Technologies

Rehabilitation of Windbreaks [Georgia]

technologies_4274 - Georgia

Completeness: 90%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
co-compiler:
co-compiler:

co-compiler:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural area (L-SLM Project)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC Caucasus) - Georgia
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Windbreaks are an integrated technology to increase land productivity and biodiversity at different levels. Along six kilometres, located between a road and agricultural fields, windbreaks were rehabilitated or newly established to protect the soil wind erosion. Four lines of seedlings including seven tree species were planted in two meters distance to each other. The survival rates of different tree species have been accessed and evaluated.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Agriculture plays a key role in the economy of Georgia. 74% of wheat is produced in Kakheti. Within the region, the main wheat-growing area is Shiraki valley located in Dedoplistskaro Municipality in Eastern Georgia. The valley has deep soil with high humus content offering significant potential for high agricultural yields. Among others, wind erosion and increase of evaporation due to degradation of windbreaks have led to reduced agricultural yields. At the end of the Soviet Union, there were 1.800 km of tree windbreaks in Shiraki. More than 90% of them were destroyed either by fire or illegal cuttings for firewood. Fires are caused by farmers burning harvest residues and by shepherds burning pastures and windbreaks to facilitate the growth of new grass and clear land. Today, fire still pose the greatest threat to the rehabilitation of windbreaks. Grazing by migrating sheep and by local (cattle) herds as well as firewood extraction is still causing additional damage to windbreaks in specific areas of Shiraki valley.

In Dedoplistskaro, the SLM-pilot activities focus on the establishment of a windbreak/agroforestry system to reduce wind erosion, which is here the main degradation factor and threatens agricultural production. Windbreaks are a well-known measure against wind erosion. They consist of several rows of trees and bushes on the edges of agricultural fields to reduce the wind-speed on the surface level. Slowing down of wind-speed protects the topsoil from wind erosion. Windbreaks improve the micro-climate for crops growing in their shelter by reducing moisture loss. Windbreaks also provide shelter and habitats for a wide range of plants, pollinating insects, wildlife and birds, including predators of agricultural pests.

Selection of seedlings:

Tree species well adapted to the regional conditions (climate, soil, etc.) were selected such as Pinus (Pinus eldarica, survival rate: 90%), Pistacia (Pistacia mutica, survival rate 60%) and Elm (Ulmus minor, survival rate 60%), Wild Almond (Prunus argentea, survival rate 40%), Persian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia, survival rate: 40%) and Robinia (Robinia pseudoacacia, survival rate 16%). The survival rates are based on the assessment in September 2018, 6 months after planting.

The seeds were prepared for planting in a nursery. Seedlings to be transported over long distances must be grown in special containers to ensure good root system development and minimise damage during transport. If they are grown near the planting site and the transport time is short, seedlings may also be bare-rooted.

Preparation of soil and planting:
The pilot site 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 Environment Centre for the Caucasus, is six km long and located on the main road on state-owned land. Before planting the seedlings, the vegetation (grass and herbs) was cut and removed. No ploughing was done. During the implementation in 2018, the design of the site was changed to a 6 km long U-shaped form with three 10 m wide segments of windbreaks. The total area of the pilot site is 6 ha, but since there were already intact hedges in some parts, the total area where windbreaks were either newly planted or rehabilitated is 3 ha. Each windbreak consisted of four lines of tree seedlings of different species in two meters distance to each other (inter-row spacing) and 2 m distance between the seedlings within a row (intra-row spacing). First, holes were dug (30 cm diameter, 40 cm deep), then water accumulation granulate was added to keep the water better, then the seedlings of 10-40 cm height and 2-3 years old depending on species were inserted. No compost or fertiliser was used. The seedlings were protected by plastic tubes from the cold and dry winter season. Every 2nd seedling was marked with a wooden pole to distinguish them from weeds and to control the survival rate. If the survival rate falls below 50%, the trees should be replaced. After the planting of the seedling, the herbs and grass were cut again. Further cuttings took place several times to avoid shading and competition.

