Approaches

Integrated Land Use Plans for Municipalities in Georgia [Georgia]

Integrated Land Use Plans for Georgia

approaches_5897 - Georgia

Completeness: 86%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Zumbulidze Maia

REC Caucasus

13, Badri Shoshitaishvili Street D. Arakishvili 1st dead-end 0179 Tbilisi, Georgia

Georgia

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Generating Economic and Environmental Benefits from Sustainable Land Management for Vulnerable Rural Communities of Georgia (GREENLANDS)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Global Environment Facility Georgia (GEF Georgia) - Georgia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

14/11/2019

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Under the framework of the project ‘Generating Economic and Environmental Benefits from Sustainable Land Management for Vulnerable Rural Communities of Georgia’, four Integrated Land Use Plans (ILUPs) were developed to support sustainable agriculture and rural development in the Georgian municipalities of Gori, Kareli, Kvareli and Sagarejo. The objective of the ILUPs is to provide strategic guidelines for decision makers and authorities for the spatial development of agriculture at the landscape unit level over the period of 2021 to 2030.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The project ‘Generating Economic and Environmental Benefits from Sustainable Land Management for Vulnerable Rural Communities of Georgia’, financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and implemented by the Regional Environmental Center (REC) for the Caucasus, aims to develop new sustainable land management (SLM) systems at both the commune and farmer plot levels, that integrate climate-smart agricultural production, food security and resilience and thereby contribute to Georgia’s objectives for Land Degradation Neutrality.
This WOCAT-based approach describes the development of four Integrated Land Use Plans (ILUPs) for sustainable agriculture and rural development in the municipalities of Gori, Kareli, Kvareli and Sagarejo (each 1000-2500km2).

The objective of the ILUPs is to provide strategic guidelines for decision makers and authorities for the spatial development of agriculture in the four municipalities for the period from 2021 to 2030 at the landscape level. This takes into consideration the balance of nature and human needs, and integrates different sectors and perspectives in the plan. This is to create synergies on the one hand, and to avoid conflicting goals on the other. Special attention is paid to the complex interactions between agriculture, climate change and land degradation. Thus, the ILUPs aim to develop and strengthen Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices, Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) and Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) and to provide different options for further development. Above all, the plans aim to bring together relevant aspects from existing strategies and policies with local needs and ideas and link them at the spatial level as far as possible.

The ILUP project was implemented between the years 2019 and 2021. The development of the plan needs different approaches and methods - including literature research, statistical data evaluation, field mission, GIS analysis, and suitability assessment. With inception and field visits, workshops with the municipal LDN working group, interviews with farmers, and analyses of different base maps, the land use, the suitability for their development options, and the degradation risks of the area were identified and reflected step by step. The intersection and aggregation of the data led to the definition of the following main basic functional units:
- High Production Value (HPV) Farmland (for perennials, annual cropland and grassland)
- High Nature Value (HNV) Farmland
- High Social Value (HSV) Farmland and, as a specific output,
- Hot Spots of degradation (water erosion, wind erosion, and salinization).

The results were documented in a sectoral, technical plan for each municipality. The ILUP is intended to serve as a basis for further planning, capacity building and decision making procedures within the framework of legal responsibilities and requirements (e. g. for the municipal spatial plan). A second document (also recorded under WOCAT) is based on the outcome of this showcase and predominantly focuses on LDN implementation options by the application and adoption of various SLM and CSA practices.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Georgia

Region/ State/ Province:

Shida Kartli and Kakheti

Further specification of location:

Gori, Kareli, Kvareli, Sagarejo

Comments:

The points are located within the four municipalities of Gori, Kareli, Kvareli and Sagarejo. The land use plan was prepared for the entire territory of the four municipalities.

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2019

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2021

Comments:

ILUPs as basic planning documents were finished in June 2021. However, there is a next phase needed in order to include local stakeholders, national experts and farmers more intensively for implementation on plot level.

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The objective of the ILUPs is to provide strategic guidelines for decision makers and authorities for the spatial development of sustainable agriculture in the four municipalities for the period from 2021 to 2030 at the landscape level. It takes into consideration the balance of nature and human needs and integrates different sectors and perspectives in the plan. This is to create synergies on the one hand and to avoid conflicting goals on the other.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

basically, awareness of the necessity to use the land in a sustainable manner exists

  • hindering

historically conditioned reservation

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • enabling

a few international financing tools are existing (GEF, GCF, etc)

  • hindering

holistic, transsectoral, and adaptive financing mechanisms restricted

institutional setting
  • enabling

agricultural experts at the local level

  • hindering

lack of education possibilities

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

- permanent working groups existing (LDN working groups, ministerial working groups etc.)
- active actors in the region

  • hindering

continuing lack of cooperation

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

legal framework has been established recently

  • hindering

lack of land registration

policies
  • enabling

abundant framework documents existing

  • hindering

implementation of the policies is the challenge

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
  • enabling

recently re-structured administrative entities (is a potential in the long run)

  • hindering

recently re-structured administrative entities (phase of change)

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

national service provider existing

  • hindering

lack of knowldege and capacity

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

adjacent urban areas

  • hindering

- high economic pressure on the world market
- low income level in the regions

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

demographic change

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

various farmers

visits to the fields with the local farmers, discussions about the type of cultivation, specific needs and ideas

  • researchers

Tbilisi State University

Scientific expertise on land use and soil productivity

  • NGO

REC Caucasus

Supervisors, consultants, GIS analyses, participation in the LDN Working Group Meeting

  • local government

- Executive Office of the Gori Municipal Council
- City Hall (formerly Municipal Administration“Gamgeoba”), Municipality of Gori
- City Hall (formerly Municipal Administration“Gamgeoba”), Municipality of Kareli
- City Hall (formerly Municipal Administration“Gamgeoba”), Municipality of Kvareli
- City Hall (formerly Municipal Administration“Gamgeoba”), Municipality of Sagarejo

Participation in the LDN Working Group Meeting

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

- Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture of Georgia (MEPA)
- Agricultural and Rural Development Agency (ARDA)

Participation in the LDN Working Group Meeting, process steering and embedment into national policies

  • international organization

UNEP

Steering of the whole GEF project (with the ILUPs as one component of it)

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 none
planning passive Local land users were consulted to gain experience and insight into the situation of agriculture in the different areas. The interviews were then incorporated into the preparation of the maps and land use plans.
implementation interactive - during the inception mission - in the course of the interactive ILUP workshops
monitoring/ evaluation external support - supervision and critical reflection by experts and the client - presentation and reflection at the GEF project steering commitee meeting (about 30 persons - decision makers from different policy levels, national and international experts, project manager etc.)

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
Explain:

The ILUP provides several options to use SLM technologies: the final decision will take place in a next step. Some specific technologies and actions (no-tillage, windbreaks..) are currently implemented.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

No

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

No

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
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Representatives of the municipalities - regional expertise, practical implementation, embedded into local policies.

Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

Discussions and workshops to contribute to a better common understanding and transsectoral learning from each other.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5. Financing and external material support

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):

Global Environmental Facility (GEF), in the frame of the project: Generating Economic and Environmental Benefits from Sustainable Land Management for Vulnerable Rural Communities of Georgia

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Different sources and options of support are recommended in the ILUPS, but needs to be decided.

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?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

- integration of local decision maker was core part of the planning procedure - more empowerment of land users planned for the detailed planning phase

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The ILUP is designed to be the fundamental basis for any kind of SLM technologies

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The whole plan is dedicated to coordinate approaches and implementations

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Little in the process of elaboration, but will improve significantly in the course of implementation

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Little in the process of elaboration, but will improve significantly in the course of implementation

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The whole plan is designed to mitigate land use conflicts

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

A large proportion of the approach is dedicated to small farmers

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The gender aspect is integrated into the plan, but needs implementation

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach underlined the necessity of land registration

The plan is designed to improve food security

The plan is designed to improve the development of new markets resp. the access of existing markets

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Some components are dealing with energy topics.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Little in the process of elaboration, but will improve significantly in the course of implementation

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Little in the process of elaboration, but should improve significantly in the course of implementation

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • environmental consciousness
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • conflict mitigation

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The approach needs embedding into local governance structures

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
clear overview of land suitability
diversification options
set of proposed measures and actions
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
fundamental for strategic and coordinated development, practical framework for implementation
stringent target system, compiled at different levels
integrated development approach, combining all dimensions of sustainability
core tool to adapt to and mitigate climate change

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?
plan might raise expectations and an "atmosphere of departure", that cannot be fullfilled in due time - consistent and timely implementation of proposed measures
- acquisition of financial resources
- strengthening local structures and participation
plan will not enter next phases, thus implementation might get stuck and/or will not meet the needs on plot level fully Consistent and timely implementation of the proposed next steps (review process, detailed planning, embedding into municipal land use planning system)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Risk that further planning process gets stuck and/or lacks participation - intensive land user involvement
- cross-sectoral participation
- detailed (process) planning (at plot level)
Risk of weak implementation because of lack of framework conditions - further land registration needed
- detailed planning needed (next phase)
- according financing mechanisms needed
- embedding into communal planning environment

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

4 local workshops

  • interviews with land users

about 5 interviews

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

- one scientific expert
- several representatives from the steering commitee of the project

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

About 50 reports and documents

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zollner, D., Zumbulidze, M., Kirchmeir, H., Fuchs, A. und Huber, M. 2021: Gori Integrated Land Use Plan (ILUP Gori) for sustainable agriculture and rural development with special emphasis on SLM, CSA and LDN. Part A – ILUP Gori. Version 2.0. Klagenfurt, Tbilisi, Gori. 80 p. + documentation volume/ annex.

Available from where? Costs?

REC Caucasus, E.C.O- Institute of Ecology

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zollner, D., Zumbulidze, M., Kirchmeir, H., Fuchs, A. und Huber, M. 2021: Kareli Integrated Land Use Plan (ILUP Gori) for sustainable agriculture and rural development with special emphasis on SLM, CSA and LDN. Part A – ILUP Gori. Version 2.0. Klagenfurt, Tbilisi, Gori. 80 p. + documentation volume/ annex.

Available from where? Costs?

REC Caucasus, E.C.O- Institute of Ecology

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zollner, D., Zumbulidze, M., Kirchmeir, H., Fuchs, A. und Huber, M. 2021: Kvareli Integrated Land Use Plan (ILUP Gori) for sustainable agriculture and rural development with special emphasis on SLM, CSA and LDN. Part A – ILUP Gori. Version 2.0. Klagenfurt, Tbilisi, Gori. 80 p. + documentation volume/ annex.

Available from where? Costs?

REC Caucasus, E.C.O- Institute of Ecology

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zollner, D., Zumbulidze, M., Kirchmeir, H., Fuchs, A. und Huber, M. 2021: Sagarejo Integrated Land Use Plan (ILUP Gori) for sustainable agriculture and rural development with special emphasis on SLM, CSA and LDN. Part A – ILUP Gori. Version 2.0. Klagenfurt, Tbilisi, Gori. 80 p. + documentation volume/ annex.

Available from where? Costs?

REC Caucasus, E.C.O- Institute of Ecology

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules