will towards wild fires and the availability of seedlings at the local market. reduce evaporation and therefore water stress. Additionally, protection against browsing by livestock is provided by the tubes.

5. Irrigation and maintenance

After planting the seedlings in autumn, maintenance work is needed during the next summer period. Two measures are necessary: irrigation and weed-control.

43 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Irrigation should be provided for the first two years 2-4 times (depending 2. Document time, frequency and intensity of applied measures on intensity of drought) between July and September. At each irrigation (water accumulation granulate, irrigation, weed-control) procedure, about 10 litres of water should be provided to each seedling. 3. Survival rate per tree species for each of the 4 maintenance schemata Weed control (removal of high-growing grasses and herbs) should be 4. Report with statistical analysis of impact of different done 1-2 times per year. This measure prevents tree seedlings from maintenance schemata being shaded by grass and herbs. In August and September, the cut grass should be removed from the site (reduction of dry biomass in case of wild fire). See chapter “Monitoring plan” for a detailed monitoring time schedule.

These maintenance measures shall be applied at 70% of the Involved stakeholders & ownership afforestation sites. As maintenance is labour and cost intensive, small test sites should remain without any maintenance to proof the effects of Ownership / responsibility maintenance. Piloting different maintenance regimes could look like The selected sites are located on state property. The neighbouring fields follows: are private property. The measures will be contracted by REC-Caucasus to local service providers. It is envisaged, that REC-Caucasus registers ▪ 70% of site with full maintenance (irrigation + weed control) the selected sites to ensure control on the sites on the long term. ▪ 10% of site without any maintenance (no irrigation, no weed control) Implementation of activities ▪ 10% of site with irrigation but without weed control Amiran Kodiashvili, national expert from the GIZ-IBIS team, is in close ▪ 10% of site without irrigation but with weed control contact to the local stakeholders and offered to support the implementation by sharing experience and contacts with local service providers. 6. Documentation Beneficiaries The pilot activities need to be documented accurately, in order to Beneficiaries are the local farmers close to the rehabilitated windbreaks. evaluate survival rates of the seedlings, required costs and resources for The pilot activities should be documented and monitored to demonstrate the rehabilitation measures, and the overall effectiveness of the pilot the directly affected farmers as well as other stakeholders in Shiraki project. As a minimum requirement, this should be done by the GEF5- Valley the positive impacts of windbreaks. This should motivate farmers project team or a hired local expert. Further, it is recommendable (for to protect existing windbreaks and to rehabilitate degraded windbreaks. statistically significant results) to accompany the pilot activities by an independent scientific research project and over a longer time period, Recommendation on a participatory approach e.g. in the frame of a university master thesis. Involving the local population from Dedoplistskaro in the planning and However, the documentation and monitoring should comprise the implementation process of this pilot project is a key factor for achieving following aspects: (a) ownership for a long-term survival and functioning of the windbreaks 1. Number of trees per species planted on the different sites (field burning, lack of maintenance etc could be upcoming problems otherwise) and

44 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

(b) to reach more people besides the neighbouring farmers and to A6 Monitoring & Oct.2017 NN Project staff raise their awareness on the value of windbreaks and sustainable land documentatio -Nov. or management. n 2018 independen t observer To achieve this ownership and public awareness, different activities/approaches could be considered, for example involving Required material & equipment different parts of the community (school children, women, youth club, etc.) in establishing the windbreak, defining long-term responsibilities The following material & equipment will be needed for windbreak among community members, participatory selection of tree/shrub rehabilitation through reforestation. It is estimated, that 40 % of the 13.5 species, information events & materials for farmers on alternatives to km of selected windbreak need planting of trees to close gaps and create field burning, etc. Developing a suitable participatory approach should be dense lines of shrubs and trees. done in close cooperation and within further discussions between the Seedlings community and the GEF5 project team. For the participatory planning process about 2-3 months before starting the actual pilot project should per ha total (5.5 ha) be calculated (as a recommendation for upcoming pilot projects). Pistacia mutica 200 1100 Robinia pseudoacacia 600 3300 Implementation time schedule Pinus eldarica 200 1100 Activit Activity Time Responsibl Involved Budget Ulmus minor 250 1375 y no. frame e person stakeholder estimatio s n Cotinus coggygria 250 1375 A1 Marking sites Oct. Not Local xx Prunus argentea 250 1375 in the field 2017 nominated service (NN) provider, Elaeagnus angustifolia 250 1375 farmer 2000 11000 A2 + Cut grass Oct. NN Local Those tree and shrub species showed the highest survival rates in A3 and remove 2017 service dead wood, provider, other afforestation activities in the South Caucasus. protect soil farmer Equipment structure

