1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de la Technologie

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

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

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

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

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Déclaration sur la durabilité de la Technologie décrite

Est-ce que la Technologie décrite ici pose problème par rapport à la dégradation des terres, de telle sorte qu'elle ne peut pas être déclarée comme étant une technologie de gestion durable des terres?

Non

1.5 Référence au(x) Questionnaires sur les Approches de GDT (documentées au moyen de WOCAT)

2.1 Courte description de la Technologie

Définition de la Technologie:

“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 Description détaillée de la Technologie

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 de la Technologie

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où la Technologie a été appliquée et qui sont couverts par cette évaluation

2.6 Date de mise en œuvre de la Technologie

Indiquez l'année de mise en œuvre:

2024

Si l'année précise est inconnue, indiquez la date approximative: :

• il y a moins de 10 ans (récemment)

2.7 Introduction de la Technologie

Spécifiez comment la Technologie a été introduite: :

• par le biais de projets/ d'interventions extérieures

Commentaires (type de projet, 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 Principal(aux) objectif(s) de la Technologie

• améliorer la production
• réduire, prévenir, restaurer les terres dégradées
• conserver/ améliorer la biodiversité
• créer un impact économique positif
• créer un impact social positif

3.2 Type(s) actuel(s) d'utilisation des terres, là où la Technologie est appliquée

Les divers types d'utilisation des terres au sein du même unité de terrain: :

Oui

Précisez l'utilisation mixte des terres (cultures/ pâturages/ arbres):

• Sylvo-pastoralisme

Commentaires:

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 Est-ce que l’utilisation des terres a changé en raison de la mise en œuvre de la Technologie ?

Est-ce que l’utilisation des terres a changé en raison de la mise en œuvre de la Technologie ?

• Non (Passez à la question 3.4)

3.4 Approvisionnement en eau

Approvisionnement en eau des terres sur lesquelles est appliquée la Technologie:

• pluvial

3.5 Groupe de GDT auquel appartient la Technologie

• agroforesterie
• pastoralisme et gestion des pâturages
• Amélioration de la couverture végétale/ du sol

3.6 Mesures de GDT constituant la Technologie

3.7 Principaux types de dégradation des terres traités par la Technologie

3.8 Prévention, réduction de la dégradation ou réhabilitation des terres dégradées

Spécifiez l'objectif de la Technologie au regard de la dégradation des terres:

• prévenir la dégradation des terres
• réduire la dégradation des terres

Commentaires:

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 Dessin technique de la Technologie

4.2 Informations générales sur le calcul des intrants et des coûts

Spécifiez la manière dont les coûts et les intrants ont été calculés:

• par superficie de la Technologie

Indiquez la monnaie utilisée pour le calcul des coûts:

• dollars américains

4.3 Activités de mise en place/ d'établissement

	Activité	Calendrier des activités (saisonnier)
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

Commentaires:

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 Coûts et intrants nécessaires à la mise en place

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% des coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Preparation of Detailed (Technical) Design, BoQ for Pastures Watering System Arrangements	days of labour	63,0	150,0	9450,0
Main d'œuvre	Fencing installation (grazing divisions)	days of labour	150,0	30,0	4500,0	10,0
Main d'œuvre	Training land users electric fencing installation, maintenance	days of labour	10,0	70,0	700,0
Main d'œuvre	Agroforestry ground preparation, fencing and planting	days of labour	80,0	25,0	2000,0
Main d'œuvre	Installation of water storage and distribution systems	days of labour	90,0	25,0	2250,0
Main d'œuvre	Village water trough rehabilitation / construction	days of labour	30,0	25,0	750,0
Main d'œuvre	Shading structure installation	days of labour	35,0	25,0	875,0
Main d'œuvre	Tractor + truck work (weed removal / water system / soil admendments)	days of labour	22,0	50,0	1100,0
Equipements	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
Equipements	Water tanks, pipes, drinking troughs, floats, values, etc	$292 per ha avg	564,0	62,0	34968,0
Equipements	Protective fencing for agroforestry (posts, chain-link fencing)	rolls of 25 metres + 100 wooden posts	12,0	250,0	3000,0
Equipements	Design and construction of tractor mounted ant mound leveller (recycled materials)	unit	1,0	250,0	250,0
Equipements	Salt / Mineral block holder	units	10,0	30,0	300,0
Matériel végétal	Seedlings / Saplings (multispecies)	saplings	334,0	24,0	8016,0
Matériel végétal	Hay (small bale, avg. 20 kilos)	hay bales	30,0	5,0	150,0
Engrais et biocides	Effective Microorganisms (EM)	L bag/box	120,0	10,0	1200,0
Engrais et biocides	Vegetation recovery support measures, (Alfalfa seed)	kg	150,0	9,0	1350,0
Matériaux de construction	Construction materials for fixed, village watering points	per water trough	9,0	1000,0	9000,0
Matériaux de construction	Construction of shading structures	per structure	2,0	1956,0	3912,0
Autre	Contract of heavy machinery for ant mound removal	hours	160,0	30,0	4800,0
Autre	Contract of tractor and trailer for week removal	hours	89,0	30,0	2670,0
Autre	Livestock Salt / Mineral blocks	units	50,0	8,0	400,0
Autre	Holistic Planned Grazing Charts in Georgian (www.savory.global)	A2 printed chart	10,0	30,0	300,0
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie					127801,0
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					127801,0

