High-altitude afforestation for erosion control [Armenia]

technologies_4101 - Armenia

Completeness: 96%

1. معلومات عامة

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Integrated Biodiversity Management, South Caucasus (IBiS)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?


The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:


1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?


1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

Afforestation/Tree planting

Afforestation/Tree planting [Uganda]

Tree planting carried out by individual land users on hilly slopes to improve soil cover ,reduce wind strength , provide wood fuel & household income.

  • Compiler: Wilson Bamwerinde

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Afforestation is a key technologies to protect soil against erosion and provide a wide range of ecosystem services. In this case, afforestation at high altitudes, which is particularly challenging, with the primary purpose of erosion control were planted in small patches with different methods. They form the basis for future community forests in Armenia.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology


Forests are - in terms of biomass accumulation and stability - the most successful ecosystems in the world. Natural forest ecosystems offer multiple ecosystem services, such as timber and fuel wood provision, water purification, carbon sequestration. In mountainous landscapes, forests have an additional protective function against erosion and natural hazards (e.g., avalanches, landslides, debris flows or rock falls). In the South Caucasus, two natural limits restrict forest expansion: at 2.300-2.600m a.s.l. the upper tree line is visible, whereas steppe and semi-desert ecosystems form the lower tree line.

Socio-economic and geo-physical living conditions:
The intervention area is located at the northern to eastern slopes of Mount Aragats (4013m). The villages are located at 1600 to 1800 m above sea level where the slope meets a plain with stepic soils and crop production while the slopes of the mountains are used for livestock grazing (sheep and cattle).

Purpose of afforestation:
By means of afforestation of degraded pastures, mountainous areas that suffer from erosion and overgrazing should be rehabilitated and erosion protection capacity enhanced. At the same time, the afforestation sites should form the basis for future community forests providing a wide range of ecosystem services, a concept that has not yet been established in Armenia.

Between 2014 and 2017 more than 200 hectares were fenced for afforestation, 145 ha were actively afforested in 10 different communities around Mount Aragats in Armenia. The average size of the 20 plots is 10 ha (35 ha being the largest site, 1 ha the smallest one).
The afforestation included different species combinations, planting schemes and methods to determine most cost-efficient afforestation methods for Armenian conditions. All afforestation took place at elevations between 1900 and 2300 m.a.s.l.. The afforestation included fencing of the area to protect the afforestation site against grazing, the preparation of the planting sites according to fixed planting schemes, the actual planting in lines with trenches, single plant holes and group plantings. For some sites, additional irrigation was established for the first years. Particular attention was paid to the species selection which explicitly included fruit trees and shrubs to ensure local economic returns.

Practical experiences
A wide range species was tested. Within the given climate context, pine (Pinus sylvestris), the main non-native species as well as native maple (Acer trautvetteri), Persian Oak (Quercus macranthera) and birch (Betula litwinowii) showed the best results. Particular attention was paid to adapted species to create resilient forest-shrubland with a large number of tree species. In general, planting in trenches shows highest survival rates. Bare root system and containerized seedlings were used for planting. Containerized seedlings definitely provide better survival rate in comparison with bare root system seedlings. Additionally, mulch cover was provided to protect seedlings and keep soil humidity. The main maintenance measures are repeated mulching and weed control and irrigation during the first 3 years. Furthermore, some replanting is continuously taking place as the sites are facing tough environmental conditions (hot summers, drought, short vegetation period).
The plantation was organised and supervised by local NGO's (ATP Armenian Tree Project, ESAC Environmental Sustainability Assistance Center) in close cooperation with the local village population. In a Memorandum of Understandig between the Armenian Ministry of Territorial Administration and Development, the local village administration and GIZ the share of payed labour and own contribution was fixed beforehand.