A4 Planting trees Nov. NN Local Equipment/material Amount cost 2017 service provider, Protection tubes 11,000 protection tubes 14.300 farmer and (bamboo-) sticks A5 Irrigation and July- NN Local Water accumulation Per tree 5g of: ca. 55kg. 418 weed-cutting Aug. service granulate 2018 provider, farmer Water for irrigation 4 x 110 m³ water 2.840 (including transport)

45 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Labour Type of labour Workdays Estimated total costs Clearing and preparation of sites (5.5 ha) 40 Total seedlings 3.025,00 € Planting of 11,000 seedlings 110 Total material 17.558,00 € Weed cutting 2 x on 5,5 ha 110 Total labour 7.120,00 € Irrigation 4 x 11,000 seedlings 110 Total 27.703,00 € 50 transportation of worker &materials

Detailed time schedule Activity/ 10/17 11/17 12/17 1/18 2/18 3/18 4/18 5/18 6/18 7/18 8/18 9/18 10/18 11/18 Milestone Marking sites in the field

Cut grass and remove dead wood

Planting trees

Irrigation and weed-cutting

Scientific Monitoring Finalization

46 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Risks Monitoring plan Main risk to the success of the windbreak rehabilitation is summer Date Monitoring activity Respon drought and wild fires. sible

The risk of tree dieback due to summer drought should be compensated Nov. 2017 Document preparation of planting area tbd by: (mowing, etc) Document number of planted seedlings & ▪ Better soil water management through protection of soil implemented planting scheme; structure and low vegetations cover Document amount and costs of needed ▪ Adding water accumulation granulate into plant holes resources for establishing/rehabilitating ▪ Irrigation when drought is severe windbreaks (labour days, equipment, seedlings); Document initial maintenance (watering, The risk of wild fires should be controlled by: single-tree protection) Every 2-3 Describe implemented maintenance & tbd ▪ Close cooperation and information of owners of neighbouring months needed maintenance resources fields April 2018 Document die-back of seedlings (species tbd ▪ Ploughing fire breaks between fields and wind breaks and planting scheme specific); ▪ Removal of dead wood and dry plant-biomass from Describe potential causes for die-back of reforestation plots seedlings (climatic conditions, wild fires, lacking maintenance, etc.); Document agricultural activities & productivity on neighbouring fields Outcomes & indicators Oct/Nov Document die-back of seedlings (species tbd Outcome: 13 km windbreaks with at least 4 lines of trees, shrubs and 2018 and planting scheme specific); seedlings are rehabilitated. Reduced wind erosion through decreasing Describe potential causes for die-back of wind speeds result in higher productivity of agricultural land next to the seedlings (climatic conditions, wild fires, windbreaks. lacking maintenance, etc.); Document agricultural activities & Proposed indicators: productivity on neighbouring fields Indicator I: at least 35% of planted seedlings survived the first year. Calculate survival rates (species and planting scheme specific); Potential additional long-term indicators may track the wind speed or Calculate overall costs for 1 ha or 1 km of wind erosion next to windbreaks. E.g. Wind speed/erosion on rehabilitated windbreak; neighbouring fields (50 meters next to the windbreak) is reduced by 20 Calculate potential effects of windbreaks %. If capacity building and awareness raising activities are implemented, on land productivity (probably significant additional indicators should be formulated, as well. change only visible after 3-5 years)

47 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

References Alemu, M. M. 2016: Ecological Benefits of Trees as Windbreaks and Shelterbelts. United Nations Development Programme. International Journal of Ecosystem 2016, 6(1):10-33.

Müting, A. 2016: How to make agriculture more biodiversity-friendly in Dedoplistskaro, Georgia – Concept Paper. Report prepared for GIZ-IBiS Program Georgia. 10p

Ahouissoussi, N., Neumann, J.E., Srivastava, J.P., Okan C., and Droogers, P. 2014: Reducing the Vulnerability of Georgia’s Agricultural Systems to Climate Change. Impact Assessment and Adaptation Options. A World Bank Study. 139p

Rédei, K., Csiha, I. Keseru, Z., Rásó, J., Kamandiné Végh, A., Antal, B. 2015: Growth and Yield of Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) Stands in Nyírség Growing Region (North-East Hungary). Croatian Forest Research Institute. SEEFOR 5 (1): 13-22, Article ID: 9, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15177/seefor.14-04

