Overview on the multi-functional landscape of Arkhiloskalo (Hanns Kirchmeir)

Community Land Use Planning in Arkhiloskalo (Géorgie)

Description

Unsustainable land use practices, such as deforestation, overgrazing and improper agricultural management systems are triggering the loss and degradation of valuable land resources in Georgia. Land use planning is one of the measures among others to contribute to support the integration of good Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) principles and practices into national policy and institutional framework to ensure the adoption of economically viable practices by rural communities. This technology is demonstrated in an application in Arkhiloskalo community in Eastern Georgia.

The globally ongoing degradation of land resources is threatening our food security and functioning ecosystem services. Therefore, restoration of degraded land as defined by the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 15.3) has become a strategic objective of the UNCCD. To achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN), action on the national level is needed. Georgia is one of the 113 countries (as of Sept. 2017) willing to take part in the Target Setting Program (TSP).
One of the major problems which Georgia is facing today is an absence of a comprehensive and integrated approach in the land management sector. In addition, an irrelevant legal framework sometimes leads to additional “conflicts” with the evolved national strategy and policy packages.
The land-use planning in the village of Arkhiloskalo, Dedoplistskaro Municipality is one of the pilot activities linked to LDN (Land Degradation Neutrality). The project financed by Global Environment Facility (GEF) / UN Environment Programm (UNEP) was implemented by local partner REC Caucasus (The Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus) through E.C.O. Institute of Ecology (Austria).
The land-use plan documents the status quo of the current land use. It is a baseline that can be used to steer and monitor future developments. The land-use plan is based on field assessments made in summer 2019 and builds a baseline for future assessments/monitoring. The land-use plan on the village level helps to break down national LDN targets to the local level. The plan and the development of land-use scenarios help to anticipate the future gains and losses of land resources and reflect the national LDN-target on the local level. Local stakeholders can identify areas of degradation risk and areas which can be rehabilitated. The Arkhiloskalo land-use plan contributes to sustainable land use by recognizing the current situation of land use and its spatial distribution as well as identifying the strength and weaknesses of the current situation.

Methodology:
Mapping for Arkhiloskalo land use plan: The mapping result is a detailed documentation of size and spatial distribution of land cover categories. Change in land cover is an important indicator to monitor the loss and gains of land resources according to the LDN monitoring concept.
For the mapping of the settlements, arable land and gardens, maps from Google Earth and digital cadastre of parcels were used. In the field maps, each polygon has an assigned Map-ID number, which is unique for each village. Polygons with the same land use category and land-use intensity can have the same Map-ID. Next to the drawing of the polygon on the map, in a field form each polygon is described by:
- Map-ID;
- Current Land use category;
- Current Land-use intensity;
- Remark (a specification of the polygon if needed).

Classifications of land use categories: The land-use classification is based on the CLC - Corine Land Classification System (The CORINE Land Cover is a vector map with a scale of 1:10 000, a minimum cartographic unit (MCU) of 100 m². It maps homogeneous landscape patterns). The Corine Land Classification system classifies urban fabric, mine, dump and construction sites, arable land, permanent crops, pastures, forests, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation associations, Open spaces with little or no vegetation, inland wetlands and waters.
The pastureland was differentiated into different productivity classes. In the field three classes of vegetation cover and species composition: low, medium, and high productivity were assessed.
For the mapping in Arkhiloskalo the following land use categories were selected: Settlements and human infrastructure (Code from the Corine Land Classification system – e.g. SHR, name – e.g. Houses); Forests and shrub-land; Agricultural managed land; Natural and semi-natural habitats.

Lieu

Lieu: The Village of Arkhiloskalo is locted in the Municipality of Dedoplitskaro., Kakheti, Géorgie

Nbr de sites de la Technologie analysés: site unique

Géo-référence des sites sélectionnés
  • 46.44597, 41.40364

Diffusion de la Technologie: répartie uniformément sur une zone (49.7 km²)

Dans des zones protégées en permanence ?:

Date de mise en oeuvre: 2018

Type d'introduction
Steep slope to the Alasani Valley in the North (Hanns Kirchmeir)
Renewal of the main road in the village (Zone B) (Hanns Kirchmeir)