Impacts and perception
After the first years already first successes are becoming visible contributing to increased vegetation cover, increased biomass and improved soil protection. The communities are proud to be amongst the first in Armenia with a community forest. However, slow growth will require continuous commitment and care on behalf of the community.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

Comments, short description:

Short video of ESAC, the implementing NGO, on afforestation background and techniques




Aragatsotn and Shirak Marzes

Name of videographer:

ESAC NGO (Khachatur Khachtryan)

Comments, short description:

Short video of ESAC, the implementing NGO on different fencing techniques used for protecting the afforestation sites




Aragatsotn and Shirak Marzes

Name of videographer:

ESAC NGO (Khachatur Khachtryan)

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment



Region/ State/ Province:

Shirak and Aragatsotn Marzes

Further specification of location:

Lusagyugh, Saralanj, Harich, Arayi, Quchak, Hnaberd, Mets Manatash, Pokr Mantash, Nahapetavan


Differerent small afforestation plots between 1 and 30 ha with a total of approximately 200 ha

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

This project introduced community-managed forests for erosion control to different communities. Different planting techniques and species were piloted to identify most appropriate afforestation and management methods.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

أراضي الرعي

أراضي الرعي

Extensive grazing land:
  • Semi-nomadism/ pastoralism
Main animal species and products:

Cattle and sheep

Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

Tree plantation, afforestation:
  • Mixed varieties
Products and services:
  • Fuelwood
  • Fruits and nuts
  • Grazing/ browsing
  • Protection against natural hazards
If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

The afforestation sites were previously used as (partly overgrazed) pastures for grazing of mainly cattle. Thus, this technology included a land-use change from grassland/pasture to forest/shrubland.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Livestock density (if relevant):


3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • natural and semi-natural forest management
  • area closure (stop use, support restoration)
  • ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:
  • < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Individual sites vary between 1 and 35 ha with a total area covered of 200 ha (2 km²) . However, it showed that communities only have the capacity to maintain a maximum size of 10 ha (maintenance). If managed by the community, it should not be larger.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology













4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Needed resources for 1 ha afforestation:
- 2.000-5.000 seedlings
- 10-50 t water (for initial irrigation)
- 40 – 100 working days
- Shuffles or soil driller
- Means of transport

Selection of species
It is recommended to use different local tree species for any afforestation activity, as they can cope best with the given environmental conditions and, therefore, are more resilient towards pests and climatic variations. Most suitable species for afforestation:
-Trautvetters maple (Acer trautvetteri)
-Birch (Betula letwinowii)
-Wild Oriental Apple (Malus orientalis)
-Scott’s Pine (Pinus sylvestris var. hamata)
-Persian Oak (Quercus macranthera)
-Raspberry (Rubus idaeus)
-Mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia)
For selecting suitable species, screening of the wider project area is essential in order to prepare a list of species, which would naturally grow under the given ecological conditions

Planting scheme
The technical drawings describe different potential planting schemes. A further figure describes the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme.

Planting season
The climate in the South Caucasus region shows low precipitation rates in the summer period. As seedlings have a small root system, young trees are more sensitive to drought. The best time for planting is either autumn or early spring as during autumn, winter and spring, more moisture is available that helps the seedlings to develop deeper root systems to survive during summer droughts.

In many cases, afforestation sites are located on pasture land. To protect the planted seedlings from browsing by livestock or wild game, it is recommended to fence the afforestation site before starting the plantation of the seedlings.

The planting process is specified in one of the technical drawings. With a hole driller planting of one tree takes 2-4 minutes, planting by hand 8-10 min. Each seedling is waterered with an intial 5-10 l of water.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

1 ha

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. Selection of afforestation site, plantation scheme and species Management anytime
2. Fencing of the area (if area is being grazed or wild game is browsing seedlings Structural before planting
3. Prepare and transfer seedlings to the site Management before planting
4. Excavate whole for the seedling (30-40cm deep, 25 cm diameter, 1m spacing between wholes) Structural autumn, early spring
5. Place the seedling and fill hole with soil Vegetative autumn, early spring
6. Apply 5-10 l of water immediately after planting Management after planting
7. Cover soil around seedling with mulch and organic material Vegetative after planting

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Local workers for plantation of trees seedlings 2500,0 0,27 675,0 10,0
Labour Installation of fence and posts person day 191,0 12,3 2349,3
Equipment Equipment (hummer, driller, etc.) set 1,0 141,8 141,8 30,0
Plant material Tree seedlings pieces 2500,0 0,31 775,0
Plant material Mulching kg 1250,0 0,03 37,5
Construction material Fencing (permanent mesh wire fence) meter 317,0 1,35 427,95 10,0
Construction material Irrigation system set 1,0 889,0 889,0 15,0
Construction material Metal posts for fence (1.8m) pieces 106,0 2,97 314,82
Construction material sand kg 3444,0 0,012 41,33
Construction material Other material(electrode, wire armature, metal disc) set 1,0 386,9 386,9 20,0
Construction material Cement kg 1148,0 0,12 137,76
Other Transporation of mulch time 1,0 102,8 102,8
Other Transporation of construction materials time 5,0 92,5 462,5
Other Transporation of workers to the field time 15,0 30,2 453,0
Other Transporation of seedlings time 1,0 51,4 51,4
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 7246,06
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

GIZ Project


The above calculation is not made on purely 1 ha, since the project did not implement afforestation on 1 ha. This calculation was done on 2.6 ha, then the costs are proportionally distributed for 1 ha.

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. Irrigation of young seedlings with 5-10 l Management 2-4 times per year for the first two years
2. Preparation of fire protection trenches Structural if needed
3. Mowing to prevent overgrowth of seedlings Vegetative 1-2 times per year
4. Renew mulch layer Management annually after hay harvest in summer
5. Replanting of seedlings (10% each year) Management annually to be done for the first 5 years

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Irrigation of young seedlings with 5-10 l Man/day 1,0 10,0 10,0 100,0
Labour Preparation of fire protection trenches rm 150,0 0,34 51,0 100,0
Labour Mowing to prevent overgrowth of seedlings Man/day 4,0 10,0 40,0 50,0
Labour Renew mulch layer (including mulch value) Man/day 5,0 10,0 50,0 50,0
Plant material Seedlings for replantation (including labour) seedlings 1200,0 0,51 612,0 50,0
Other Petrol for irrigation liter 7,0 0,8 5,6
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 768,6
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

GIZ project


The rather high costs are mostly linked to the permanent fence to protect seedlings against grazing and to high number of seedlings per hectare. In some parts initial irrigation was necessary due to dry summer conditions. Maintenance activities such as irrigation of seedlings in summer, anti-fire measures, replantation of seedlings (10 % each year for 5 years), mowing of grass and renewing of mulch layer are needed.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

With costs of approximately 5,700 USD/ha including fencing (30%), planting (30%) and seedlings (40%) afforestation is very intensive in financial resources. It is very likely that these high costs will limit the upscaling of the afforestation process. There are some options to reduce costs:
•Fence large areas and try to have sites in square or circle shape
•Increase number of seedlings planted by person by using soil-drillers
•Use cheaper fencing material (e.g. game protection fence, poles without concrete)
•Reduce seedling number to 2000-3000 seedlings/ha
•Using seeds (e.g. oak) instead of seedlings
•Regrow seeds in local low-cost nurseries (e.g. Lusagyugh)

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:


Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Precipitation peak between May and June.

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Aparan, Aragatsotn Marz, Armenia

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

According to Köppen and Geiger, the climate is classified as Dfb (Cold/continental, no dry season, warm summers). Annual mean temperature is 5.2. °C. The warmest month of the year is August, with an average temperature of 16.4 °C. January has the lowest average temperature of the year with -6.9 °C.
based on data from the following source:

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:


Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Is water salinity a problem?


Is flooding of the area occurring?


5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • mechanized/ motorized
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
  • elderly

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • communal/ village
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts


fodder production

Comments/ specify:

Within the fenced afforestation site, the grass could be cut and used as hay. The protection from grazing helps biomass development which leads to better protection from Surface water Erosion and this lead to soil-regeneration and increase of productivity.

forest/ woodland quality

Comments/ specify:

The natural forest was removed for the purpose of grazing and the forest cover will be now re-established on the afforestation sites.

non-wood forest production

Comments/ specify:

We mixed shrub species like raspberries and fruit-trees (wilde plumb) between the main tree species to create short time Benefit for the village people.

product diversity

Comments/ specify:

In addition to the wide spread grazing land use now the hay production in the fenced afforestation site is increased for the first 1-2 decades (until the canopy is too dense) and the collection of berries and fruits give additional income opportunities. In the Long terme fuel wood production can be expected from the forested land.

production area

Comments/ specify:

The grazing range is limited by the fenced afforestation site. This is relevant in the first couple of years before hay or fruit/berry productivity is able to fully compensate the loss of grazing range.

Income and costs


Comments/ specify:

The maintenance of the afforestation site lead to increase of workload especially in the first 2-4 years when hay cutting and Irrigation is needed until the tree seedlings are well established.

Socio-cultural impacts

recreational opportunities

Comments/ specify:

As there is almost no forest near to the villages every woodland is very attractive for recreational purpose, but it will Need 2-3 decades until this function will be fulfilled by the afforestation site.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

Comments/ specify:

The local stakeholders got hands on training on fencing, afforestation and maintenance of afforestation sites.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

Comments/ specify:

The fencing of the afforestation site immediately stops the heavy grazing Impact which leads to fast recovery of the Vegetation. The improved Vegetation cover and better development of the root System reduce Surface water run of Speed and increase water Infiltration.


Comments/ specify:

An increase of vegetation and the leaf area index will lead to an increase of evaporation.


soil loss

Comments/ specify:

Increase of vegetation cover and reduction of water runoff will lead to decrease of soil loss.

soil organic matter/ below ground C

Comments/ specify:

The increase of vegetation leads to an increase of root development. Additionally, the increase of vegetation produces more litter, as no grazing is applied. The increase in litter leads to an increase of an humus layer and therefore to more below ground carbon.

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

Comments/ specify:

Especially the fencing leads to fast increase of vegetation cover.

biomass/ above ground C

Comments/ specify:

The local stakeholders got hands on training on fencing, afforestation and maintenance of afforestation sites.

plant diversity

Comments/ specify:

The stop of grazing and the new micro-habitats created by the shadow of the tree seedlings have let to an increase in plant diversity. This process might be reverse when the tree canopy is closed and less light is available for the herb-layer, but this will take several decades.

habitat diversity

Comments/ specify:

The plain grasslands habitats are diversified by patches of forest.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

buffering/ filtering capacity

Comments/ specify:

The decrease of water run off increase the water capacity of the habitat and the afforested area will provide increase buffer capacity in the case of intensive rainfalls.

wind transported sediments

Comments/ specify:

The high grass and trees reduce wind speed at ground level.

Comments regarding impact assessment:

Most of the afforestation sites are locate uphill of villages. Village people are expecting protection from cold down-hill winds from the mountain and an increase of air-moisture by the evapo-transpiration of the forest.

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local thunderstorm moderately
local hailstorm moderately
local snowstorm well
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation moderately

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:


Long-term returns:

slightly positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:



In the first decade the efforts on maintenance are high and it can be expected that the return of natural resources (hay, berries, fruits) is significantly lower the the maintenance efforts. As soon the trees are established and larger than 1.3 the root system is well establish and the trees are resistant to droughts, no vegetation cutting is needed and even game or cattle browsing will not necessarily lead to lethal damage.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • single cases/ experimental
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%

6.6 التكيف

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?


If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:
  • climatic change/ extremes
Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

drought-adapted species, adaptation of planting schemes

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Extension of forest cover of communities, new habitat for wild creators, forest will be a fire wood and non timber products source for local inhabitants, attraction of tourists into the communities, increased water regulating function, improved soil quality, increased vegetation, microclimate formation function, wind velocity reduction, reduced land degradation, nice view of the area due to afforestation,increased fodder for cattle
empowerment of the local capacities on sustainable land management
successful demonstration of erosion control measures
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Diversification of land use options for local stakeholders. Future options for sustainable firewood supply, non-timber forests products (berries) and recreation
Option to use grass from cutting in between as fodder/hay production
side-effect of fencing is increase in biodiversity of grassland species due to exclusion from grazing.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Reduces pasture land of community, which was converted into a forest Villagers/farmers need to increase the amount of hay from their homestead gardens using irrigation
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
strong need for care taking in the first years community commitment, strong ownership
Expensive due to high costs for fencing Consider alternative, cheaper fencing methods (e.g. wildlife protection fence)
Complicated decision making processes by the project More mandate given to the implementing NGOs

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

2 international (Huber, Kirchmeir)

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Information extracted from different project reports and submitted financial statements from implementation

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Handbook on Integrated Erosion Control A Practical Guide for Planning and Implementing Integrated Erosion Control Measures in Armenia, GIZ (ed.), 2018, ISBN 978-9939-1-0721-9

Available from where? Costs?

GIZ Armenia

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Project website of the GIZ program


Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all