48 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_5_5 Gardabani: Improve degraded land through establishment activities. Based on the following criteria, two communities in each of fruit orchards in Gamarjveba community municipality were identified as pilot areas: ▪ Land degradation is occurring and has negative impacts on Introduction agricultural production Georgia’s agricultural sector plays a key role in the country’s economy, ▪ High commitment and interest of local population to improve though it is dominated by smallholder agriculture and small-scale their situation and to pilot SLM measures livestock management resulting in low-level incomes and often rural ▪ Municipal or state-owned land is prioritized to yield positive poverty. Generally, the climatic and soil conditions are favourable in results for the whole community Georgia and should support a wide range of different agricultural ▪ Positive collaboration in the past activities. The decline of agricultural production since the 1990´s is a result of declining soil quality and productivity, which in turn is triggered In Gardabani, the SLM-pilot activities will focus on the establishment of by unsustainable land use practices. rehabilitation of eroded and degraded pasture land. Especially the Eastern part of the country suffer from land degradation phenomena, such as waterlogging, salinization and wind erosion. They are mainly caused by inadequate cultivation practices (e.g. overgrazing, lack of landscape structures and permanent soil cover, inappropriate irrigation practice), while being exacerbated by climatic effects, such as reduced precipitation. As a result, much of this land is no longer in agricultural production.

49 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Context of pilot project and pilot area At the south village boarder of Gamarjveba, an open landscape can be found which is municipality land and is currently used for grazing. The The municipality of Gardabani is located 40 km south of Tbilisi at the assessment in September 2017 was showing sever impact of floodplains of Kura river. The south-eastern boundary of the municipality overgrazing and vegetation cover is reduced to 30-60%. This land is not is formed by the border with Azerbaijan. The municipality is located close legally registered at the moment, so land ownership has to be clarified to the industrial centre Rustavi and a coal-fired power plant is located before project implementation starts. within the municipality. Vicinity to the Rustavi and Tbilisi offers additional job opportunities beside agricultural activities. The floodplains of Kura river offer good soil conditions and acceptable climate conditions. Summer drought is a main limiting factor to agricultural productivity. Therefore, a huge system of water channels has been installed during the Soviet Period, but only some parts of them are operating now (Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia 2015). A World Bank Project (P133828, Irrigation and Land Market Development Project, 2014-20199 is dealing with this issue. A project grant funded by Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) will deal with the Zemo-Samgori irrigation system, which also will affect the municipality of Gardabani.

Figure 26: The area of interest is not registered as private land (Source: http://maps.napr.gov.ge)

Wind erosion leads to the loss of top soil layer, which causes degradation of fertility and enrichment of stones on the surface.

Figure 25: The Zemo Samgori irrigation system is located east of Tbilisi. In red the parts that have already been rehabilitated and in green the parts that will be upgraded.

50 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

pasturelands. About 6 ha of the site should be cultivated in the project intervention in 2018.

Main wind direction is from North-West to South-East. Therefore, it is proposed to start activities from the western part of the site and develop orchards stepwise to the eastern part.

Figure 27: Degraded pasture land south of Gamarjveba. Soil loss by wind erosion is indicated by enrichment of stones at the soil surface. The site is located south-east of the Tbilisi Airport and is close to the entry lane of planes.

Objective

By changing land use from grazing to orchards, the soil loss by wind erosion will be stopped and productivity of land will be increased. Figure 28: Location of sites selected to improve degraded south of the village of Gamarjveba. The establishment of a fruit-orchard will be supported by integration into the existing irrigation system of the municipality. When the land is Planned activities irrigated, an annual fee has to be paid for irrigation. By establishing an orchard cooperative, sustainability of the initiative will be fostered on long 1. Establish working group of representatives of local livestock term economic benefit for local residents is increased. breeders and village administration 2. Develop orchard concept with local stakeholders Specification of pilot area 3. Initiate a private cooperative of local stakeholders as implementing body The proposed site of intervention is located in the Kura floodplain south 4. Set up fencing, irrigation system and planting of fruit trees/shrubs of the village Gamarjveba. Mean annual precipitation is 620 mm and 5. Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded mean annual temperature is 12.1°C (CHELSA global climate data, pastures Karger et al. 2016). The total site of intervention is about 28 ha and surrounded by

51 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Establish working group of representatives of local livestock breeders and village legal background. Establishing the cooperative should be developed in administration close cooperation with the Agricultural Cooperatives Development Establishing an orchard on former common pasture land will affect Agency. This would be in line with measure 3.1.6 of the Strategy of different user groups. Primarily, local livestock breeders using this area Agricultural Development of Georgia 2015-2020. should be integrated in the development process as well as the village administration. It has to be ensured, that other development options on Set up fencing, irrigation system and planting of fruit trees/shrubs the local or regional level are not in conflict with the orchard project. A According to the refined orchard concept, which was developed with the permanent working group of representatives of the stakeholder groups local stakeholder group and the newly established cooperative, the should be established at the beginning of the project. implementation is started. It is recommended to start the establishment of an orchard on the envisaged area of 28ha step by step over several Develop orchard concept with local stakeholders years. In the initial phase of the project in 2018, an area of about 6 ha A national expert team will develop together with the local working group should be fenced and cultivated. a concept for the orchard. The envisaged site should be marked in the field to be visible to local users and details for the irrigation system and At the north-west corner of the site, an open water channel is ending (no mixture of fruit trees will be worked out. Beside fruit trees, it is water in September 2017). At the north-east border, an active water recommended, to integrate also a significant amount of fruit shrubs (eg. pipeline is located, that could be used for irrigation. raspberry, currant, gooseberry …). Fruit shrubs will deliver first fruits after 1-2 years and give a faster benefit from the orchard. It is recommended to start at the north-western part of the site by establishing a permanent fence on the north, south and west part of the Fruit trees can be combined with grazing and/or hay making. Such a site. To the east the orchard might be enlarged in future, so a fencing agro-forestry approach should be taken into consideration when system should be chosen, that enables replacement if needed. The developing the concept. For the cost estimation, a planting schema of fence will protect the young seedlings from browsing as well as act as a 5x5 m per tree was used. This will leave enough space for managing the shelter from wind. To improve wind shelter, matts made of reed can be space between trees by machines (e.g. hay cutting) or grazing. fixed on the west and north part of the fence to increase wind protection.

Initiate a private cooperative of local stakeholders as implementing body The site should be cleared from stones. Experience from planting The degradation of commonly used land is as systematic problem related seedlings in the windbreaks in Dedoplistskaro has shown, that ploughing to unclear responsibilities and use rights. To avoid loss of ownership and leads to unfavourable soil structure and increases drought impact by interest in the orchard maintenance, an agricultural cooperative enhanced soil evaporation. Instead of ploughing, plant holes should be (according the Georgian Law on Agricultural Cooperatives) of local drilled in a diameter of 15-20 cm and 40-50cm depth. Organic fertilizer stakeholders should be founded. This cooperative will have the (manure) could be added. ownership of the orchard and will be responsible for maintaining (irrigation, pest control, weeding) as well as harvesting and selling the fruits. The benefit for the municipality has to be worked out and fixed in a contract between the cooperative and the municipality (as a land owner). A lease-contract for the land for long time perspective (min. 30 years) could be an option. Other options like a buyout of the land from the municipality on a long term have to be checked on feasibility and

52 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Indicators:

• Vegetation cover • Soil fertility

Interviews with local stakeholders using this area as pasture land and from the orchard-cooperative before after the intervention should help to find out acceptance of the measure and ideas for further improvement of the situation.

See example for soil fertility assessment in Westerberg, Costa & Ghambashidze 2016 (GIZ-IBiS report on Cost Benefit Analysis of Agricultural Burning Practices in Dedoplistskaro Municipality, Georgia).

Involved stakeholders & ownership

Ownership / responsibility Figure 29: Optional phasing concept, fencing schema and availability of water The proposed orchard is located on unregistered land, which has to be pipeline. registered by municipality first. It should either be leased or sold to the

orchard cooperative. The cooperative should be formed by residents. A The selections of fruit trees or fruit shrubs should be done with the focus on vulnerable groups (e.g. women, young people) should enable members of the cooperative. Climatic conditions, availability of seedlings them to have access to economic developments. and market prices should be considered in the decision. Beneficiaries Establishing a drip-irrigation system is recommended. A high-quality The main beneficiaries are the members of the orchard cooperative. The system should be chosen, that could stay in place during winter time and municipality will benefit by additional income from land lease or buy out is not damaged by frost. of land and land tax. The local community will benefit by new income During the summer months (July, August) the irrigation system has to be generation for residents. checked daily. The electric fence has to be checked daily and weeding Implementation of activities might be applied 2-3x per season. The implementation of the activities should be done by the members of Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures the cooperative with support of experts and materials provided by the Monitoring should be done to document the rehabilitation of degraded project. pastures (increase of vegetation). An assessment of the chemical situation and fertility of the soil at the project start should help to give precise recommendation on fertilising and irrigation of soil. An assessment of impact of air-pollution by airplanes should be done at the beginning of the intervention.

53 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Required material & equipment Equipment Estimated total costs Material unit price amount total cost Permanent fence (m) 6 700 4.200,00 € Materials and tools: 14,650€ Electric fence (including Labour: 12,000€ solar energizer and all parts for fence construction. (m) 2 350 700,00 € Seedlings fruit trees (pcs) 2 2400 4.800,00 € Drip irrigation tube (m) 0,1 10500 1.050,00 € Tank, fittings, other materials 3000 1 2.000,00 € Reed-matt (m) 1,5 600 900,00 € Total 14.650,00 € Labour (work days) Activity expert local worker Establish working group of representatives of local livestock breeders and village administration 5 Develop orchard concept with local stakeholders 10 Initiate a private cooperative of local stakeholders as implementing body 10 Set up fencing, irrigation system and planting of fruit trees/shrubs 10 100 Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures 20 Total 55 100

54 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Detailed time schedule

Activity Activity

no. 18 Jul

Jan18

Jun18

Okt 17 Apr 18 Okt 18

Feb 18 Feb 18 Sep

Dez 17 Dez 18 Dez

Mai18

Aug18

Mrz18

Nov17 Nov18

Establish working group of representatives of local A1 livestock breeders and village administration

A2 Develop orchard concept with local stakeholders Initiate a private cooperative of local A3 stakeholders as implementing body Set up fencing, irrigation system and planting A4 of fruit trees/shrubs & maintenance Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation A5 success of degraded pastures A6 Synthetic analysis and final report

Risks Set up fencing, irrigation system and planting of fruit trees/shrubs & maintenance Purchasing and delivery of drip irrigation or electric fence might be Establish working group of representatives of local livestock breeders and village difficult to be in time (March/April 2018). Drip-irrigation might be installed administration later in June. Availability of seedlings of favorable tree species might be Low interest might lead to less participation in the working group. A limited. benefit analysis might help to attract the stakeholders Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures Initiate a private cooperative of local stakeholders as implementing body Changes in vegetation rehabilitation might be not visible already in the Local stakeholders might be un-experienced in setting up and running a first year. Permanently marked monitoring plots (e.g. with iron markings cooperative. Trainings in accounting, book-keeping, orchard below ground or wooden posts) would enable to repeat the survey in the management and marketing might be needed. Such capacity upcoming years to compare long term effects. Economic benefit will development is in line with the Strategy for Agricultural development of become visible after several years. Good documentation of investments Georgia 2015-2020. Potential funding or trainings might be provided by (material, labor) will help to evaluate in a later stage and encourage MoA. upscaling to other sites.

55 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Indicators: References • Vegetation cover Karger, D.N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, • Soil fertility R.W., Zimmermann, N., Linder, H.P. & Kessler, M. (2016): CHELSA climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas Cost-benefit analysis: The investment (fencing, irrigation, seedlings, (Version 1.0). World Data Center for Climate. labour for construction and maintenance) should be compared with doi:10.1594/WDCC/CHELSA_v1. income from fruit production. An estimation of harvest should be done at the begin. Evaluation of cost-benefit analysis after 10 years is Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia 2015: Strategy for agricultural recommended. Development in Georgia 2015-2020. 38p

See example for cost-benefit analysis and soil fertility assessment in Westerberg, Costa & Ghambashidze 2016 (GIZ-IBiS report on Cost Benefit Analysis of Agricultural Burning Practices in Dedoplistskaro Municipality, Georgia).

Outcomes & indicators Outcome: open soil (without vegetation cover) in the eroded parts of the pastures will decrease by 25%. New orchard-cooperative is set up. Economic benefit is not expected before the first fruits could be harvested. An evaluation of costs and benefits should be done after 5 and 10 years.

Proposed output indicators: ▪ Working group with representatives of local stakeholder groups established ▪ Fencing and planting of seedlings on 6 ha is done ▪ Irrigation system is ready and working ▪ Orchard-Cooperative is capable to run the orchard (technical, administrative and economic skills are available to the cooperative). ▪ Open soils on eroded pastures decrease by 25%

56 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2_5_6 Gardabani: Rehabilitating of vegetation cover on degraded pasture land in Lemshveniera community

Context of pilot project and pilot area The municipality of Gardabani is located 40 km south of Tbilisi at the floodplains of Kura river. The south-eastern boundary of the municipality is formed by the border with Azerbaijan. The municipality is located close to the industrial centre Rustavi and a coal-fired power plant is located within the municipality. Vicinity to the Rustavi and Tbilisi offers additional job opportunities beside agricultural activities. The floodplains of Kura river offer good soil conditions and acceptable climate conditions. Summer drought is a main limiting factor to agricultural productivity. Therefore, a huge system of water channels has been installed during the Soviet Period, but only some parts of them are operating now (Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia 2015). A World Bank Project (P133828, Irrigation and Land Market Development Project, 2014-20199 is dealing with this issue. A project grant funded by Netherlands

Enterprise Agency (RVO) will deal with the Zemo-Samgori irrigation system, which also will affect the municipality of Gardabani. Figure 30: The Zemo Samgori irrigation system is located east of Tbilisi. The area west of the village of Lemshveniera is an open landscape on municipality and private land which is currently used for grazing. The assessment in September 2017 was showing the sever impact of overgrazing causing a reduction of vegetation cover to 10-60%. Wind erosion then leads to the loss of the top soil layer, which again causes a reduction of soil fertility and an accumulation of stones.

The village of Lemshveniera was created by settlers from the Svaneti region in the 1980-ties. Currently around 3000 cattle (5-7/household) are kept in the village. The area managed by the village is about 3000 ha. As the main area north-west to the village (about 2000 ha) is without irrigation, no hay or fodder-crops are cultivated on this area. Only 10% of the livestock is brought to summer-pastures to the Caucasus mountains. There is a huge demand for fodder, as reported by the local representatives. As one cow needs 50-70 hay packs during winter time and one pack costs 3-4 GEL, the total cost for fodder (150-280

57 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

GEL/cow/a) reduces the economic benefit from cattle breeding Objective significantly. By rehabilitating the vegetation cover, the soil loss through wind erosion Large areas had been under irrigation during the Soviet Period. But by will be stopped/reduced and productivity of land will increase. now, the Samgori irrigation channel delivers not enough water to re- establish the arable fields on the 3000 ha of the village territory. On the The rehabilitation of degraded pasture land will be realized by fencing of east side of the village, a hilly grassland landscapes is neighbouring. This the area and application of rehabilitation measures. After rehabilitation of is military territory and cannot be used as pasture land. The main concern vegetation (2-3 years), a regulated grazing regime can be applied of the village stakeholders is the restoration of the water channel and/or adapted to the carrying capacity of the land. of the water reservoir north of the village. Specification of pilot area The summer drought is limiting the vegetation grow and the high number The proposed site of intervention is located in the Kura floodplain west of cattle led to severe overgrazing and damage of vegetation. There is of the village Lemshveniera. Main annual precipitation is 550 mm and heavy degradation of the vegetation visible and wind erosion effects the mean annual temperature is 12.6°C (CHELSA global climate data, exposed soil. Karger et al. 2016).

The total site of intervention is about 140 ha. In the south-east, the settlements of Lemshveniera are bordering, east, the hilly area of the military zone and west, the dry former arable land is adjacent. The selected site is on municipal land and used as common pasture land. The status of degradation in September 2017 was very high and almost no vegetation cover was observed. In this condition, the area can not contribute effectively to the nutrition of livestock.

Figure 31: A local farmer demonstrating the degraded land in Lemshveniera. The area was irrigated during Soviet period and was used as arable land. Now the area is used as pasture, but vegetation has been destroyed by overgrazing.

58 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

administration. It has to be ensured, that other development options on the local or regional level are not in conflict with the pasture rehabilitation project (e.g. irrigation project and conversion into arable land). A permanent working group of representatives of the stakeholder groups should be established at the beginning of the project.

Develop pasture rehabilitation concept with local stakeholders A national expert team will develop together with the local working group a concept for the rehabilitation of the pasture ( see details in the section “Set up fencing and implementation of rehabilitation measures” below). The envisaged site should be marked in the field to be visible to local users and details for the fencing system and applied measures will be worked out. Beside the rehabilitation measures, a future grazing schema has to be developed, based on the biomass growth rate under given climate and soil conditions. Although there might be re-establishment of the irrigation system close to the village, the rehabilitation concept should be based on the approach, that no irrigation is available on the short term Figure 32: Location of site selected to improve degraded pasture land west of perspective (1-5 years). the village of Lemshveniera.

Planned activities Initiate a cooperative of local cattle breeder as implementing body The degradation of commonly used land is as systematic problem related 1. Establish working group of representatives of local livestock to unclear responsibilities and use rights. To avoid loss of ownership and breeders and village administration interest in the pasture maintenance, an agricultural cooperative 2. Develop pasture rehabilitation concept with local stakeholders (according the Georgian Law on Agricultural Cooperatives) of local 3. Initiate a cooperative of local cattle breeder as implementing stakeholders should be founded. This cooperative will have the body ownership of the rehabilitated pasture land and will be responsible for 4. Set up fence and implementation of rehabilitation measures management (fence maintenance, weed control, application of 5. Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded appropriate grazing schema, …). The members of the cooperative will pastures be those, who can graze their cattle on the rehabilitated pasture land managed by the cooperative. As the estimated carrying capacity of a Establish working group of representatives of local livestock breeders and village non-irrigated pasture land under the given climatic conditions is about administration 0.5 cow units/ha, a maximum of about 10 households with 70 cows could The restoration of degraded common pasture land will affect different be part of the cooperative if 140 ha are managed within this cooperative. user groups. Primarily, local livestock breeders using this area should be The benefit for the municipality has to be worked out and fixed in a integrated in the development process as well as the village contract between the cooperative and the municipality (as a land owner). A lease-contract for the land for long time perspective (min. 30 years)

59 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES could be an option. Other options like a buyout of the land from the After rehabilitation, in 1-3 years the pasture could be used for grazing municipality on a long term have to be checked on feasibility and legal again. background. Establishing the cooperative should be developed in close cooperation with the Agricultural Cooperatives Development Agency. This would be in line with measure 3.1.6 of the Strategy of Agricultural Development of Georgia 2015-2020.

Set up fencing and implementation of rehabilitation measures According to the developed pasture rehabilitation concept, which will be developed with the local stakeholder group and the newly established cooperative, the implementation will start.

The main recommended activities for rehabilitation are the following:

▪ Exclude grazing by fencing the area (electric fence recommended) ▪ Apply locally adapted grass and herb seeds (e.g. from local hay-residuals) in February or March ▪ Apply hay-mulching in June from adjacent hay meadows to Figure 33: Potential sub-division of pasture land into paddocks. apply local adapted seed and organic materials (max 3-5 cm thick layer) The rehabilitated pasture land could be divided into 3 paddocks. ▪ Apply irrigation in the first 2 years during periods of severe drought (e.g. every 2 weeks in July and August). Rotation pastures systems are working with several pasture units divided The listed methods should be applied in 7 test sites, each 1 ha in the first by fences. While one pasture unit (paddock) is used, the grass and herbs year, to evaluate the effectiveness in supporting the rehabilitation on the other paddocks can regrow. While a high number of livestock is process. When grazing is stopped by fencing the area, it is expected, grazing a relatively small pasture unit, the grazing pressure is at the end that the grassland will rehabilitate even without additional intervention, of the grazing time very high and even not preferred pants like thistles but the process might take 5-10 years (or even longer). The application are browsed by the cattle. After this intensive grazing, the paddock is left of seeds, mulch and irrigation should speed up the rehabilitation process. for regeneration without grazing for a couple of weeks (4-6) before being grazed again. Irrigation water can be brought by tanks on trucks from the irrigation channel in the south, which has plenty of water. As these measures are The rotational pasture system has two advantages: costly, in the first year the application should be tested in different 1. During the rehabilitation phase of 4-6 weeks, much more combinations. biomass can re-grow than on permanently grazed pastures.

60 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

2. High grazing intensity during a short period leads to cleaning The main beneficiaries are the members of the pasture cooperative. The up of unfavourable herbs and grasses so less human municipality will benefit by additional income from land lease or buy out maintenance work is needed. of land and land tax. The local community will benefit by increase of But rotational pastures need also additional investments and workload: productivity of land and the increase of income by the additional products (milk, meat). 1. Fences have to be bought and built up as well as to be managed Implementation of activities 2. Drinking water has to be supplied to each paddock The implementation of the activities should be done by the members of 3. A farmer/shepherd is needed to bring and fetch the cattle from the cooperative with support of experts and materials provided by the the fenced paddock each morning and evening project.

Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures Required material & equipment Monitoring should be done to document the rehabilitation of degraded Equipment pastures (increase of vegetation). An assessment of the chemical situation and fertility of the soil at the project start should help to give precise recommendation on fertilising. Material unit price amount total cost

Biomass samples should deliver detailed information of biomass Electric fence (m) 2 8000 16.000,00 € productivity under given climatic and soil conditions to calculate carrying capacity and frequency of rotational pasture system. Costs Interviews with local stakeholders using this area as pasture land and from the pasture-cooperative before after the intervention should help to Applications Units/ha costs ha total find out acceptance of the measure and ideas for further improvement of the situation. hay residuals (kg) 6000 0,10 € 4 2.400,00 € Involved stakeholders & ownership manure (kg) 5000 0,10 € 4 2.000,00 € Ownership / responsibility The proposed pasture is located in municipality land (has to be verified). It should either be leased or sold to the pasture cooperative. The mulch (kg) 5000 0,05 € 4 960,00 € formation of cooperative could be initiate at municipality administration Water for irrigation level informing them on planned activities. This process should be done 1x (m³) 100 5,00 € 3,5 1.750,00 € according the procedures defined by law. The cooperative should be formed by residents. Total 7.110,00 € Beneficiaries

61 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Labour (working days) local Activity expert worker Establish working group of representatives of local livestock breeders and village administration 5 Develop pasture rehabilitation concept with local stakeholders 10 Initiate a cooperative of local cattle breeder as implementing body 10 Set up fencing and implementation of rehabilitation measures 20 208 Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures 20 Total 65 208

Estimated total costs

Materials and tools: 23,110€

Labour: 15,000€

62 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Detailed time schedule

Activity

Activity 18 Jul

Okt17 18 Apr Okt18

Jan18 Mai 18 Jun18

Mrz18

Feb 18 Feb

Dez17 Aug 18 Sep 18 Nov18 Dez18 no. Nov17

Establish working group of representatives of local A1 livestock breeders and village administration

Develop pasture rehabilitation concept with local A2 stakeholders Initiate a cooperative of local cattle breeder as A3 implementing body

Set up fencing and implementation of rehabilitation A4 measures

Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success A5 of degraded pastures

A6 Synthetic analysis and final report

Development Agency). As only a small part of the households can Risks participate in the cooperative, this might lead to conflicts in the Establish working group of representatives of local livestock breeders and village community. An overall land use plan might be needed, to calculate the administration carrying capacity of the whole village land. Low interest might lead to less participation in the working group A Set up fencing, irrigation system and planting of fruit trees/shrubs & maintenance benefit analysis might help to attract the stakeholders. Purchasing and delivery of electric fence might be difficult to be in time (March/April 2018). High amounts of hay residuals (can be found in Initiate a private cooperative of local stakeholders as implementing body spring in hay-storage places), manure and hay-mulch are needed. Early Local stakeholders might be un-experienced in setting up and running a investigations from national experts on availability of the mentioned cooperative. Trainings in pasture management and fence maintenance materials are recommended. might be needed. Such capacity development is in line with the Strategy for Agricultural development of Georgia 2015-2020. Potential funding or trainings might be provided by MoA (Agricultural Cooperatives

63 R E S U L T S & D ELIVERABLES

Monitor effectiveness and rehabilitation success of degraded pastures References Changes in vegetation rehabilitation might be not visible already in the first year. A plot design of permanently marked monitoring plots (e.g. with Karger, D.N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, iron markings below ground or wooden posts) has to be implemented to R.W., Zimmermann, N., Linder, H.P. & Kessler, M. (2016): CHELSA repeat the survey in the upcoming years to compare long term effects. climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas Economic benefit will become visible after several years. Good (Version 1.0). World Data Center for Climate. documentation of investments (material, labor) and rehabilitation doi:10.1594/WDCC/CHELSA_v1. success (speed of vegetation recovery) will help to evaluate in a later Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia 2015: Strategy for agricultural stage and encourage upscaling to other sites. Development in Georgia 2015-2020. 38p

Outcomes & indicators Westerberg, V., Costa, L. & Ghambashidze G. 2016: Cost Benefit Analysis of Agricultural Burning Practices in Dedoplistskaro Municipality, Outcome: open soil (without vegetation cover) in the eroded parts of the Georgia; Integrated Biodiversity Management South Caucasus. GIZ. pastures will decrease by 25%. New pasture-cooperative is set up. Re- establishing grazing is not possible in the first 1-3 years. An evaluation of costs and benefits should be done after 5 and 10 years.

Proposed output indicators:

▪ Working group with representatives of local stakeholder groups established ▪ Fencing of 140 ha are done ▪ Application of different measures on 7 ha of test plots is done ▪ 50% of the test plots are irrigated twice a month in July and August ▪ Pasture-Cooperative is capable to manage the pasture and apply the rotational pasture schema ▪ Open soils on eroded pastures decrease by 25%

64 A NNEX

3 ANNEX

3_1 Overview on missions & meetings

Expert Date Activity Kirchmeir 11.09.2017 Meeting with Kety Tsereteli REC

Kirchmeir 11.09.2017 Meeting with Natia Iordanishvili (National Forest Agency) and Bishop David from Alaverdi monastery Meeting with Gardabani Municipality (dep. governor) and village representatives, visiting three potential sites in Kirchmeir 12.09.2017 different communities

Kirchmeir 13.09.2017 Field trip to Akmetha municipality, assessing flood plain forests in Alaverdi municipality

Kirchmeir 14.09.2017 Akmetha municipality, assessment of sites along the river and common pasture land in Alvani community

Kirchmeir 16.09.2017 Akmetha municiaplity, Meetings with local stakeholders in Shenako, assessment of sites

Kirchmeir 19.09.2017 Mission to Dedoplistskaro municipality, meeting with local stakeholders, assessment of Windbreak-sites Mission to Gardabani municipality, assessing meeting with community members in Lemshvinera and Kirchmeir/Huber 20.09.2017 Gamarjveba and site visits Kirchmeir 21.09.2017 Preparing GIS-maps and presentation Kirchmeir 21.09.2017 Presentation of proposals to Nino Chikovani and Maka Manjavidze in MoENRP Huber 22.09.2017 Mission to Akmetha municipality, assessment of sheep migration route