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

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

Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural area (L-SLM Project)

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

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

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

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

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

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

Selection of seedlings:

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

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

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

Maintenance

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

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

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2018

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The rehabilitation of the windbreaks was tested on a pilot site along a highly visible road within the project "Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for Mitigating Land Degradation and Contributing to Poverty Reduction in Rural Areas" implemented by the Regional Environment Centre for the Caucasus (REC).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

Comments:

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

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Comments:

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

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• windbreak/ shelterbelt

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

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

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

Comments:

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

GEL

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

2.7

4.3 Establishment activities

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

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Clearing and preparation of sites (3 ha)	person days	40.0	30.0	1200.0	0.0
Labour	Weed cutting 2 x on 3 ha	person days	110.0	36.0	3960.0	0.0
Labour	Planting of 7.300 seedlings (digging hole, adding water accumulation granulate, planting seedling, adding wooden pole and tube)	person days	73.0	45.0	3285.0	0.0
Labour	Irrigation 4 x 7.300 seedlings	person days	73.0	75.0	5475.0	0.0
Equipment	Wooden poles	pieces	7300.0	0.9	6570.0	0.0
Equipment	Water accumulation granulate	kg	73.0	70.0	5110.0	0.0
Equipment	Water for irrigation	m³	300.0	3.0	900.0	0.0
Equipment	Transport of water (water truck)	applications	4.0	1300.0	5200.0	0.0
Plant material	Pistacia mutica	pieces	470.0	3.0	1410.0	0.0
Plant material	Robinia pseudoacacia	pieces	1825.0	1.0	1825.0	0.0
Plant material	Pinus eldarica	pieces	117.0	5.0	585.0	0.0
Plant material	Ulmus minor	pieces	1355.0	2.0	2710.0	0.0
Plant material	Amygdalus communis	pieces	1238.0	1.0	1238.0	0.0
Plant material	Elaeagnus angustifolia	pieces	1237.0	0.75	927.75	0.0
Other	Transportation of workers and materials by lorry	transfers	50.0	60.0	3000.0	0.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					43395.75
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					16072.5

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

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

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

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

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Weed cutting 2 times on 3 ha	person days	110.0	37.0	4070.0	0.0
Labour	Irrigation 4*7.300 seedlings	person days	73.0	75.0	5475.0	0.0
Labour	Protect firebreak around windbreak	person days	4.0	100.0	400.0	0.0
Equipment	Water (10l/seedling*4)	m³	300.0	3.0	900.0	0.0
Equipment	Transport of water (water truck)	application	4.0	1300.0	5200.0	0.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					16045.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					5942.59

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The full costs were covered by the project

Comments:

The maintenance costs are calculated for the second year

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

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

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

The soils are clay rich Chernosems and Kastanosems.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

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

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

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

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately

Comments:

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

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

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

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• climatic change/ extremes

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

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

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increase of yields in the neighbouring fields
Availability of firewood

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

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Fires	protecting the windbreak by ploughing the soil along the line
Lack of maintenance of planted seedlings	cutting the grass and removing it from the field, continue mulching and watering the seedlings over the next few years, replanting the dead seedlings

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
High investment for seedlings, wooden poles and irrigation	It is much cheaper to protect existing windbreaks from burning. Integrating fruit trees and/or vegetables into the windbreak can result in a faster return on investment.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Applying Landscape and Sustainable Land Management (L-SLM) for mitigating land degradation and contributing to poverty reduction in rural areas - Implementation Evaluation Report June 2018 – Windbreaks.

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Approach for “Rehabilitation of Windbreaks in East Georgia”

URL:

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