Classification de la Technologie

Principal objectif
  • améliorer la production
  • réduire, prévenir, restaurer les terres dégradées
  • préserver l'écosystème
  • protéger un bassin versant/ des zones situées en aval - en combinaison avec d'autres technologies
  • conserver/ améliorer la biodiversité
  • réduire les risques de catastrophes
  • s'adapter au changement et aux extrêmes climatiques et à leurs impacts
  • atténuer le changement climatique et ses impacts
  • créer un impact économique positif
  • créer un impact social positif
L'utilisation des terres
Les divers types d'utilisation des terres au sein du même unité de terrain: Oui - Agroforesterie

  • Terres cultivées
    • Cultures annuelles: céréales - blé de printemps, céréales - blé d'hiver, cultures oléagineuses - tournesol, colza, autres
    • Plantations d’arbres ou de buissons: fruits, autres, raisins
    Nombre de période de croissance par an: : 1
    Est-ce que les cultures intercalaires sont pratiquées? Non
    Est-ce que la rotation des cultures est appliquée? Non
  • Pâturages
    • Ranching
    • Affouragement en vert/ zéro-pâturage
    • Prairies améliorées
    Type d'animal: cattle - dairy and beef (e.g. zebu)
    Est-ce que la gestion intégrée cultures-élevage est pratiquée? Non
      EspècesNombre
      cattle - dairy and beef (e.g. zebu)982
    • Implantations, infrastructures - Habitats, buildings, Trafic: routes, réseaux ferroviaires

    Approvisionnement en eau
    • pluvial
    • mixte: pluvial-irrigué
    • pleine irrigation

    But relatif à la dégradation des terres
    • prévenir la dégradation des terres
    • réduire la dégradation des terres
    • restaurer/ réhabiliter des terres sévèrement dégradées
    • s'adapter à la dégradation des terres
    • non applicable
    Dégradation des terres traité
    • érosion éolienne des sols - Et: perte de la couche superficielle des sols (couche arable)
    Groupe de GDT
    • brise-vent/ plantations abris
    • système de rotation (rotation des cultures, jachères, agriculture itinérante)
    • gestion des déchets/ gestion des eaux usées
    • Land use planning
    Mesures de GDT
    • modes de gestion - M2: Changement du niveau de gestion / d'intensification, M7: Autres

    Dessin technique

    Spécifications techniques
    Key stages of implementation:

    The land-use planning in the village of Arkhiloskalo, Dedoplistskaro Municipality is one of the pilot activities linked to LDN.
    Together with the local stakeholders, a land-use plan has been worked out. The procedure of defining a spatial development plan for a municipality goes along three stages:
    • Stage 1: Gather background information & implement pre-design studies and development of a mapping concept
    • Stage 2: Information of local stakeholders on this activity and implementation of an SWOT analysis (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) related to the land use of the village
    • Stage 3: Mapping and analyzing the current land use
    • Stage 4: Preparation of a draft land use plan
    • Stage 5: Reflection of the draft land use plan with local stakeholders
    • Stage 6: Preparation of the final land use plan
    Author: Hanns Kirchmeir
    Absolute area sizes. The largest land use category is arable land (3,014 ha) followed by closed and open shrubland (515 ha and 483 ha, respectively). Vineyards cover a total of 447 ha whereas windbreaks cover 178 ha. Pastures with low productivity (104 ha) and roads and parking areas (102 ha) use almost the same amount of land. Other infrastructure covers 44 ha of land. Orchards, fruit trees and berry-culture use 21 ha of land. Closed deciduous forest (17 ha) covers only a few more hectares than pastures (13 ha). Houses are the most common plot category in Arkhiloskalo but use only around 13 ha of land which puts them on the same land-use level as pastures. Dumpsites (9 ha) use more than twice the area of closed coniferous forest (4 ha). Hay meadows and rivers cover around 2 ha of the area.
    Author: Hanns Kirchmeir
    Map of current land-use categories in Arkhiloskalo. The land-use classification in this approach is based on the Corine Land Classification System. It was split into sub-categories where needed to meet the needs of local land use practices.
    Author: Hanns Kirchmeir
    Based on the different land use, 4 different zones have been separated:
    •Zone A: Steep North Slope
    •Zone B. Settlement Area
    •Zone C: Zone of perennial Crops
    •Zone D: Zone of annual Crops
    Author: Hanns Kirchmeir

