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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality Targets of Georgia through Restoration and Sustainable Management of Degraded Pasturelands (GCP/GEO/006/GFF)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC Caucasus) - Georgia

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:

“Controlled Grazing” seeks to harness the behaviours and habits of ruminant livestock to enhance three key ecological functions, namely the removal of plant biomass (grazing), soil and vegetation disturbance (animal impact) and increased nutrient cycling (dung and urine), with the goal of increasing perennial grass establishment, pasture palatability and reducing bare ground and erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

“Controlled Grazing” (CG) was developed and then implemented in three municipalities on a total of 564 ha of pastureland. With support from local land users, pasture areas within the three pilot sites were divided into paddocks of roughly 1 to 10 ha in size; an overall stocking rate of 1.9 ha per standard animal unit (SAU) and a maximum capacity of 400 SAU were used for infrastructure design. To optimise control of grazing rest/recovery times and intensities, complementary project interventions included fencing, water point development, agroforestry, installation of shade structures and use of hay and salt/mineral licks, as well as capacity building among herders. Electric fences were chosen over other fencing options or herding due to cost and ease of maintenance; the system was based on constructing permanent end-post and gate structures and then installing 2 to 3 strands of electrified wire at the beginning of the grazing season, and removing and storing equipment at the end of the grazing season. Water storage installations were designed to provide reliable sources of water in sufficient quantities to meet peak stocking capacity (400 SAU); design of the water trough and delivery systems sought mobility within the paddock space to reduce trampling and soil compaction around water points. Shade structures complemented the agroforestry additions, provided shading options to livestock while the trees were young. "Attractants" (hay, salt licks etc.) also proved highly efficient at concentrating animal impact on specific sites, especially areas of salt scald and bare ground.
Grazing planning used recovery times based on actual seasonal growth rates. The first grazing plans were developed with support from project experts, but management was transferred early in the process to local herders. The project conducted field-based monitoring of pasture health and soil conditions from 2019 to 2025, structured through the PRAGA field data survey sheets (see the PRAGA approach in the WOCAT database). These findings were analysed through a project-developed analysis worksheet with land users to determine how management practices were impacting the pasture and soil surface.
The project "Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality Targets of Georgia through Restoration and Sustainable Management of Degraded Pasturelands" (GCP/GEO/006/GFF) was responsible for the initial investment of USD 120,800, or approximately USD 215 per ha, to develop the livestock infrastructure. Local land users are expected to cover the estimated annual maintenance costs of USD 900. The pilot pastures have traditionally been used by livestock owners for dairy cows and smallstock; these pastures were transferred to municipalities for a lease period of 15 years through project support.
CG shares conceptual links with other regenerative grazing models (see references at the end of the document) and reframes ruminant herbivores as ecological tools facilitating grassland function and biodiversity. In this particular case, local reactions were overwhelmingly positive, resulting in new professionals entering the livestock sector and tangible improvements in forage quality, pasture productivity and livestock performance. A better understanding of pasture management and planning has reduced conflict and adoption has allowed communities as a whole to reflect on land management, herd genetics, economic viability and the role of livestock in the landscape. CG has also played a pivotal role in securing formal recognition and rights for land users, and leverages a resource and technology that are already widely available in Georgia’s rural communities. Controlled Grazing offers a grounded, regenerative technology that can revitalise grassland productivity and ecological function.

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:

2024

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.):

The introduction of the technology was financed and supervised by the GCF/GEO/006/GFF project through the implementing partner Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC Caucasus).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Comments:

Forests are occasionally used by the livestock as shelter from the elements and as a place for calving/ lambing; tree planting will provide shade and erosion control.

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

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

• agroforestry
• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

Comments:

According to the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Conceptual Framework, the highest priority is to maintain and enhance existing productive land use systems, as these are essential for ensuring both ecological integrity and food security. The second priority is to reduce ongoing land degradation, while the third focuses on restoring severely degraded lands. In alignment with this framework, the project aimed to improve pasture quality to support rural livelihoods and prevent further degradation of Georgia’s communally managed grasslands. This was achieved through multi-layered planning approaches designed to operationalize the LDN Framework at both local and municipal levels. For more details, please see the Municipal Pasture Planning and the PRAGA Approach links at the end of this document.

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.	Gather support among land users (especially complex for communal lands)	N/A
2.	Gain the necessary support from decision makers and relevant stakeholder groups	N/A
3.	Obtain the required permissions and rights of use for grazing	N/A
4.	Calculate peak water and forage needs for herds	N/A
5.	Obtain funding and/or monetary contribution system to finance infrastructure investments	N/A
6.	Develop source and water distribution system	When soil is workable (not too dry or too wet)
7.	Install fencing systems and/or establish herding protocols	Weather permitting
8.	Work with land users and stakeholders to define objectives using for grazing as a tool and describe the land as it should be in the future	N/A
9.	Work with experts to develop initial grazing calendar (ensure adequate recovery periods following grazing)	Before growing season
10.	Introduce herds	At onset of growing season, or when required if grazing land is scarce
11.	Utlilise grazing feedback and monitoring protocols to adjust animal numbers and grazing times	Over course of growing season
12.	At onset of non-growing season, calculate standing forage and animal numbers and adjust to ensure quality forage is available until the next growing season	At onset of non-growing season or times of very slow growth
13.	Use information at onset of non-growing season to develop non-growing season grazing plan, including options for prolonged drought periods	At onset of non-growing season
14.	Once grass or forage growth resumes, use last season's grazing plan to plan grazing for current growing season	At onset of growing season

Comments:

Rarely do all land users or communities commit at early stages to implement a grazing system that requires planning and coordination among livestock owners. Therefore, specific areas were set aside for the pilot demonstrations. It must be kept in mind that small pilot plot areas rarely involve the degree of planning, coordination and infrastructure development that will be needed to apply these systems at scale. When livestock are used as regenerative tools, observation and monitoring is needed to ensure that plants are given adequate recovery times following grazing (this concept is less important during the non-growing season as grass is dormant); everything else described above is developed to support this basic process of grazing-recovery-monitoring-planning.

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	Preparation of Detailed (Technical) Design, BoQ for Pastures Watering System Arrangements	days of labour	63.0	150.0	9450.0
Labour	Fencing installation (grazing divisions)	days of labour	150.0	30.0	4500.0	10.0
Labour	Training land users electric fencing installation, maintenance	days of labour	10.0	70.0	700.0
Labour	Agroforestry ground preparation, fencing and planting	days of labour	80.0	25.0	2000.0
Labour	Installation of water storage and distribution systems	days of labour	90.0	25.0	2250.0
Labour	Village water trough rehabilitation / construction	days of labour	30.0	25.0	750.0
Labour	Shading structure installation	days of labour	35.0	25.0	875.0
Labour	Tractor + truck work (weed removal / water system / soil admendments)	days of labour	22.0	50.0	1100.0
Equipment	Fencing equipment (gates, corner posts, cement, straining wire, electric fence energisers, galvanised wire, poles, insulators, voltage testers, high voltage wire, batteries, etc)	$325 per ha average for 3 sites	110.0	326.0	35860.0
Equipment	Water tanks, pipes, drinking troughs, floats, values, etc	$292 per ha avg	564.0	62.0	34968.0
Equipment	Protective fencing for agroforestry (posts, chain-link fencing)	rolls of 25 metres + 100 wooden posts	12.0	250.0	3000.0
Equipment	Design and construction of tractor mounted ant mound leveller (recycled materials)	unit	1.0	250.0	250.0
Equipment	Salt / Mineral block holder	units	10.0	30.0	300.0
Plant material	Seedlings / Saplings (multispecies)	saplings	334.0	24.0	8016.0
Plant material	Hay (small bale, avg. 20 kilos)	hay bales	30.0	5.0	150.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Effective Microorganisms (EM)	L bag/box	120.0	10.0	1200.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Vegetation recovery support measures, (Alfalfa seed)	kg	150.0	9.0	1350.0
Construction material	Construction materials for fixed, village watering points	per water trough	9.0	1000.0	9000.0
Construction material	Construction of shading structures	per structure	2.0	1956.0	3912.0
Other	Contract of heavy machinery for ant mound removal	hours	160.0	30.0	4800.0
Other	Contract of tractor and trailer for week removal	hours	89.0	30.0	2670.0
Other	Livestock Salt / Mineral blocks	units	50.0	8.0	400.0
Other	Holistic Planned Grazing Charts in Georgian (www.savory.global)	A2 printed chart	10.0	30.0	300.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					127801.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					127801.0

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

The Project 'Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality Targets of Georgia through Restoration and Sustainable Management of Degraded Pasturelands (GCP/GEO/006/GFF)'

Comments:

While some labour support was provided by land users, the funding both for labour and materials was principally provided by the GCP/GEO/006/GFF Project

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Herding / driving / penning of livestock the paddocks	Every morning
2.	Driving livestock to the village and shedding for afternoon milking	Every evening
3.	Electric fence inspection and maintenance	Every 2 days charge and upkeep of fencing around perimeter needs to be checked
4.	Water point inspection and maintenance	Every day, especially during cold periods under 0º C
5.	Assessment of pasture condition and updating of grazing plans	Every week or when changes to plan are required
6.	Inspection and maintenance of other infrastructure (agroforesty fencing, shading structures)	Every week
7.	Ecological monitoring (i.e. PRAGA field sample sheets, photo library)	Every 3 to 6 months
8.	Pasture user group discussions and completion of 'Annual Grazing Action Plan' and Grazing Planning charts	Annually before growing season. Additionally before start of non-growing season to measure standing forage
9.	Weed and pest control	Every 3, preferably when undesirable species are at their most vulnerable stage in life cycle
10.	Soil amendments (liming, Enhanced microbes, deep ripping, compost tea)	When required, always following cost-benefits analysis

Comments:

Once properly installed and maintained, the infrastructure should require minimal additional investment. Sustaining and enhancing productivity gains depends primarily on regular monitoring—specifically, weekly pasture condition assessments and timely updates to the grazing planning charts. These actions ensure that plant recovery periods are respected, ground cover is maintained and that the composition of pasture species continues to evolve toward the agreed-upon goals set by land users and pasture managers.

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	Inspection of infrastructure (fencing, water, agroforestry, shading, etc)	days of labour (per month)	3.0	25.0	75.0	100.0
Labour	Repair of fencing and other infrastructure	days of labour (monthly)	4.0	50.0	200.0	100.0
Labour	Weed and Pest control	days of labour (per month)	4.0	25.0	100.0	100.0
Labour	Inspection of pasture condition	days of labour (per month)	2.0	25.0	50.0	100.0
Labour	Pasture / land user group meetings and planning	event	4.0	75.0	300.0	100.0
Labour	Soil amendments	days of labour (per month)	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
Labour	Ecological Monitoring	days of labour (per month)	1.0	25.0	25.0	100.0
Equipment	Infrastructure repairs (fencing, water, other)	parts (monthly avg.))	2.0	50.0	100.0	100.0
Equipment	Replacement of tools (depreciation)	hand tools (monthly depreciation costs)	2.0	5.0	10.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Soil amendments	misc. (monthly)	2.0	5.0	10.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					900.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					900.0

Comments:

Maintenance and other operating costs estimated here do not take into consideration time moving animals from milking sheds/barns to the grazing areas.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

While the technologies described here offer substantial benefits, their implementation costs may be prohibitive for communally managed lands without subsidized external support. However, a range of low-cost strategies can still create the desired grazing conditions, supporting plant recovery, herd effect, and beneficial animal impact. These include herding, the use of dogs, mobile water points, attractants, and more flexible mobile electric fencing systems, which can be established at a fraction of the cost outlined in this approach.

Nonetheless, some level of initial investment, whether in labour, materials, or in-kind contributions, is generally required to implement context-appropriate solutions for water access, herd control, and predator protection, particularly when livestock are kept in open-air or mobile enclosures.

In more densely populated areas, the installation of well-designed, durable perimeter fencing is strongly recommended to reduce conflict with other community members, especially where pasturelands border horticultural or cropping areas. With secure boundaries in place, internal management can rely on lower-cost tools such as mobile electric fencing or strategic herding. This setup not only enhances grazing control and herd management but also provides flexibility for future expansion, including the phased addition of water and shade infrastructure.

A key factor in implementation success is the willingness of contractors or community members to undertake fencing and tree planting on steep or difficult terrain. In several cases, contractors initially willing to bid later declined once the full extent of the site conditions was clarified.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Grazing planning took into consideration slope and monitored pasture conditions to reduce erosion and livestock trails on steeper paddocks.

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.

The soils of the three municipalities differ markedly in line with altitude and climate. Kazbegi is dominated by Humic Cambisols and Umbrisols, with Fluvisols in valley bottoms; these soils are generally shallow, acidic to near-neutral, rich in organic carbon, with moderate cation exchange capacity, low base saturation and nitrogen availability, and negligible salinity. Gurjaani is characterized by Chernozems, Calcisols, Cambisols, and Fluvisols, which are typically deep, neutral to slightly alkaline, with moderate to high cation exchange capacity, higher organic carbon and nitrogen contents, and low salinity, supporting intensive agriculture. Dmanisi comprises mainly Cambisols and Calcisols, often neutral to slightly alkaline, with moderate cation exchange capacity, lower organic carbon and nitrogen levels, and occasional salinity in poorly drained areas, reflecting drier climatic conditions.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Sufficient water quality and quantity were seen by all stakeholders as essential for success in use of the livestock in the SLM technology as described here. Clean, accessible water supports digestion, feed intake, reproduction, and reduces stress-related behaviours. Strategically managed water resources also improves efficiency. To achieve this, water points were designed with adequate offtake capacity to meet herd demand, minimizing competition and preventing dominant animals from guarding access out of fear that supply will run out.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Grassland and pasture biodiversity across Kazbegi, Gurjaani, and Dmanisi reflects strong altitudinal and climatic gradients. Kazbegi supports alpine and subalpine grasslands, characterized by high species richness and endemism, dominated by cold-tolerant perennial grasses (e.g. Festuca, Poa, Nardus) and diverse forbs, with relatively low productivity but high conservation value. Gurjaani’s grasslands are largely secondary and semi-natural steppe and meadow systems, shaped by long-term agricultural use, with moderate species diversity dominated by mesophilous and xeromesophilous grasses and legumes, and lower structural complexity due to intensification. Dmanisi lies in a transitional upland zone, supporting dry montane and steppe-like pastures with lower overall species richness but high resilience to grazing and drought, dominated by xerophytic grasses and forbs. Overall, biodiversity patterns shift from species-rich, climate-sensitive alpine grasslands in Kazbegi to more managed and disturbance-tolerant pasture systems in Gurjaani and Dmanisi.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Following in-depth socio-economic household surveys, project beneficiaries were principally land users who owned more one or more head of cattle or sheep and used community pastures as one of their principal sources of forage for their animals. This group was actively engaged in the project’s design, initial activities, and all implementation processes carried out in 2023. While exceptions could be found, most beneficiaries use their cattle for dairy production. Milk was either consumed fresh or processed at home into dairy products such as cheese. Surplus milk was typically sold at the farm gate to neighbours or collected by traveling milk buyers, who then supplied the dairy industries.

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:

• state
• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• leased

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Specify:

The majority of Georgian pastureland ownership has been transferred to the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, which is currently developing lease schemes aimed at generating income from these lands and promoting a more professional and sustainable livestock sector.

Comments:

Following the land reforms of the 1990s, ownership of agricultural land in Georgia today is mostly in small‐scale private hands. The average agricultural holding is about 1.37 hectares, though in many regions it is smaller and often fragmented. State or municipal bodies retain ownership of large portions of agricultural land, especially pastures, hayfields and meadows. The majority of pastureland remains state owned or managed, with leases used for commercial agriculture, but there is no legal category of “communal land ownership” in Georgia under which land is jointly owned by villagers or communities. Project beneficiaries are thus overwhelmingly small‐scale household farmers, operating under private ownership of their land‐parcels, or under lease agreements if using state land.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

Household surveys conducted during the project’s baseline studies revealed that livestock owners had taken only minor, uncoordinated actions to improve or preserve the productivity of their local pasturelands. The only practice reported was a seasonal system of rotational grazing. Farmers identified several challenges affecting pasture productivity, with the most frequently cited issue being a lack of available pastureland caused by limited nearby pasture areas, meadow reforestation, and weed encroachment. Water accessibility on pastures also emerged as a significant problem, with 60 cases (40%) reporting insufficient irrigation and drinking water for livestock. Overall, 60% of farmers emphasized that improving water availability on pastures is essential.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Annual monitoring was conducted by using the PRAGA field data sheets, which collect information on soil surface conditions (crusting, % bare ground), presence and extent of erosion, and pasture height, palatability, evidence of seed production or establishment and observed pasture species. Locals contributed to the list of indicators by adding 'presence of woody weed species' to the monitoring sheets.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

None to report at present.

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?
annual temperature		increase	very well
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extreme winter conditions	not well
drought	very well
land fire	very well

Comments:

While grassland and pasture growth is closely related to precipitation rates, the capacity of the Controlled Grazing to adapt to changing conditions and monitor for future stock of forrage and livestock numbers, drought and other climatic events, especially the gradual changes, can be mitigated and grasslands can once again contribute to global climatic stability and biodiversity.

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:

Long-term results are still to be determined though for the most part the response has been positive to the Controlled Grazing Technology approach, as well as the supporting activities that were funded by the project. Land users have wanted to address their concerns about their community pastureland tenure status and land management issues that were leading to land degradation and loss of pastureland productivity that were vital to their livelihoods.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

564 ha of land, 3 communally grazed pasture sites, 92 households

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

The results of applying the Controlled Grazing technology and supporting pasture improvement activities are still being showcased and understood by the participant communities and those around them. We have documented the SLM systems and solutions described here being replicated by onlookers to the process, especially professional livestock producers with private land or leasing agreements. There has also been recorded the entry of new professionals to the sector thanks in part to the project, its capacity building activities and the infrastructure investments.

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
Increased pasture productivity – Land managers reported enhanced grass growth and a greater presence of palatable forage species due to controlled grazing, which improved ground cover and boosted the pasture's photosynthetic capacity.
Animal health and performance - Land managers reported an increase in milk production and livestock condition as a result of improved pasture productivity. This also reportedly led to reduced veterinary visits and treatments of livestock ailments.
Reduced Labour and Time Requirements – Controlled grazing significantly decreased the time and effort required for herding, locating livestock, regrouping animals, and separating them when they mixed with other herds on communal pasturelands. By moving their livestock to designated paddocks each day, owners could contain them with access to water, mineral licks, and appropriate shelter or shade depending on the season. This allowed livestock managers to confidently leave the animals for the day, freeing up time for other activities. Knowing the herd’s location in the afternoon also reduced the time needed to gather them in the evening, enabling more efficient use of the day.
Controlled grazing makes it easier to estimate the forage availability in each paddock, calculate the number of grazing days remaining, assess forage growth rates, and track the duration of growing and non-growing seasons. This enhanced planning ability is critical for aligning livestock management with peak market opportunities and for anticipating and responding proactively to drought or other extreme weather events that could impact the viability of the livestock enterprise.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The capacity to plan ahead is a highly valuable tool that is greatly improved upon through use of planning charts, basic data collection and observation of on-ground changes to management and grazing times and impact. Failure to do so often results in loss of livestock to starvation and disease, or costly inputs of hay and grain to maintain them through drought periods, and overall lost productivity due to poor pasture management, especially where overgrazing is rampant and has severely degraded grasslands and native pastures.
The majority of land users and beneficiaries of the project typically own one or two milking cows that provide fresh milk and dairy products for the household, with some excess being sold. Therefore, livestock production typically is not their prime source of income and use of the Controlled Grazing technology allows them to have more time to dedicate to other economic activities by reducing herding time and them having to keep an eye on their animals over the course of the day.
The technology, and the concepts underlying the technology, are highly adaptable to a wide range of grazing contexts. For those without access to fencing, piping or other materials cited in this article, the option to herd as a community, with a rotation system in place for herders or hire of a professional herder, exist. The key is to proactively herd and allow for adequate grass/plant recovery times following grazing applications.
Grazing and Animal Impact as Ecological Tools – Managed grazing and the natural impact of animals are essential tools for maintaining the health and resilience of grasslands, rangelands, steppes, and native pasturelands. When ruminants are removed for extended periods and rest is over-applied, key ecological processes, such as mineral cycling and water infiltration, begin to break down, often accelerating land degradation and desertification. The critical factors are the timing and intensity of grazing. These must be carefully planned and actively managed, either through herding or appropriate technology, to ensure a positive impact on the ecosystem.

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?
Although the project provided numerous preparatory trainings and awareness-raising activities, the project beneficiary land users in pilot villages have expressed limited capacities to fully use and benefit from the pastureland restoration supports, especially in terms of introducing a controlled grazing system without project support.	Build on peer to peer learning opportunities and leverage the learnings gained through this project to find low cost, low resource intensive methods to replicate the core concepts applied in this project, and seek to support these process at scale.
Participant population's interests and employment structures are gradually shifting towards other sectors outside of subsidence livestock and crop production. This led to some of those that had been active participants in the workshops and training events to leave the area for other economic opportunities, creating gaps in knowledge and transfer of experience with the technology and supporting activities.	Develop positive economic and livelihood models and market opportunities that appeal to youth who are interested in livestock production as potential source of income.
The low level of self-organization skills among local farmers in pilot villages posed a significant obstacle to the formation and effective functioning of the established Pasture Users Unions. This required extended consultations and additional efforts by the project to support PUUs meetings, joint deliberations, and decision-making on pasture management issues.	It is of everyone's best interest to properly manage the communal grassland areas that typically surround Georgia's rural communities. Formal organisations such as Pasture User Group's offer many advantages though can also mean administrative requirements, bureaucracy and political interference with decision-making. Other less formal options might be more adequate to ensure that the Controlled Grazing technology and/or its basic concepts are being properly applied, especially in areas that are experiencing rapid degradation of local communal grazing lands.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Consensus among rural communities and capacity to work together has long been a tradition, though it must be recognised that often different subgroups form along family, political or economic lines and some community members may be highly resistant to working with other community members or as a whole.	The Controlled Grazing technology, and its underlying concepts, can be seen as a mobile response to land degradation. If the technology were applied to specific areas in different frequencies and patterns, other areas could be seen as 'sacrifice areas' where overgrazing would be allowed for those unwilling or resistant to participating in the Controlled Grazing applications using their livestock.
Even with good results, the initial interest in the technology tends to fade and maintenance and planning activities often decrease as time progresses. Add to this the current rural demographics, with a significant part of the working population moving to cities or regional centres for economic opportunities, and those most capable of starting professional livestock enterprises and using their herds to maintain the communal and privately managed grasslands of Georgia.	Livestock production and rural village life need to be seen as viable options that bring economic stability and recognition from society as valued members of society. This requires policies that allow for these conditions to be met, and the showcasing of models that work. Controlled Grazing could play a part in this in that it applies concepts from natural grasslands and wild herbivores to regenerate land and provide for livelihoods in a sustainable, cost-effective way.
Experience has shown that people often fixate on the need, the cost and/or their lack of basic infrastructure, with fencing and water being the main focal points of discussions among land users. Some will say that unless everything is in place, it is not possible to start applying Controlled Grazing.	A good facilitator needs to understand how to guide this conversation, because often it is not necessary to have investments to start and rural people are very resourceful and most likely have the capacity to start applying Controlled Grazing and/or its concepts in small, incremental steps.
Land management at scale, especially communal lands, requires local buy-in as well as support from community leaders and government. This includes adequate policies that permit and facilitate livestock movement across the landscape as a means of maintaining ecosystem services and productive, economically vibrant communities.	The GCP/GEO/006/GFF project worked closely with the relevant Georgian Ministries to promote the use of the Controlled Grazing technology and has presented the results and recommendations to responsible parties for policy that affect land management and land tenure access and rights.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Holistic Management - a framework for managing complexity

URL:

https://savory.global/holistic-management/

Title/ description:

The Savory Institute Library

URL:

https://savory.global/library/

Title/ description:

Voisin’s Four Laws of Rational Grazing

URL:

https://crawford.extension.wisc.edu/voisins-four-laws-of-rational-grazing/

Title/ description:

Controlled and Rotational Grazing

URL:

https://isqaper-is.eu/grazing-management/grazing/436-controlled-and-rotational-grazing

Title/ description:

Sustainable rangeland management in Sub-Saharan Africa - Guidelines to good practice

URL:

https://wocat.net/en/wocat-media-library/sustainable-rangeland-management-in-sub-saharan-africa-guidelines-to-good-practice/

Title/ description:

WOCAT Technology Database - Rotational Grazing (Türkiye)

URL:

https://wocat.net/en/database/technologies/1398/

7.4 General comments

A special thanks to all those involved with the 'Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality Targets of Georgia through Restoration and Sustainable Management of Degraded Pasturelands (GCP/GEO/006/GFF)' project, especially the land users and community members of the Dmanisi, Gurjaani and Kazbegi municipalities who took the time to contribute their efforts and livestock to work with the project to implement this technology on their communal grasslands.