1.2 参与该技术评估和文件编制的资源人员和机构的联系方式

有助于对技术进行记录/评估的项目名称（如相关）

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

有助于对技术进行记录/评估的机构名称（如相关）

Regional Environmental Centre for the Caucasus (REC Caucasus) - 乔治亚

1.3 关于使用通过WOCAT记录的数据的条件

编制者和关键资源人员接受有关使用通过WOCAT记录数据的条件。:

是

1.4 所述技术的可持续性声明

这里所描述的技术在土地退化方面是否存在问题，导致无法被认为是一种可持续的土地管理技术？:

否

1.5 参考关于SLM方法（使用WOCAT记录的SLM方法）的调查问卷

2.1 技术简介

技术定义:

“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 技术的详细说明

说明:

“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 技术照片

2.5 已应用该技术的、本评估所涵盖的国家/地区/地点

2.6 实施日期

注明实施年份:

2024

如果不知道确切的年份，请说明大概的日期:

• 不到10年前（最近）

2.7 技术介绍

详细说明该技术是如何引入的:

• 通过项目/外部干预

注释（项目类型等）:

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 该技术的主要目的

• 改良生产
• 减少、预防、恢复土地退化
• 保持/提高生物多样性
• 创造有益的经济影响
• 创造有益的社会影响

3.2 应用该技术的当前土地利用类型

同一土地单元内混合使用的土地：:

是

具体说明混合土地使用（作物/放牧/树木）:

• 林牧业

注释:

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 由于技术的实施，土地使用是否发生了变化？

由于技术的实施，土地使用是否发生了变化？:

• 否（继续问题3.4）

3.4 供水

该技术所应用土地的供水:

• 雨养

3.5 该技术所属的SLM组

• 农业林学
• 畜牧业和牧场管理
• 改良的地面/植被覆盖

3.6 包含该技术的可持续土地管理措施

3.7 该技术强调的主要土地退化类型

3.8 防止、减少或恢复土地退化

具体数量名该技术与土地退化有关的目标:

• 防止土地退化
• 减少土地退化

注释:

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 该技术的技术图纸

4.2 有关投入和成本计算的一般信息

具体说明成本和投入是如何计算的:

• 每个技术区域

具体说明成本计算所用货币:

• 美元

4.3 技术建立活动

	活动	时间（季度）
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

注释:

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 技术建立所需要的费用和投入

	对投入进行具体说明	单位	数量	单位成本	每项投入的总成本	土地使用者承担的成本%
劳动力	Preparation of Detailed (Technical) Design, BoQ for Pastures Watering System Arrangements	days of labour	63.0	150.0	9450.0
劳动力	Fencing installation (grazing divisions)	days of labour	150.0	30.0	4500.0	10.0
劳动力	Training land users electric fencing installation, maintenance	days of labour	10.0	70.0	700.0
劳动力	Agroforestry ground preparation, fencing and planting	days of labour	80.0	25.0	2000.0
劳动力	Installation of water storage and distribution systems	days of labour	90.0	25.0	2250.0
劳动力	Village water trough rehabilitation / construction	days of labour	30.0	25.0	750.0
劳动力	Shading structure installation	days of labour	35.0	25.0	875.0
劳动力	Tractor + truck work (weed removal / water system / soil admendments)	days of labour	22.0	50.0	1100.0
设备	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
设备	Water tanks, pipes, drinking troughs, floats, values, etc	$292 per ha avg	564.0	62.0	34968.0
设备	Protective fencing for agroforestry (posts, chain-link fencing)	rolls of 25 metres + 100 wooden posts	12.0	250.0	3000.0
设备	Design and construction of tractor mounted ant mound leveller (recycled materials)	unit	1.0	250.0	250.0
设备	Salt / Mineral block holder	units	10.0	30.0	300.0
植物材料	Seedlings / Saplings (multispecies)	saplings	334.0	24.0	8016.0
植物材料	Hay (small bale, avg. 20 kilos)	hay bales	30.0	5.0	150.0
肥料和杀菌剂	Effective Microorganisms (EM)	L bag/box	120.0	10.0	1200.0
肥料和杀菌剂	Vegetation recovery support measures, (Alfalfa seed)	kg	150.0	9.0	1350.0
施工材料	Construction materials for fixed, village watering points	per water trough	9.0	1000.0	9000.0
施工材料	Construction of shading structures	per structure	2.0	1956.0	3912.0
其它	Contract of heavy machinery for ant mound removal	hours	160.0	30.0	4800.0
其它	Contract of tractor and trailer for week removal	hours	89.0	30.0	2670.0
其它	Livestock Salt / Mineral blocks	units	50.0	8.0	400.0
其它	Holistic Planned Grazing Charts in Georgian (www.savory.global)	A2 printed chart	10.0	30.0	300.0
技术建立所需总成本					127801.0
技术建立总成本，美元					127801.0

如果土地使用者负担的费用少于100%，请注明由谁负担其余费用:

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

注释:

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 维护/经常性活动

	活动	时间/频率
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

注释:

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 维护/经常性活动所需要的费用和投入（每年）

	对投入进行具体说明	单位	数量	单位成本	每项投入的总成本	土地使用者承担的成本%
劳动力	Inspection of infrastructure (fencing, water, agroforestry, shading, etc)	days of labour (per month)	3.0	25.0	75.0	100.0
劳动力	Repair of fencing and other infrastructure	days of labour (monthly)	4.0	50.0	200.0	100.0
劳动力	Weed and Pest control	days of labour (per month)	4.0	25.0	100.0	100.0
劳动力	Inspection of pasture condition	days of labour (per month)	2.0	25.0	50.0	100.0
劳动力	Pasture / land user group meetings and planning	event	4.0	75.0	300.0	100.0
劳动力	Soil amendments	days of labour (per month)	1.0	30.0	30.0	100.0
劳动力	Ecological Monitoring	days of labour (per month)	1.0	25.0	25.0	100.0
设备	Infrastructure repairs (fencing, water, other)	parts (monthly avg.))	2.0	50.0	100.0	100.0
设备	Replacement of tools (depreciation)	hand tools (monthly depreciation costs)	2.0	5.0	10.0	100.0
肥料和杀菌剂	Soil amendments	misc. (monthly)	2.0	5.0	10.0	100.0
技术维护所需总成本					900.0
技术维护总成本，美元					900.0

注释:

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 影响成本的最重要因素

描述影响成本的最决定性因素:

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 气候

5.2 地形

说明该技术是否专门应用于:

• 不相关

关于地形的注释和进一步规范:

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

5.3 土壤

如有可能，附上完整的土壤描述或具体说明可用的信息，例如土壤类型、土壤酸碱度、阳离子交换能力、氮、盐度等。:

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 水资源可用性和质量

水的盐度有问题吗？:

否

该区域正在发生洪水吗？:

否

关于水质和水量的注释和进一步规范:

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 生物多样性

关于生物多样性的注释和进一步规范:

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 应用该技术的土地使用者的特征

说明土地使用者的其他有关特征:

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 应用该技术的土地使用者使用的平均土地面积

5.8 土地所有权、土地使用权和水使用权

土地所有权:

• 州
• 社区/村庄

土地使用权:

• 自由进入（无组织）
• 租赁

用水权:

• 自由进入（无组织）
• 社区（有组织）

土地使用权是否基于传统的法律制度？:

否

具体说明:

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.

注释:

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 进入服务和基础设施的通道

注释:

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 该技术的现场影响

社会经济效应

生产

水资源可用性和质量

收入和成本

社会文化影响

生态影响

水循环/径流

土壤

生物多样性:植被、动物

减少气候和灾害风险

对现场影响的评估（测量）进行具体说明:

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 该技术的场外影响已经显现

对场外影响（测量）的评估进行具体说明:

None to report at present.

6.3 技术对渐变气候以及与气候相关的极端情况/灾害的暴露和敏感性（土地使用者认为的极端情况/灾害）

渐变气候

渐变气候

	季节	增加或减少	该技术是如何应对的？
年温度		增加	非常好
季节性温度	夏季	增加	适度
年降雨量		减少	好
季雨量	湿季/雨季	减少	好

气候有关的极端情况（灾害）

气候灾害

	该技术是如何应对的？
极端冬季条件	不好
干旱	非常好
陆地火灾	非常好

注释:

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 成本效益分析

技术收益与技术建立成本相比如何（从土地使用者的角度看）？

技术收益与技术维护成本/经常性成本相比如何（从土地使用者的角度看）？

注释:

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 技术采用

• 单例/实验

如若可行，进行量化（住户数量和/或覆盖面积）:

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

在所有采用这项技术的人当中，有多少人是自发的，即未获得任何物质奖励/付款？:

• 0-10%

注释:

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 适应

最近是否对该技术进行了修改以适应不断变化的条件？:

否

6.7 该技术的优点/长处/机会

土地使用者眼中的长处/优势/机会
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.

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的长处/优势/机会
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 技术的弱点/缺点/风险及其克服方法

土地使用者认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
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.

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
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 信息的方法/来源

7.3 链接到网络上的相关信息

标题/说明:

Holistic Management - a framework for managing complexity

URL:

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

标题/说明:

The Savory Institute Library

URL:

https://savory.global/library/

标题/说明:

Voisin’s Four Laws of Rational Grazing

URL:

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

标题/说明:

Controlled and Rotational Grazing

URL:

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

标题/说明:

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/

标题/说明:

WOCAT Technology Database - Rotational Grazing (Türkiye)

URL:

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

7.4 一般注释

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.