    Mise en œuvre et entretien : activités, intrants et coûts

    Calcul des intrants et des coûts
    • Les coûts sont calculés : par superficie de la Technologie (taille et unité de surface : 50 km²)
    • Monnaie utilisée pour le calcul des coûts : dollars américains
    • Taux de change (en dollars américains - USD) : 1 USD = n.d.
    • Coût salarial moyen de la main-d'oeuvre par jour : national expert 100 USD
    Facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts
    The field work of mapping and analysis of results took a lot of time as well as the stakeholder meetings.
    Activités de mise en place/ d'établissement
    1. Gather background information & implement pre-design studies and development of a mapping concept (Calendrier/ fréquence: Winter/spring)
    2. Information of local stakeholders on this activity and implementation of an SWOT analysis (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) related to the land use of the village (Calendrier/ fréquence: Spring)
    3. Mapping and analyzing the current land use (Calendrier/ fréquence: Summer)
    4. Preparation of a draft land use plan (Calendrier/ fréquence: Autumn/Winter)
    5. Reflection of the draft land use plan with local stakeholders (Calendrier/ fréquence: Autumn/Winter)
    6. Preparation of the final land use plan (Calendrier/ fréquence: Autumn/Winter)
    Coût total de mise en place (estimation)
    15000,0
    Activités récurrentes d'entretien
    n.a.

    Environnement naturel

    Précipitations annuelles
    • < 250 mm
    • 251-500 mm
    • 501-750 mm
    • 751-1000 mm
    • 1001-1500 mm
    • 1501-2000 mm
    • 2001-3000 mm
    • 3001-4000 mm
    • > 4000 mm
    Zones agro-climatiques
    • humide
    • subhumide
    • semi-aride
    • aride
    Spécifications sur le climat
    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.
    Nom de la station météorologique : Dedoplistskaro Met. Station
    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.
    Pentes moyennes
    • plat (0-2 %)
    • faible (3-5%)
    • modéré (6-10%)
    • onduleux (11-15%)
    • vallonné (16-30%)
    • raide (31-60%)
    • très raide (>60%)
    Reliefs
    • plateaux/ plaines
    • crêtes
    • flancs/ pentes de montagne
    • flancs/ pentes de colline
    • piémonts/ glacis (bas de pente)
    • fonds de vallée/bas-fonds
    Zones altitudinales
    • 0-100 m
    • 101-500 m
    • 501-1000 m
    • 1001-1500 m
    • 1501-2000 m
    • 2001-2500 m
    • 2501-3000 m
    • 3001-4000 m
    • > 4000 m
    La Technologie est appliquée dans
    • situations convexes
    • situations concaves
    • non pertinent
    Profondeurs moyennes du sol
    • très superficiel (0-20 cm)
    • superficiel (21-50 cm)
    • modérément profond (51-80 cm)
    • profond (81-120 cm)
    • très profond (>120 cm)
    Textures du sol (de la couche arable)
    • grossier/ léger (sablonneux)
    • moyen (limoneux)
    • fin/ lourd (argile)
    Textures du sol (> 20 cm sous la surface)
    • grossier/ léger (sablonneux)
    • moyen (limoneux)
    • fin/ lourd (argile)
    Matière organique de la couche arable
    • abondant (>3%)
    • moyen (1-3%)
    • faible (<1%)
    Profondeur estimée de l’eau dans le sol
    • en surface
    • < 5 m
    • 5-50 m
    • > 50 m
    Disponibilité de l’eau de surface
    • excès
    • bonne
    • moyenne
    • faible/ absente
    Qualité de l’eau (non traitée)
    • eau potable
    • faiblement potable (traitement nécessaire)
    • uniquement pour usage agricole (irrigation)
    • eau inutilisable
    La qualité de l'eau fait référence à: eaux souterraines
    La salinité de l'eau est-elle un problème ?
    • Oui
    • Non

    Présence d'inondations
    • Oui
    • Non
    Diversité des espèces
    • élevé
    • moyenne
    • faible
    Diversité des habitats
    • élevé
    • moyenne
    • faible

    Caractéristiques des exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

    Orientation du système de production
    • subsistance (auto-approvisionnement)
    • exploitation mixte (de subsistance/ commerciale)
    • commercial/ de marché
    Revenus hors exploitation
    • moins de 10% de tous les revenus
    • 10-50% de tous les revenus
    • > 50% de tous les revenus
    Niveau relatif de richesse
    • très pauvre
    • pauvre
    • moyen
    • riche
    • très riche
    Niveau de mécanisation
    • travail manuel
    • traction animale
    • mécanisé/ motorisé
    Sédentaire ou nomade
    • Sédentaire
    • Semi-nomade
    • Nomade
    Individus ou groupes
    • individu/ ménage
    • groupe/ communauté
    • coopérative
    • employé (entreprise, gouvernement)
    Genre
    • femmes
    • hommes
    Âge
    • enfants
    • jeunes
    • personnes d'âge moyen
    • personnes âgées
    Superficie utilisée par ménage
    • < 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
    Échelle
    • petite dimension
    • moyenne dimension
    • grande dimension
    Propriété foncière
    • état
    • entreprise
    • communauté/ village
    • groupe
    • individu, sans titre de propriété
    • individu, avec titre de propriété
    Droits d’utilisation des terres
    • accès libre (non organisé)
    • communautaire (organisé)
    • loué
    • individuel
    Droits d’utilisation de l’eau
    • accès libre (non organisé)
    • communautaire (organisé)
    • loué
    • individuel
    Accès aux services et aux infrastructures
    santé

    pauvre
    bonne
    éducation

    pauvre
    bonne
    assistance technique

    pauvre
    bonne
    marchés

    pauvre
    bonne
    énergie

    pauvre
    bonne
    routes et transports

    pauvre
    bonne
    eau potable et assainissement

    pauvre
    bonne
    services financiers

    pauvre
    bonne

    Impact

    Impacts socio-économiques
    Production agricole
    en baisse
    en augmentation


    Effects will be visible based on the implementation of selected development scenario provided by Land use plan.

    diversité des produits
    en baisse
    en augmentation


    Effects will be visible based on the implementation of selected development scenario provided by Land use plan.

    diversité des sources de revenus
    en baisse
    en augmentation


    Effects will be visible based on the implementation of selected development scenario provided by Land use plan.

    Impacts socioculturels
    connaissances sur la GDT/ dégradation des terres
    réduit
    amélioré


    Improvements by training and workshops, awareness raising.

    Impacts écologiques
    couverture végétale
    en baisse
    en augmentation


    Reduced grazing in zone A (north slope) will increase the vegetation cover. Effects will be visible based on the implementation of selected development scenario provided by Land use plan.

    biomasse/ au dessus du sol C
    en baisse
    en augmentation


    Reduced grazing in zone A (north slope) will increase the cover of shrubs and trees which will lead to increase of biomass. Effects will be visible based on the implementation of selected development scenario provided by Land use plan.

    diversité des habitats
    en baisse
    en augmentation


    Diversification of land use and restoration of windbreaks will increase habitat diversity. Effects will be visible based on the implementation of selected development scenario provided by Land use plan.

    vitesse du vent
    en augmentation
    en baisse


    Improvement of windbreaks will reduce wind speed and topoil erosion. Effects will be visible based on the implementation of selected development scenario provided by Land use plan.

    Impacts hors site
    pollution des rivières/ nappes phréatiques
    en augmentation
    réduit


    Removal of uncontrolled dump sites will reduce groundwater and river pollution especially in the Alasani floodplain north of the community.

    sédiments (indésirables) transportés par le vent
    en augmentation
    réduit


    The rehabilitation of windbreaks will have a positive impact on neighboring fields.

    Analyse coûts-bénéfices

    Bénéfices par rapport aux coûts de mise en place
    Rentabilité à court terme
    très négative
    très positive

    Rentabilité à long terme
    très négative
    très positive

    Bénéfices par rapport aux coûts d'entretien
    Rentabilité à court terme
    très négative
    très positive

    Rentabilité à long terme
    très négative
    très positive

    The land use planning process is an investment in future developments. Return of investment can be expected in oncoming years. The mapping result is a detailed documentation of size and spatial distribution land cover categories. Change in land cover is an important indicator to monitor the loss and gains according to the LDN monitoring concept. The land-use plan is based on field assessments made in summer 2019 and built a baseline for future change assessments as it includes data on land-use intensity which will enable to consider change in time dynamics and to monitor changes on the ground.

