mepa.gov.ge Climate-Smart Agriculture in Georgia Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) highlights • Agriculture has traditionally been a significant part of P • P Key practices implemented by some farmers in Georgia the Georgian economy. Georgia can count on fertile to respond to climate change include conservation soil and favorable climate conditions, which support the A agriculture (crop rotation, mulching, no tillage, or production of a wide variety of high-value agricultural M minimum tillage), drip irrigation, wind breakers, anti-hail, products including grapes and wine, nuts (hazelnuts, and anti-frost system as well as investment in pastures. almonds, walnuts, and chestnuts), citrus fruits (tangerines, mandarins, clementines), stone fruits (peaches, plums, • Most of the practices and technologies identified for I and apricots), apples, and honey. water management, crop and livestock systems have a A low degree of adoption rates (<30 percent) despite their • Water resources are unevenly distributed in Georgia M multiple Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) benefits. The P (mostly concentrated in western regions). Irrigation and $ key cross-cutting barriers to wider-scale adoption of CSA drainage (I&D) investments are vital against climatic P include limited financial capacities, lack of knowledge extremes and are critical for high-value agriculture and practice, lack of equipment and skills. production. • Climate finance can act as a catalyst for the broader $ • Climate change risks for Georgia include increasing A adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices by temperatures, eroding soils, fluctuating rain precipitation, demonstrating the feasibility these approaches have in I and increased aridity and drought. terms of social, environmental, and financial returns. • Georgian agriculture is expected to be negatively affected A • Due to the diversity of the Georgian landscape and the I by the direct impact of temperature and precipitation country’s different climate zones, climate change can I changes on crops. This is expected to increase irrigation have a different impact across the country. Regional demand required to maintain and increase yields. Also coordination strengthening, CSA demonstration fields, surface and groundwater resources availability supply is as well as reinforcement of regional communication expected to decrease due to higher evaporation and lower platforms are key to facilitate the adoption of agronomic rainfall, including the potential for more dry days. Climate practices by farmers. change trends are expected to also intensify floods, frost, and hail in addition to aiding new pests and diseases affecting crops, forests, and livestock. A Adaptation M Mitigation P Productivity I Institutions $ Finance Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach aiming to of Georgia’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), transform and reorient agricultural systems, in a way to support since developing CSA supports the decarbonization and low- the development and ensure food security in the face of climate carbon development of the agriculture sector. change. CSA aims to tackle three main objectives: i) sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and farmers’ income, ii) Although the CSA concept is still evolving, many of the practices adapting and building resilience to climate change, and iii) and technologies that make up CSA have been successfully reducing and/or removing greenhouse gas emissions in line with implemented globally [2]. Mainstreaming CSA in Georgia will national development priorities [1]. The CSA approach can help to require the systematic identification of locally effective CSA identify and address synergies and trade-offs involved in pursuing practices, diagnosis of barriers to adoption of those practices, these three objectives by addressing the environmental, social, evaluation of strategies to overcome the barriers, and ensuring the and economic dimensions of sustainable development across presence of institutional and financial enablers. This CSA Country agricultural landscapes, ultimately ensuring food and nutrition Profile describes the risks posed by climate change to agriculture security. This approach helps to align the needs and priorities of in Georgia, discusses the potential of CSA to attenuate those risks, different stakeholders to achieve more resilient, equitable, and identifies factors that can influence the adoption of CSA practices, sustainable food systems. This also helps to align with the objectives and highlights potential entry points for investment in CSA at scale. National context 2006 down to 19.5 percent in 2021) [5], but with growing inequalities between urban and rural areas. Agriculture Economic relevance of agriculture has traditionally been a significant part of the Georgian economy. The agriculture sector, that also includes forestry, Georgia, with a total area of 69,700 square kilometers and fisheries, contributed 8.4 percent to GDP in 2020 [6]. and a population of around 3.7 million [3], is classified The sector’s contribution is typically underestimated when by the World Bank as an upper-middle-income country in measured without taking forward and backward linkages the South Caucasus. Following the governance transition and the associated multiplier effects into account. In fact, from the country’s independence, Georgia has enjoyed agro-processing accounts for a further 7-8 percent of strong economic growth of five percent per annum between Georgian GDP . This positive economic impact is even more 2005 and 2019 [4]. Georgia has achieved strong results in important in a country where agriculture is a large employer. terms of macroeconomic and financial stability, business Agriculture accounts for 19.1 percent of total employment environment, security, and governance. Strong growth has [7]1. led to a reduction of the poverty rate (from 43 percent in Figure 1. Food Exports (thousand Tons) (for 2018 - 2020) Exports Thousand Tons 0,6 0,0 0,9 0,3 4,1 0,0 0,4 3,3 4,4 4,2 5,5 12,1 41,1 15,1 41,2 14,0 43,1 46,0 Sugar 19,0 20,2 Vegetable 53,2 23,4 Beer 58,2 62,7 Wheat oil 68,8 (million litres) 70,1 Vegetables Spirits 81,6 Soft drinks (million litres) (million litres) Fruit Wine (except citrus) (million litres) 2018 172,0 2019 2020 213,2 221,2 Mineral waters (million litres) Source: GeoStat (2021) National Statistic Office of Georgia. Accessed in June 2021. 1 In 2020, Geostat updated the methodology for calculation of employment and unemployment statistics in accordance with the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Labour Force Statistics. According to the new methodology, self-employed persons who are not market-oriented and produce mainly agricultural products (more than 50 percent) for their own consumption are no longer considered as self-employed. Persons with this status were reclassified into other categories (unemployed, population outside the labour force) depending on whether they are looking for or ready to start a job. As a result, the percent of employed persons in agriculture out of total employment changed from 41 percent in 2019 to 19.1 percent in 2020. 2 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Approximately 41 percent of the total population lives in Commonly imported food products include wheat, sugar, rural areas. The majority of those (around 75 percent) living vegetables, and fruits (Figure 2). In 2020, Georgia’s food in rural areas still rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. exports increased to US$ 317 million , while the respective Georgia’s fertile soil and favorable climate support the total food import was registered at US$ 958 million. production of a wide variety of high-value agricultural Therefore, the trade balance – the difference between products including grapes and wine, nuts (hazelnuts, exports and imports - remained almost unchanged at US$(- almonds, walnuts, and chestnuts), citrus fruits (tangerines, 641) million (Figure 3). mandarins, clementines), apples, stone fruits (peaches, plums, and apricots) and honey. Georgia also grows an According to the most recent agricultural census conducted increasing quantity of crops, including vegetables and in 2014, the share of commercial farms in agricultural corn, for domestic consumption. The country relies on production remained low. Almost 80 percent of holdings imported powdered milk, imported meat products (mostly own no land or operate less than one hectare of agricultural poultry), and imported wheat, but does produce fresh milk land, 14.9 percent operate one to two hectares, 4.3 domestically. percent operate two to five hectares and only 1.3 percent (8,577) have five hectares or more [9]. The products from Approximately 9.2 percent of total exports and 12 percent smallholdings are often primarily for subsistence or semi- of total imports are related to the food sector [8]. Leading subsistence purposes. food products for export are wine and fruits (Figure 1). Figure 2. Food Imports (thousand Tons) (for 2018 - 2020) Wheat 576,7 513,7 490,9 Sugar Milk (not Concen- Eggs Vegetable Vegetables Meat Poultry Fish concentrated), trated Butter and oil Wheat ke r, yoghurt) milk, dairy (mln. Margarine Fruit 162,8 (except (including Thousand Tons our Potato Rice milk powder spreads pieces) 143,2 poultry) canned) 128,6 55,5 52,7 50,0 114,8 48,0 49,8 46,8 108,4 105,8 100,2 98,5 31,8 28,0 22,4 21,2 19,8 20,8 82,4 19,9 19,6 18,2 18,7 14,7 18,7 16,9 18,0 17,1 12,6 12,2 12,7 12,0 10,3 10,0 10,8 13,3 12,6 10,8 10,5 11,4 4,8 5,8 4,7 2018 2019 2020 Imports Source: GeoStat (2021) National Statistic Office of Georgia. Accessed in June 2021. Georgia 3 Figure 3. Trade of food (imports and exports) (for 2016 - 2020) 980,9 980,4 957,8 923,5 835,9 246,8 263,9 316,8 244,8 305,8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total imports (Million USD) Total exports (Million USD) Source: GeoStat (2021) National Statistic Office of Georgia. Accessed in June 2021. Land use have not been privatized, and only 48 percent of state- owned pastureland is leased [11]. A portion of unallocated The agricultural area accounts for more than 2.3 million pastureland is located on the administrative boundaries of hectares, or 34 percent, of the whole territory of Georgia South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Access to pastureland is limited [10]. Agricultural land includes 13 percent of arable in some areas, which constrains households’ livelihoods. As land; five percent of permanent crops; and 81 percent of of 2020, only 32 percent of the land is operated by holdings permanent meadows and pastures [10]. Forests cover owned by women [12] who, in general, have less access to around 40 percent of Georgia’s territory while the alpine/ land than men. The lack of land ownership limits women subalpine meadows and glaciers account for roughly ten from participation in some agricultural programs, and the percent of the land [10]. Mountains cover a significant part associated lack of collateral limits women from qualifying of the country, with 54 percent of the territory at an altitude for credit and grant schemes that operate in the regions over 1,000 meters above sea level [10]. [13]. In terms of soils, the country has 16 diverse types. In most mountainous areas the following types of soils are found: Agricultural production systems forest light brown soils; mountain-valley landscape with alluvial soils; and mountain meadow soils. The fertile Although covering only one-seventh of the Caucasus region, soils of the country (specifically cinnamonic soil - Hromic Georgia aggregates almost all types of landscape present Cambisols in the Kvemo Kartli and Shida Kartli regions; throughout the area. Considerable differences between Alluvial soil – Fluvisols in the west coast and northern the climates in the country (from humid-subtropical and Kakheti region; Grey cinnamonic soil - Calcic Kastanozems temperate to sub-alpine and alpine zones) have led to in Shida Kartli region; and Yellow podzolic soil – Stagnic significant differences in ecosystems and vegetation types Acrisols in the west coast) provide favorable conditions for (Figure 4). There are four main altitudinal zones in western land cultivation, as well as animal husbandry [10]. Georgia: forests (up to 1,900 m), subalpine (1,900 to 2,500 m); alpine (2,500 to 3,100 m) and nival (> 3,100 Despite ongoing land reform, so far only 40 percent of m). In eastern Georgia, there are six zones: semi-desert; land plots are registered. This figure is even lower in rural dry grassland (steppes) and arid woodland (150 to 600 m); areas where it stands at around 20 percent. Overall, there forest (600 to 1,900 m); subalpine (1,900 to 2,500 m) alpine are 1.2 to 1.4 million unregistered agricultural land plots (2,500 to 3,000 m); sub-nival (3,000 to 3,500 m) and nival in rural areas (around 255,000 ha). Approximately one (> 3,500). In mountain forests and alpine zones, treeless million hectares of Georgia’s unallocated state-owned formations of semi-arid ecosystems are also found. land is classified as pasture. Most of the country’s pastures 4 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Figure 4. Present Climatic zones in Georgia (2018) Source: Beck, H. E. et al. (2018). Present Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution: Georgia Climate Classification 1980-2016. Note: The present Köppen- Geiger classification map was derived from three climatic datasets for air temperature (WorldClim V1 and V2, and CHELSA V1.2) and four climatic datasets for precipitation (WorldClim V1 and V2, CHELSA V1.2, and CHPclim V1; Table 1). All datasets have a 0.0083° resolution with the exception of CHPclim V1.2, which has a 0.05° resolution. For consistency CHPclim V1.2 was downscaled to 0.0083° using bilinear interpolation. (Reprinted with permission by the authors). Agricultural production is mostly rainfed. Figure 5. Agricultural Non-irrigated areas are used for livestock and production volume in rainfed cereal crops (sunflower, wheat, and Georgia (2020) maize), while cultivated irrigated land, which amounts to 28.3 percent [14], is devoted to a wide diversity of fruits and vegetables. The total harvested irrigated crop area (full control irrigation) amounts to 126,000 ha [14], of which 88,500 ha support temporary crops, and 37,500 ha support permanent crops. The Irrigation Strategy for Georgia for 2017-2025 4% Beans has a goal to increase the total irrigated area to 200,000 hectares by 2025. 4% Hazelnuts with shell In terms of quantity, grapes, starchy vegetables (potatoes), and grains (maize and wheat) 4% Apples dominate production (in tons) (Figure 5). In terms of total harvested area, grapes and 5% Barley maize represent the bulk of it (Figure 6). Animal source products (specifically cattle 6% Tangerins, Mandarins, Clementines meat, cow milk, and meat from sheep, pig, and chicken) lead in terms of value generated; 6% Tomatoes grapes and hazelnuts and maize follow (Figure 7). Livestock is mainly composed of cattle and sheep (Figure 8). 10% Wheat 18% Potatoes 20% Maize 28% Grapes Source: FAOSTAT (2021) Georgia Data Index. Accessed in June 2021. Note: Production volume in tonnes. Georgia 5 Figure 6. Area harvested in Georgia (2020) 14% 8% Wheat Apples 27% Grapes 5% Potatoes 8% Barley 5% Tangerins, Mandarins, 6% Clementines Hazelnuts with 1% 1% 25% Maize shell Beans Sun ower seed 1% Tomatoes Source: FAOSTAT (2021) Georgia Data Index. Accessed in June 2021. Note: Area harvested in hectares (ha). Figure 7. Gross Production Value in Georgia (2020) Meat indigenous, sheep 2% Meat indigenous, sheep 3% Meat indigenous, sheep 4% Hazelnuts, with shell 5% Meat indigenous, chicken 6% Maize 7% Potatoes 7% Grapes 17% Meat indigenous, cattle 17% Source: FAOSTAT (2021) Georgia Data Index. Milk, fresh cow 32% Accessed in November 2021. Note: Gross production value in US$1000. 6 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Figure 8. Livestock in Georgia (% of total livestock in thousand heads) (2020) 8% 46% 46% PIGS BOVINE SHEEP ANIMALS Source: GeoStat (2021) National Statistic Office of Georgia. Accessed in June 2021. Food security and nutrition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agriculture GHG emission amounted to Georgia has been exhibiting some worrying food security 3,488 Gg CO2 – eq (19.6 percent) in 2017 [23]. The energy and malnutrition trends. Prevalence of undernourishment sector generated 10,726 Gg CO2 – eq (60 percent). The estimates from 2004 to 2019 in Europe and Central Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) generated 1.99 Asia (ECA), place Georgia among the countries with the Gg CO2 – eq (11.2 percent). Waste amounted to 1,562 Gg highest rates of prevalence of malnutrition in the region CO2 – eq (8.8 percent) [18]. Georgia’s agriculture sector, as (at 8.2 percent) [15]. On the prevalence of moderate food source of GHG emissions, comprises of four subcategories: insecurity, Georgia is among the four ECA countries that enteric fermentation, manure management, agricultural have rates higher than the world average (38.3 v. 25.5 soils, and field burning of agricultural residues. More percent). At the other end of the malnutrition spectrum, specifically between 1990 and 2017, enteric fermentation the prevalence of overweight among children younger than has been consistently the largest source of sector methane five in Georgia was 19.9 percent (2012) – almost four times (CH4) emissions, while agriculture soils have been the the global average (5.6 percent in 2019). Lastly, of all the largest source of nitrous oxide (N2O) [17] (Figure 9). ECA countries, only Georgia (and Moldova) was found to not have access to the 400 grams per day of fruits and vegetables2 recommended by the Food and Agriculture Challenges for the agricultural sector Organization and the World Health Organization. High rates of prevalence of undernourishment, moderate food Several challenges hamper the efficiency and productivity of insecurity and overweight prevalence, in combination with the country’s agricultural sector. low availability of fruits and vegetables indicate that both hunger and regular access to healthy food are issues of Availability of water resources. Water resources are concern for Georgia [15]. unevenly distributed in Georgia (mostly concentrated in western regions). Due to issues in the water supply system, people in rural areas rely mostly on wells and boreholes Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions for their water [4]. This increases their vulnerability to potential reduction in groundwater and to drought periods. According to the latest National Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Rivers that are fed by glaciers and snow, including Khrami- Inventory Report, Georgia emitted 10.29 million metric Debed and Alazani, are projected to see reduced flow tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2019 [16]. levels of between 30 and 55 percent by the end of the 21st The agricultural sector was responsible for 21 percent of century, posing a threat to an important source of water emissions. One of Georgia’s key development challenges is supply specifically for Kvemo Kartli and Kakheti regions. to accelerate economic growth while limiting GHG emissions Irrigation and drainage (I&D) investments are vital against by boosting investments in low carbon technologies. climatic extremes and are critical for high-value agriculture According to the Fourth National Communication of Georgia production. The eastern part of the country, which is subject to frequent droughts, requires the use of irrigation to buffer 2 Measured in availability of fruits and vegetables for consumption. Georgia 7 Figure 9. GHG emissions from agriculture sector by sources in Georgia (1990-2017) 5,000 4,000 Gg CO2-eq 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1990 1997 1999 2000 2001 2004 2005 2012 2015 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 2007 2008 2009 2011 2013 2014 2016 2017 2002 2003 2006 2010 Enteric fermentation Manure management - CH4 Manure management - N2O Direct N2O emissons from soils Indirect N2O emissions from soils Source: MEPA (2021) Georgia Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Report of Georgia (1990 – 2017) National Inventory Report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Reprinted with permission by the authors). climatic extremes. The western part of the country, which construction, unsustainable land management practices, is wetter, is confronted with drainage problems. The I&D uncontrolled logging, and poorly regulated urbanization services have been falling short of what would be optimal in Georgia [19]. In addition, hydrometeorological hazards for the country, in both quantitative and qualitative terms further increase the rate of erosion and the negative impact [18]. Further investments in I&D systems are necessary to on soil (nutrient leaching losses), water quality, as well as support the growing production of high-value food products on key infrastructure. Illustratively, soil erosion in Georgia such as fruits and vegetables. Indeed, I&D systems are in is often associated with sedimentation of reservoirs and the process of being developed and improved, with areas of irrigation canals. In the south-western region of Adjara, high land served by I&D infrastructure increasing every year with levels of precipitation have increased soil erosion and led the help of state programs. Modern irrigation systems are to landslides and avalanches, resulting in a net reduction also gradually being introduced [18]. However, there are still in agricultural land area of 7.4 percent between 1980 and institutional challenges with I&D service delivery in Georgia 2010 [4]. Windbreak infrastructure, that was traditionally due to poor schemes for irrigation management and favored for providing lower temperatures, increasing relative operation, and maintenance; poor financial cost recovery of humidity, and retaining soil moisture, used to contribute to I&D capital investments; and human resources constraints reducing damage of soil erosion caused by intense winds, in the I&D sector in Georgia. but has been in steady decline. Soil salinization is also a concern in Georgia, particularly Desertification, which is an extreme case of soil erosion, is in eastern Kakheti region, where salinized soil accounts generating an increase of semi-arid and arid areas in Georgia for 22 percent of the total area [4]. Soil salinization is a [4]. Climate change (specifically increased temperatures, process of accumulation of water-soluble salts in the soil in severe droughts, and intense winds) increase the effect of amounts that are toxic to plants. It is observed as a natural desertification in the country. Desertification has reduced process in certain parts of the Caucasus region but is also the quality of the soil, as for example in the eastern Shiraki a direct consequence of unsustainable land use. Saline plain, where the humus content of black soil has decreased soils are often found in dry lowlands, where mineralized from 7.5 to 3.2 percent during the period 1983-2006 [4]. ground water is close to the soil surface. The increase in Degraded soils are also prone to soil erosion and contribute the probability of severe drought, could exacerbate the to reducing surface and groundwater availability (because problem of soil salinization in Kakheti. Lack of cultivation compacted and less fertile soils have lower water infiltration and over-irrigation due to future droughts could further and soil moisture retention capacities). The predicted increase soil salinization as has already occurred on increase in temperatures and dry periods over the coming the Alazani Plain. Soil erosion processes are caused by decades is likely to compound the problem of desertification unsustainable grazing / farming practices, mining and and water availability in East Georgia [4]. 