Si le coût n'est pas pris en charge à 100% par l'exploitant des terres, indiquez qui a financé le coût restant:

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

Commentaires:

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 Activités d'entretien/ récurrentes

	Activité	Calendrier/ fréquence
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

Commentaires:

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 Coûts et intrants nécessaires aux activités d'entretien/ récurrentes (par an)

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% des coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Inspection of infrastructure (fencing, water, agroforestry, shading, etc)	days of labour (per month)	3,0	25,0	75,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Repair of fencing and other infrastructure	days of labour (monthly)	4,0	50,0	200,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Weed and Pest control	days of labour (per month)	4,0	25,0	100,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Inspection of pasture condition	days of labour (per month)	2,0	25,0	50,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Pasture / land user group meetings and planning	event	4,0	75,0	300,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Soil amendments	days of labour (per month)	1,0	30,0	30,0	100,0
Main d'œuvre	Ecological Monitoring	days of labour (per month)	1,0	25,0	25,0	100,0
Equipements	Infrastructure repairs (fencing, water, other)	parts (monthly avg.))	2,0	50,0	100,0	100,0
Equipements	Replacement of tools (depreciation)	hand tools (monthly depreciation costs)	2,0	5,0	10,0	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Soil amendments	misc. (monthly)	2,0	5,0	10,0	100,0
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie					900,0
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					900,0

Commentaires:

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 Facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts

Décrivez les facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts :

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 Climat

5.2 Topographie

Indiquez si la Technologie est spécifiquement appliquée dans des:

• non pertinent

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la topographie:

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

5.3 Sols

Si disponible, joignez une description complète du sol ou précisez les informations disponibles, par ex., type de sol, pH/ acidité du sol, capacité d'échange cationique, azote, salinité, 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 Disponibilité et qualité de l'eau

La salinité de l'eau est-elle un problème? :

Non

La zone est-elle inondée?

Non

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la qualité et la quantité d'eau:

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 Biodiversité

Commentaires et précisions supplémentaires sur la biodiversité:

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 Caractéristiques des exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

Indiquez toute autre caractéristique pertinente des exploitants des terres:

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 Superficie moyenne des terres utilisées par les exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

5.8 Propriété foncière, droits d’utilisation des terres et de l'eau

Propriété foncière:

• état
• communauté/ village

Droits d’utilisation des terres:

• accès libre (non organisé)
• loué

Droits d’utilisation de l’eau:

• accès libre (non organisé)
• communautaire (organisé)

Est-ce que les droits d'utilisation des terres sont fondés sur un système juridique traditionnel?

Non

Précisez:

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.

Commentaires:

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 Accès aux services et aux infrastructures

Commentaires:

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 Impacts sur site que la Technologie a montrés

Impacts socio-économiques

Production

Disponibilité et qualité de l'eau

Revenus et coûts

Impacts socioculturels

Impacts écologiques

Cycle de l'eau/ ruissellement

Sols

Biodiversité: végétale, animale

Réduction des risques de catastrophe et des risques climatiques

Précisez l'évaluation des impacts sur site (sous forme de mesures):

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 Impacts hors site que la Technologie a montrés

Précisez l'évaluation des impacts extérieurs (sous forme de mesures):

None to report at present.

6.3 Exposition et sensibilité de la Technologie aux changements progressifs et aux évènements extrêmes/catastrophes liés au climat (telles que perçues par les exploitants des terres)

Changements climatiques progressifs

Changements climatiques progressifs

	Saison	Augmentation ou diminution	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
températures annuelles		augmente	très bien
températures saisonnières	été	augmente	modérément
précipitations annuelles		décroît	bien
précipitations saisonnières	saison des pluies/ humide	décroît	bien

Extrêmes climatiques (catastrophes)

Catastrophes climatiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
conditions hivernales extrêmes	pas bien
sécheresse	très bien
feu de végétation	très bien

Commentaires:

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 Analyse coûts-bénéfices

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts de mise en place (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts d'entretien récurrents (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

Commentaires:

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 de la Technologie

• cas isolés/ expérimentaux

Si disponible, quantifiez (nombre de ménages et/ou superficie couverte):

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

De tous ceux qui ont adopté la Technologie, combien d'entre eux l'ont fait spontanément, à savoir sans recevoir aucune incitation matérielle, ou aucune rémunération? :

• 0-10%

Commentaires:

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

La Technologie a-t-elle été récemment modifiée pour s'adapter à l'évolution des conditions?

Non

6.7 Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités de la Technologie

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
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.

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques de la Technologie et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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.

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.3 Liens vers les informations pertinentes en ligne

Titre/ description:

Holistic Management - a framework for managing complexity

URL:

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

Titre/ description:

The Savory Institute Library

URL:

https://savory.global/library/

Titre/ description:

Voisin’s Four Laws of Rational Grazing

URL:

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

Titre/ description:

Controlled and Rotational Grazing

URL:

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

Titre/ 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/

Titre/ description:

WOCAT Technology Database - Rotational Grazing (Türkiye)

URL:

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

7.4 Observations d'ordre général

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.