    Changement climatique

    -

    Adoption et adaptation de la Technologie

    Pourcentage d'exploitants des terres ayant adopté la Technologie dans la région
    • cas isolés/ expérimentaux
    • 1-10%
    • 11-50%
    • > 50%
    Parmi tous ceux qui ont adopté la Technologie, combien d'entre eux l'ont fait spontanément, à savoir sans recevoir aucune incitation matérielle ou aucun paiement ?
    • 0-10%
    • 11-50%
    • 51-90%
    • 91-100%
    Nombre de ménages et/ou superficie couverte
    It was implemented as show case for one community
    La Technologie a-t-elle été récemment modifiée pour s'adapter à l'évolution des conditions ?
    • Oui
    • Non
    A quel changement ?
    • changements/ extrêmes climatiques
    • évolution des marchés
    • la disponibilité de la main-d'œuvre (par ex., en raison de migrations)

    Conclusions et enseignements tirés

    Points forts: point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
    • The majority of the land users in village Arkhiloskalo have been using the same land and natural resources through decades and have good understanding of the natural conditions and climate change perspectives of the target area. The land use plan, the scenario development and the knowledge exchange in the workshops are have been considered as advantage for awareness raising, joint decision making and to start a positive change in short-term period.
    • The successful land-use system with improved environment conditions and benefit to the local farmers can lead to be a perfect example for the whole municipality of Dedoplistskaro as most part of its territory is agricultural land in semi-arid environment facing some rapid and significant challenges caused by climate change.
    Points forts: point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne-ressource clé
    • The land use plan will help to optimize the management and to eliminate present challenges in the 4 separate zones and promote improved sustainable land- use, land-management practices like crop rotation and re-establishment of windbreaks.
    • The land-use plan helps to identify the strength, opportunities, weaknesses and threats and contribute to sustainable land-use and its management. E.g.: in the Zone A, Steep North Slope there is a high risk, that the waste in the dumpsites will be washed down in an uncontrolled manner into the natural and semi-natural habitats of the slope. The waste is partly burned and the wash out of toxic solute can harm nature and ground water.
    • Application of the technology helps to optimize management measures, which will reduce costs and labour forces, e.g., by increasing productivity of land and productivity of vineyards in the Zone C: zone of perennial crops.
    • The land-use map integrates climate mitigation. E.g. it helps to plan the re-establishment of the windbreaks, which significantly contributes to the reduction of wind erosion in the Zone D: Zone of annual crops.
    • The terrestrial evaluation of the current land use can also serve to evaluate remote sensing technologies for semi-automatic classification of land cover categories.
    Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques: point de vue de l'exploitant des terrescomment surmonter
    • Lack of dialogue and trust could be one of the risks to succeed with the introduction of advanced methods of sustainable land management. The proposed sustainable land-use practices and pilot activities should be planned in a way to have results on the ground in a short-term period to keep local farmers motivated.
    Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques: point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne-ressource clécomment surmonter
    • Risks: Land use plan Interest of farmers, guesthouse providers and local residents are conflicting. This can be limited by good facilitation of focus group discussions between different stakeholder groups.
    • Local actors (farmers, guest house providers ...) are not interested in participating in the joint land-use planning process. It will need a well-coordinated communication design to include all the local stakeholders in the process of practical and theoretical introduction to the principles of sustainable land-use. The communication should emphasize potential economic benefits to the local households together with advantages of the sustainability. This can be a key factor to get most of the local stakeholders engaged with the proposed sustainable land-use practices.

    Références

    Compilateur
    • Hanns Kirchmeir
    Editors
    • Kety Tsereteli
    Examinateur
    • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
    Date de mise en oeuvre: 21 avril 2020
    Dernière mise à jour: 30 avril 2020
    Personnes-ressources
    Description complète dans la base de données WOCAT
    Données de GDT correspondantes
    La documentation a été facilitée par
    Institution Projet
    Références clés
    • Pilot project on land degradation neutrality in Georgia: Final Report.2017.Huber, M., Joseph, A., Kirchmeir, H., Ghambashidze, G.: https://e-c-o.at/files/publications/downloads/D00813_ECO_policy_brief_LDN_Georgia_171025.pdf
    • 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.: Request at RECC Caucasus
    • limatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4:170122 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017. Karger, D. N. Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza, R.W., Zimmermann, N.E., Linder H.P. & Kessler M.: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2017122
    This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International