Maintenance

Besides cutting of weeds for 2 times in the main growing season (Mai-July) regular watering was applied. Young seedlings should be watered 2-4 times per year (first 2 years) – about 15-20l per tree. After 2 years the root system should be established in such a way that it can take care of itself. The implementation area was not fenced, but there is no pastureland around and pressure by browsing is low.

The Regional Environment Centre for the Caucasus (REC) in cooperation with GIZ has conducted a cost-benefit analysis to estimate the value of protecting remaining windbreaks, the economic impact of banning crop residue burning and the benefits of straw as a fertilizer. The survey data shows that a ban on crop residue burning will help to protect the existing windbreaks. Consequently, shredding of straw during the harvest and subsequent incorporation of straw into the soil builds up soil organic matter and helps to retain the moisture in the ground. Unclear ownership and institutional responsibility are the most relevant constraints for sustainable windbreaks management as a measure. At the political level, issues were noted, and steps were taken: A working group under the National Forest Programme selected windbreaks restoration and protection as their key topics. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture with the support from REC and GIZ developed a policy for rehabilitation and protection of windbreaks. Based on this, a new law on windbreaks was initiated which will clarify the situation by ascribing clear responsibilities on windbreak maintenance and management. This law is still at the stage of preparation in the Agrarian Committee.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

Country:

Georgia

Region/ State/ Province:

Kakheti

Further specification of location:

Dedoplistskaro

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

Comments:

The intervention was done along the main road and along two side roads heading south.

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.):

The rehabilitation of the windbreaks was tested on a pilot site along a highly visible road within 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 Environment Centre for the Caucasus (REC).

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity

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):
  • Agroforestry

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • cereals - barley
  • cereals - wheat (spring)
  • cereals - wheat (winter)
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 2
Is intercropping practiced?

No

Is crop rotation practiced?

No

Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

  • Tree plantation, afforestation
Tree plantation, afforestation: Specify origin and composition of species:
  • Mixed varieties
Type of tree plantation, afforestation:
  • temperate steppe plantation
Type of tree:
  • Pinus species
  • Ulmus minor, Pinus eldarica, Elaeagnus angustifolia, Cotinus coggygria , Pistacia mutica, Ulmus minor, Robinia pseudoacacia, Prunus argentea
Are the trees specified above deciduous or evergreen?
  • mixed deciduous/ evergreen
Products and services:
  • Fuelwood
  • Nature conservation/ protection
  • Protection against natural hazards
  • Protection soil from wind erosion
Comments:

When the windbreak is established and dense, selective logging of firewood is possible.

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
Comments:

The crop-fields are not irrigated. Only the young seedlings of the rehabilitated windbreak are irrigated 2-4 times a year in the first 2-3 years.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • agroforestry
  • windbreak/ shelterbelt

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
Comments:

In addition to the loss of topsoil, the reduction of wind speed and the degree of vegetation reduce the evapotranspiration rate of the crop and thereby the amount of water.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

The windbreak will reduce soil erosion caused by wind on neighbouring crop fields.

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Planting scheme for windbreak rehabilitation.

Author:

Hanns Kirchmeir

Date:

15/11/2017

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Location of windbreaks along the main and side roads. During implementation the design of the site was changed to an u-shaped form built by 3 windbreaks. The windbreaks that are included in the rehabilitation were segmented into four:
Windbreak A1 - Replanting new seedlings - 458 length (m);
Windbreak A2 - Removal of dry biomass - 403 length (m);
Windbreak B - Replanting new seedlings - 2.560 length (m);
Windbreak C - Replanting new seedlings - 2.354 length (m).
While in the segments A1, B and C the tree cover is very low and new seedlings are needed, in segment A2 there is still a dense crown cover.

To protect the existing trees in segment A2, the dry biomass under the crown (dry herbs and grass, dead trees & branches) was removed to reduce the amount of fuel in the case of a fire. This process was just started at the north end of A2.
In Segment B Pistacia mutica, Ulmus minor, Robinia pseudoacacia, Cotinus coggygria and Wild almond (Prunus argentea) have been planted.
In Segment C Pinus eldarica, Elaeagnus angustifolia Pistacia mutica, Ulmus minor, Robinia pseudoacacia and Wild almond (Prunus argentea) have been planted.

Author:

Hanns Kirchmeir

Date:

15/09/2017

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Planting scheme for windbreaks rehabilitation.
The distance between the lines is 2m and the distance between seedlings within a line is also 2m. About every second seedling is marked with a wooden pole (50 cm). This is done on the one hand to control the survival rate (if every second seedling is, the next seedling is only 2m away and easy to find) and on the other hand to identify and leave the seedlings standing when the weeds are cleared.

Author:

Hanns Kirchmeir

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

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

3 ha

other/ national currency (specify):

GEL

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

2.7

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

15 USD

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Marking sites in the field April-May
2. Cut grass and remove dead wood April
3. Planting of seedlings (planting, adding wooden poles and water accumulation granulate April-May
4. Irrigation and weed-cutting July, August (to be repeated for 3 years)
5. Scientific Monitoring October - October (five years)

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 Clearing and preparation of sites (3 ha) person days 40.0 30.0 1200.0 0.0
Labour Weed cutting 2 x on 3 ha person days 110.0 36.0 3960.0 0.0
Labour Planting of 7.300 seedlings (digging hole, adding water accumulation granulate, planting seedling, adding wooden pole and tube) person days 73.0 45.0 3285.0 0.0
Labour Irrigation 4 x 7.300 seedlings person days 73.0 75.0 5475.0 0.0
Equipment Wooden poles pieces 7300.0 0.9 6570.0 0.0
Equipment Water accumulation granulate kg 73.0 70.0 5110.0 0.0
Equipment Water for irrigation 300.0 3.0 900.0 0.0
Equipment Transport of water (water truck) applications 4.0 1300.0 5200.0 0.0
Plant material Pistacia mutica pieces 470.0 3.0 1410.0 0.0
Plant material Robinia pseudoacacia pieces 1825.0 1.0 1825.0 0.0
Plant material Pinus eldarica pieces 117.0 5.0 585.0 0.0
Plant material Ulmus minor pieces 1355.0 2.0 2710.0 0.0
Plant material Amygdalus communis pieces 1238.0 1.0 1238.0 0.0
Plant material Elaeagnus angustifolia pieces 1237.0 0.75 927.75 0.0
Other Transportation of workers and materials by lorry transfers 50.0 60.0 3000.0 0.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 43395.75
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 16072.5
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

GEF-Funds have been used to finance all of the activities

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Watering the seedlings Every 2-3 weeks during dry period in July-September
2. Preparing fire-break around windbreak August, after harvesting the crops
3. Weed cutting between seedlings 1-2 times between June and August
4. Replacing dead trees by new seedlings (if needed) October/November
Comments:

Here the maintenance is applied in the second year. Irrigation and weed cutting of the first year are already integrated in the establishment costs.

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 Weed cutting 2 times on 3 ha person days 110.0 37.0 4070.0 0.0
Labour Irrigation 4*7.300 seedlings person days 73.0 75.0 5475.0 0.0
Labour Protect firebreak around windbreak person days 4.0 100.0 400.0 0.0
Equipment Water (10l/seedling*4) 300.0 3.0 900.0 0.0
Equipment Transport of water (water truck) application 4.0 1300.0 5200.0 0.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 16045.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 5942.59
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The full costs were covered by the project

Comments:

The maintenance costs are calculated for the second year

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

How often weeds need to be cut, survival rate of trees

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:

697.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

The driest month is January, with 25 mm of rainfall. The greatest amount of precipitation occurs in June, with an average of 108 mm. The difference in precipitation between the driest month and the wettest month is 83 mm.

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Dedoplistskaro Met. Station

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

The climate is warm and temperate in Dedoplistskaro. The average annual temperature in Dedoplistskaro is 11.3 °C. The warmest month of the year is July, with an average temperature of 22.7 °C. The lowest average temperatures in the year occur in January, when it is around 0.1 °C.

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%)
Landforms:
  • 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):
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • high (>3%)
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 are clay rich Chernosems and Kastanosems.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

poor/ none

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Water quality refers to:

ground water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

There is no local access to water. The water for irrigation had to be moved from the village 15 km away.

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • low
Habitat diversity:
  • low
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The windbreaks add important habitat diversity to the landscape. They act as corridors, breeding and feeding habitat especially for small mammals and birds.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged

5.7 Average area of land used 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:
  • state
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • leased
  • individual
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • 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

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

The positive effect on crop yields will be visible when trees in the windbreak get higher than 3 meters.

wood production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

First harvest of firewood is expected in 15-20 years

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

evaporation

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to an expected reduction in wind speed near the ground, the evaporation rate is expected to decrease after the trees have reached a height of more than 5 m. So far, no data from measurements are available.

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Due to an expected reduction in wind speed near the ground, the evapotranspiration rate is expected to decrease after the trees have reached a height of more than 5 m, which would lead to an increase in soil moisture. So far, no data from measurements are available.

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Due to the reduction in wind speed, it is expected that the amount of soil erosion caused by wind will decrease when the trees have reached a height of more than 5 m.

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Windbreaks are refuge areas for plant species sensitive to herbicides and plowing.

animal diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

The windbreaks provide shelter and breeding habitat for birds and small mammals. Tree litter improves soil conditions and has positive effect on soil-invertebrate diversity.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

wind velocity

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

The expected impact is a reduction of wind velocity up to 200 m after the windbreak, which will lead to reduced wind erosion of top soil. This effect is related to tree height and will need 2-3 decades to gain full impact.

micro-climate

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

The expected impact is a reduction of wind velocity up to 200m after the windbreak, which will lead to a decrease in evaporation. This effect is related to tree height and will need 2-3 decades to gain full Impact.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

By reducing the wind speed, the amount of soil erosion by wind is expected to decrease when the trees have reached a height of more than 5 m. The positive influence on the neighbouring field can be observed up to a distance of twice the height of the trees.

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

By reducing the wind speed, the amount of soil erosion by wind is expected to decrease when the trees have reached a height of more than 5 m. The positive influence on the neighbouring field can be observed up to a distance of twice the height of the trees.

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced
Quantity before SLM:

10 t CO2-eqiv/ha

Quantity after SLM:

200 t CO2-eqiv/ha

Comments/ specify:

The increase in the volume of wood on the windbreak increases carbon storage in the ecosystem. The rehabilitation of a completely destroyed windbreak can increase the biomass volume by 100-200 m³/ha, which corresponds to 100-200 t carbon dioxide.

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 well
annual rainfall decrease moderately
Comments:

Only drought resistant tree species have been selected. But during the first years after planting the root system is not well developed and irrigation is recommended.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

negative

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

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

negative

Long-term returns:

positive

Comments:

It is a significant investment to establish a windbreak and it takes several years (5-10) before the measure will show effects on the increase of crop fields' productivity. But when established, the windbreak does not need investment for maintenance but can deliver additional benefit (fuel wood).

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 1-10%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

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

The selection of tree species and planting technologies was adapted to the rising temperatures. Special protection tubes against winter storms were used.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increase of yields in the neighbouring fields
Availability of firewood
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Seedlings can be produced locally in tree nurseries using local tree species.
Increase of protection from wind erosion and drought by wind impact.
Increase of habitat diversity

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?
Fires protecting the windbreak by ploughing the soil along the line
Lack of maintenance of planted seedlings cutting the grass and removing it from the field, continue mulching and watering the seedlings over the next few years, replanting the dead seedlings
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
High investment for seedlings, wooden poles and irrigation It is much cheaper to protect existing windbreaks from burning. Integrating fruit trees and/or vegetables into the windbreak can result in a faster return on investment.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

Field visits have been done in summer 2017 and 2018

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

Kety Tsereteli | REC Caucasus , Amiran Kodiashvili, GIZ GE , Georgi Gambashidze

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Project Reports from national and international experts (REC-Caucasus). Reports from GIZ - IBiS Program on windbreak Rehabilitation Pilot Project.

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/09/2018

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 - Implementation Evaluation Report June 2018 – Windbreaks.

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Approach for “Rehabilitation of Windbreaks in East Georgia”

URL:

https://biodivers-southcaucasus.org/uploads/files/Approach%20Windbreak%20Rehabilitation%20Georgia.pdf

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules