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

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

Integrated Biodiversity Management, South Caucasus (IBiS)

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

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/02/2016

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

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The unsustainable use of pastures and forest areas has led to soil erosion, degradation, desertification and loss of biodiversity in the high mountain areas of the South Caucasus. The development of pasture passports is part of a broader approach to a strategic pasture management plan for Tusheti. This showcase includes results from the spatial planning process applied in a pilot programme for Akhmeta municipality.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Project area and purpose
The project area comprises the Tusheti Protected Areas (PAs) on the northern slopes of the Greater Caucasus Mountains in Georgia. This group of protected areas consists of a strict nature reserve, a national park and a protected landscape with about 40 villages and settlements. Together they form a total protected area of approx. 114,000 ha. In Tusheti, overgrazing has led, especially in the eastern part with a higher number of villages and roads, to soil erosion and biodiversity loss. Especially the intensive use of summer pastures during the Soviet period resulted in a severe deterioration of the mountain slopes. So far, there are no standards or guidelines for the elaboration of sustainable pasture management plans in Georgia. Pasture passports, as a first step towards sustainable pasture management, document the actual grazing capacity for each pasture unit and serve as a guiding document for shepherds and local stakeholders and as a basis to prepare lease contracts.
Data gathering
As a prerequisite for the development of pasture passports and the calculation of grazing capacity, the type of land cover, the erosion risk and the biomass of the pastureland had to be assessed for each pasture unit. This was done using remote sensing tools in combination with data collected in the field for calibration.
The details on the methodology of the Land Cover & Biomass as well as the Erosion Risk Assessment can be found in the WOCAT technology on "Remote Sensing as a Tool for Land Degradation Neutrality Monitoring" (see link).

Evaluation and Ground Truthing
All interim results have been checked and evaluated by local stakeholders, national experts and experts from local administrations. It was important not only to conduct workshops in seminar rooms but to meet the local stakeholders in the field and to discuss the problems and challenges of pasture management on place in the field. At this workshops all levels of decision makers were included (Ministries, Donor organisations, international and national experts, local administrations and land users). This was important to create a common understanding of the current situation from different perspectives (nature conservation, administration, shepherds ...). The combination of remote sensing with calibration data from the field can be summarised as a very effective method to assess the erosion state in large areas. Neither of the two instruments would be able to provide results in this spatial dimension and quality alone.

Pasture Passports
As part of the spatial planning of Akhmeta municipality, pastureland that can be leased to shepherds was separated from land used as hay meadows, farmland or pastures belonging to the villagers. The resulting map shows land available to the village and land available for lease. To understand the current use of pastureland, farms, livestock numbers and pasture units were assessed. In workshops with the local stakeholders and potential users of the results (shepherds, Tusheti Protected Landscape Administration, Tusheti NP Administration, APA), the design of the pasture passports was developed. Each pasture unit is described on four pages in the pasture passport.

Each pasture unit is described on four pages in the pasture passport: Header: the number (code), total area; content: map of the land cover types, the area of each land cover type, map of available biomass and carrying capacity, name of farmers/shepherds and their livestock numbers using the pasture unit

Spatial Planning Department and Construction Policy (within the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure MRDI), and the Agency of Protected Areas APA (within the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture MEPA), are key stakeholders to use the pasture passports and to further develop and upscale this approach to other protected areas in Georgia. Beside APA, the Tusheti Protected Landscape Administration (TPLA), located within the Akhmeta municipality administration, is the second important user of pasture passports.
The pasture passports are showing not only the boundaries of each pasture unit, but also those areas that must not be grazed because this lands are part of strict protected areas or areas of high erosion risk. This helps shepherds to guide their flocks to the right places and the park rangers to check, if the regulations are respected correctly.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Support land use planning and decision-making processes for better management of natural resources, especially pastures.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	passive
planning	passive
implementation	interactive	Organized meetings, workshop where stakeholders, local communities discussed different technical methodologies, visited the project communities and evaluated the preliminary result maps of erosion risk in the field.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Form of training:

• workshop with field mission

Subjects covered:

Evaluation of model results, preliminary result maps of erosion risk in the field, technical implementation of the sensitivity model in Georgia.

Comments:

The workshops were combined with field missions to evaluate model results directly in the field. The expert teams went into the project communities and evaluated the preliminary result maps of erosion risk in the field together with local stakeholders.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Located on district level in Telavi

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local
• regional
• national

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The results of the approach implementation in Georgia has been summarized by the Programme ”Integrated Biodiversity Management, South Caucasus” and distributed to the experts in Azerbaijan for the further implementation.
Approach and results have been handed over to the local municipality responsible for the lease contracts in the Protected Landscape and to APA, which is responsible for the land use in the national park to integrate them into their pasture management plans.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

• sharing the concept, approach

Give further details:

The concept and approach has been shared with local municipalities and other related experts.
Pilot study financed by GIZ.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Within the project a basline was drawn with the current livestock numbers, the current available fodder biomass and the current state of erosion.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Yes

Comments:

The remote sensing technology enables a sound methodology to compare the state of erosion and the biomass volume based on satelite data after some years with the baseline values from 2017.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

National and international ecologists did research on vegetation details and biomass as well as on the remote sensing technology.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

The funds came from the Integrated Erosion Control project which aas launched as part of the Integrated Biodiversity Management, South Caucasus (IBiS) Programme of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

There was a questionnaire and land-users shared their information on land-use practice.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

The Agency of Protected Areas (APA) thinks about upscaling the pasture passport method on a national level and establish the approach also in other protected areas of Georgia.

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

The remote sensing technology is not available to the land users, but the results (pasture passports) can be used by shepherds and local authorities to adjust the grazing intensity to the maximum carrying capacity of each pasture unit.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The pasture passports are describing each pasture unit available for lease not only by size but also by the amount of available fodder biomass. This is representing the productivity and the maps are showing the accessibility of the fodder biomass to the livestock. This is essential for a more accurate prize estimation on the value of each pasture compared to old data just giving the size of the pasture unit.
The pasture passports are improving the legal basis for the lease contract. Areas that should not be grazed (strict protected areas, forests, areas of high erosion risk) are clearly shown on the map.
During the preparation process the village related areas and the pastures for lease have been defined and mapped. This leads to clear responsibilities for the different pasture lands.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Contribution to the work by local municipalities - the overall results have been handed over to the municipality, responsible for the lease contracts in the Protected Landscape and to APA, responsible for the land use in the National Park.
The remote sensing technology is an objective method to assess the state of the pasture land and can be reproduced at any future time or in other areas of the Caucasus.
The GIS data and databases can support the administrative process of preparing lease contracts and can additionally be used for further research activities.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Informal land use practises are now documented and fixed in lease contracts. That might lead to higher costs (lease) and reduce the profit of the shepherd/livestock owner.	It needs to be communicated that long term lease contracts guarantee the shepherds/livestock owner grazing rights for several years. Investments into pasture quality and infrastructure become more meaningful.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The preparation process includes high investment of resources in the first setup of the remote sensing data, field evaluation and database development. It needs special experts and know how.	Remote sensing becomes cheaper when applied on large areas. A distribution of field samples across the whole Caucasus range would enable to upscale from the pilot area to a much wider range with less costs per hectare pasture land.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kirchmeir H. 12/2018: Implementation of an Erosion Risk Assessment tool on pilot regions in the Southern Caucasus. The Programme „Integrated Biodiversity Management, South Caucasus”

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

The European GeoNode system

URL:

http://pegasosdi.uab.es/geoportal/

Title/ description:

Monitoring Manual for Highland Pastures in the Caucasus

URL:

https://biodivers-southcaucasus.org/uploads/files/Monitoring%20Manual%20Draft%20ENG_new%20%20amendments%20for%20Georgia_v9_acc.amend.pdf