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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1051, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural area (L-SLM Project)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6169, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC Caucasus) - Georgia', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

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?

No

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

In a pilot project, degraded pastureland near the settlement of Kasristskali was regenerated by introducing a fencing, mowing and grazing regime that favours the growth of forage plants instead of weeds and, where necessary, reseeding forage plants.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This showcase is part of the 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 Environmental Center for the Caucasus (REC C).

The implementation site was selected by national experts together with stakeholders from the village. This site is located close to the settlement Kasristskali. It is community pastureland, which was abandoned and not maintained for many years. The site had been dominated by thistles and weeds before the intervention took place and was not suitable for grazing. 30% of the area was previously used to store manure and is rich in nutrients. To reclaim the pastureland for cattle, an area of 6.1 ha was mowed twice and equipped with an electric fence (two lines of electric wire and a solar-powered energizer brand Voss). This was done to regenerate the area so that a grazing regime could be introduced later. An electric fence was chosen because wood is not available in the area and a wire mesh fence would be more expensive. Furthermore, an electric fence is flexibly adjustable, which is essential for a rotational grazing system. It is important to remove the residues after the mowing to reduce the amount of weed seed. The time of mowing should be before the flowering of the most common weed species. An ongoing mowing and grazing regime was set up to favour fodder plants instead of weeds: Since the cows only eat the fodder plants and leave the weeds standing, the weeds have a clear advantage. To counteract this, the weeds are mowed, and fodder plants are sown. Mowing is needed for the first 2 years and after that, it is enough to control the quality of pastureland by a grazing system. For maintenance purposes, the area was cut once in early spring and a second time in summer. The evaluation in September, after the pastureland was recultivated, showed that the northern and eastern parts now have a grass and herb cover suitable for grazing, while the central, western and southern parts are still overgrown by weeds. This is due to the fact that these parts were very rich in nutrients from the very beginning and consisted exclusively of thistles. In order to improve the productivity of the site, it is recommended to cut the vegetation again in autumn, remove the residues, open the soil with a harrow and sow a pasture seed mixture adapted to the climatic conditions in February.

The local community farmers were involved in all activities. They were participated in development of local pasture management plan. The plan was approved by the community members and they are ready to follow the applied methodology and maintain the pastureland after the project completion. The farmers acknowledged the benefit from the proposed methodology and they invested to rehabilitate the additional area (6 ha) of pastureland with their own financial sources.

The 6.1 ha plot which was restored as pastureland with this technology is planned to be used as a paddock for alternating grazing between free-range and the paddock.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2018

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural areas; GEF funded, implementation by the Regional Environmental Center for the Caucasus (REC).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

The main income of the village comes from agriculture in the plains of Shiraki Valley and livestock breeding in the hilly land east of the plains.

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

The 6.1 ha plot which was restored as pastureland with this technology is planned to be used as a paddock for alternating grazing between free range and the paddock.

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)
• pastoralism and grazing land management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

The technology enables efficient weed control on common pasture land. The improvement of degraded pastures is achieved through weed control and sowing of fodder crops and the use of a rotational grazing system.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The degradation is driven by excessive spread of milk-thistles on nutrient rich pasture land because of missing maintenance. Those thistle stand are of low plant diversity and have no fodder value.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

The technology supports the restoration of the weed dominated pasture land. This will increase biodiversity and productivity.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	First mowing of the site, clearing from thistles and removal of hay/residuals	Early spring (March)
2.	Establishment of electric fence	June
3.	Opening the soil with a harrow	February of following year
4.	Seeding of fodder plants	February of following year

Comments:

It is important to remove the residues after mowing to reduce the amount of weed seed. The time of mowing should be before the flowering of the most common weed species.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Setup of fence	person-days	2.0	13.0	26.0
Labour	Open the soil with a harrow	person-days	1.0	13.0	13.0
Labour	Seeding of fodder plants	person-days	1.0	13.0	13.0
Labour	Mowing (1st time) an manual removal of thistles	person-days	18.0	13.0	234.0
Equipment	Equipment for 1200m electric fence including energizer	set	1.0	2547.0	2547.0
Equipment	Machinery for mowing (rental)	days	1.0	400.0	400.0
Equipment	Machinery for harrowing (rental)	days	1.0	400.0	400.0
Plant material	Seeds (Onobrychis)	kg	300.0	1.5	450.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					4083.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					4083.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The equipment, renting cost of machines and labor was financed by the GEF SLM project.

Comments:

The local village is very poor and lacks of infrastructure and financial capabilities.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Second mowing and removal of hay	July
2.	Third mowing and removal of hay	September

Comments:

The weed population is still very high. These are poisonous or spicy plant species which cannot be controlled by intensive grazing. To reduce the dominance of this weed, it is recommended to mow the entire area of 6.1 ha three times a year. The best time to mow is before the weed blossoms.

4.6 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	Mowing (2nd and 3rd time)	person-days	2.0	13.0	26.0
Equipment	Machinery for mowing (rental)	days	2.0	400.0	800.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					826.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					826.0

Comments:

The community is very poor so the costs for maintenance was covered by the project. After the difficult removal of the thistles, the second and third mowing was done only by machinery and has not needed that much man power than the first time.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most important factor was the equipment for the electric fence. Electric fencing material is not common in Georgia and there are no relevant national suppliers.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The pasture is located on top of a small hill and its north-eastern slopes.

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

30% of area was used of manure storage before and is rich on nutrients.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Only a few weed species where dominating the area before the intervention.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The village is very remote. Driving distance to the municipality is about 1h on bad roads.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Community pasture land.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Most of the area could not be used for cattle grazing due to the dominance of weeds. Based on biomass harvesting experiments in Tusheti, it is expected that at least 1-2 tons of fodder per hectare will be available on the pasture.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

No significant effects are expected off-site

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

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	moderately

Comments:

When temperatures rise and precipitation decreases, productivity falls. If productivity is below 1t/ha, the investment in an electric fence will not pay off.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

In the first two years, the forage harvest will be low, while the costs for erecting the fence and maintenance by mowing will be high. In the long run, unproductive land will be productive again. On the 6 ha, 6 to 12 tons of biomass per year can be expected (depending on rainfall in spring and summer). This is equivalent to 500-1000 USD/year.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

Comments:

There is strong interest to establish a second plot for rotational pasture systems of 20ha near by. The financial capacity of the village is to low to cover the investment of the fencing material.

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
improved pasture quality and new fencing technology introduced
raised production of fodder plants
pasture management plan is developed and local farmers are able to manage the pasture rotational system themselves. Also the farmers were trained in installation and maintenance of el-fence.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
A fertile land near the village, which was unusable, was turned back into productive land.

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?
The pasture land has already been severely degraded (mainly by weeds) and it will take time and more resources to restore it.	Small grants to support the rental of machines for mower maintenance (topping cuts).

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The investments for the fencing cannot be made by the villagers.	Long-term microloans with low interest rates.
Seed of local, climate-adapted forage plants is not available.	Establishment of local seed suppliers in cooperation with the agricultural extension service.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural areas: Final report. 2017. Kirchmeir, H., Joseph, A., Huber, M

Available from where? Costs?

RECC Caucasus