8 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Forest degradation. About 40 percent of Georgia’s territory food production. Direct effects of climate change include is covered by forests (natural and plantation) which, with reductions to soil, water, temperature and carbon dioxide over 800 diverse types of trees and bushes, contribute to availability, precipitation, and temperatures. Indirect effects high biodiversity in the country. However, the sector is facing include alterations of water resource availability patterns new challenges as a result of projected climate impacts and seasonality due to rain and snow melt, soil organic such as rising temperatures, extreme rainfall events, and matter alteration, soil erosion, changes in pest profiles and changing precipitation patterns. Rising temperatures the arrival of new invasive species, as well as declines in can affect the distribution and growth of woody species. arable areas due to the subsistence and submergence of Moreover, temperature and precipitation changes can also coastal lands [4]. lead to abiotic disorders from extreme events such as fires, storms, floods, and droughts. Biotic disorders that can Temperature. The Greater Caucasus range to the north occur are changes in the frequency of activation of different of Georgia moderates the local climate by serving as a pathogens and pests and in geographic areas of their barrier against cold air from the north, while the Likhi range, distribution [4]. crossing from the north to the south, divides the country into the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea catchments. The western part of Georgia is affected by temperate humid Agriculture and climate change influences from the Black Sea with an average annual temperature of 15°C, winter temperatures well above Historical trends show that climate change impacts in freezing, and relatively hot summers with higher humidity Georgia, such as increasing average annual temperature (by and higher average precipitation. Black Sea coastal areas 0.3 degrees Celsius (°C) in western areas and by 0.4–0.5°C average annual temperatures that typically range from 9 in eastern areas compared to 1960s data [4]), eroding soils, to 14°C. Mountainous regions have a colder climate, with and intensifying floods, droughts, frost, and hail in addition average annual temperatures of 2 to 10°C. The plains of to new pests and diseases affecting crops, forests, and eastern Georgia are shielded from the influence of the Black livestock, are likely to reduce yields in major agricultural Sea by mountains that provide a more continental climate. regions. Direct and indirect effects of climate change on Summer temperatures average from 20 to 24°C, and winter crop growth and livestock productivity are expected to affect temperatures range from 2 to 4 °C (Figure 10) [4]. Figure 10. Observed average annual temperature of Georgia (1901-2020) Observed Average Annual Mean-Temperature of Georgia for 1901-2020 10°C 9°C Temperature (°C) 8°C 7°C 6°C 5°C 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2020 Annual Mean 5-yr smooth Source: WBG Climate Change Knowledge Portal, (CCKP 2021) Georgia Climatology Data https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/georgia/climate-data-historical Precipitation. The distribution of annual precipitation climate. Humidity is lower, and rainfall averages from 400 presents a clear division between the country’s humid to 600 mm in the plains and from 800 to 1,200 mm in the western areas and the arid eastern part of the country. mountains. The alpine and highland region in the east and Relatively large amounts of precipitation are received in the west, as well as the semi-arid region on the Iori Plateau to western region (between 1,500 and 2,500 millimeters per the southeast, have distinct microclimates3. Figure 11 shows year) [4]. In the mountainous areas, annual precipitation Georgia’s seasonal cycle for monthly mean, minimum and ranges from 1,200 to 2,000 mm. The plains of eastern maximum temperatures and precipitation, for the latest Georgia are shielded from the influence of the Black Sea by climatology. the Likhi Range mountains that provide a more continental 3 Iori plateau: temperate dry steppe climate with cold winter and hot summer; Caucasus Mountains: sharp temperature contrasts between the summer and winter months due to continental climate. Georgia 9 Monthly Climatology of Min-Temperature, Mean- ​Temperature, Figure Max-Temperature 11. Georgia’s & Precipitation Seasonal Cycle for Monthly 1991- Mean, Min and ​2020 Max Temperatures and Precipitation, (1991- 2020) ​Georgia 30 °C 140 mm 24 °C 120 mm 18 °C 100 mm 12 °C 80 mm Temperature Precipitation 6 °C 60 mm 0 °C 40 mm -6 °C 20 mm -12 °C 0 mm Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Min-Temperature Mean-Temperature Max-Temperature Precipitation Source: WBG Climate Change Knowledge Portal, (CCKP 2021) Georgia Climatology Data https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/georgia/climate-data-historical Observed changes. Since the 1960s observed temperatures considerably. Over the last 40 years, 70 percent of the have increased across the country. Georgia has experienced country has experienced disasters from hydrometeorological increased average mean temperatures of 0.3°C in the and geological hazards (earthquakes) [21]. western regions with a maximum increase registered in Dedoplistskaro (0.9°C), and 0.4-0.5°C in eastern regions Climate projections4. Georgia is expected to continue to with the maximum increase of mean temperature registered experience changes in its annual and seasonal temperature in Poti (0.6°C). In the region of Mtskheta-Mtianeti and and precipitation regimes. The regions of Kakheti, Kvemo Kakheti the trend of warming increased by 0.5°C. Across Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti show temperature increase the South Caucasus sub-region, climate trends show a (median) of 2.55°C, 2.59°C and 2.63 °C, respectively, for the slight decrease in mean precipitation. Precipitation since the period 2040-2059. For the period 2060-2079 a respective 1960s increased in Western Georgia, specifically in Svaneti temperature increase of 3.74°C, 3.67°C and 3.74°C is low hill zones, Adjara Mountain areas, Poti and Imereti expected. By the end of the century, 2080-2099, projected mountain areas – with a few exceptions such as the eastern temperature increases are 5.02°C, 5.05°C and 5.18°C for part of Adjara at Goderdzi Pass. Apart from the Lagodekhi the same regions (Figure 12) [4]. municipality where precipitation slightly increased, eastern Georgia registered a reduction trend in precipitation [4]. Temperature changes in Georgia are projected to continue Georgia faces significant disaster risk levels and is ranked to increase significantly from present day through the end 84th out of 191 countries by the 2021 Inform Risk Index of the century under all four emissions pathways (Table 1) [20]. Earthquakes, droughts, and floods are significant [4]. Under the highest emissions pathway, RCP8.5, average hazards in Georgia [4]. The incidence of destructive natural temperatures in Georgia are projected to rise by 4.9 °C by disasters such as landslides and mudflows has increased the 2090s, compared with a global average rise of 3.7°C [4]. 4 Climate data presented in this section, unless otherwise noted, is from CMIP5 and represents RCP8.5, under the historical reference period, 1986-2005. Data values presented represent the median of the multi-model ensemble. 10 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Projected Mean-Temperature (Ref. Period: ​Georgia; average Figure 12. Projected 1986-2005), annual all in Georgia temperature 16 (under RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Hist. Ref. For Georgia, these models show Per., 1986-2005 a consistent 2.6 RCPtemperatures trend of increasing across all emission scenarios. RCP 4.5 RCP 6.0 However, the projections in rainfall RCP 8.5 are less certain. Projected trends indicate Ensemble Range no significant changes to current precipitation patterns; however, the intensity of heavy rainfall events is expected. Tables 2 and 3 below, provide Source: WBG Climate information on temperature Change Knowledge projections Portal (CCKP and anomalies 2020). Georgia the four RCPs for Projections. Climate Data. over Note: tworepresents Shading distinct time horizons; the model presented range, 10th and 90th percentile, with solid lines presenting the median against periodensemble of the multi-model the reference for each RCP of 1986–2005. . https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/georgia/climate-data-projections 2 . Projected TABLEanomaly Table 1. Projected anomaly (changes in (changes °C) for maximum, °C) for maximum, minimum,minimum, and average and average daily daily temperatures temperatures in Georgia for 2040–2059 andin Georgia for 2040–2059 2080–2099, and compared to2080–2099, the referencefrom the reference period period of of 1986–2005 for all RCPs for all RCPs The 1986–2005 table is showing the median of the CCKP model ensemble and the 10–90th percentiles in brackets 25 Average Daily Maximum Average Daily Minimum Temperature Average Daily Temperature Temperature Scenario 2040–2059 2080–2099 2040–2059 2080–2099 2040–2059 2080–2099 RCP2.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 (−0.8, 4.0) (−0.9, 3.9) (−0.4, 3.3) (−0.6, 3.2) (−0.5, 2.8) (−0.5, 2.8) RCP4.5 1.9 2.6 1.7 2.3 1.6 2.3 (−0.4, 4.1) (0.4, 5.0) −0.3, 3.6) (0.6, 4.4) (−0.3, 3.2) (0.4, 4.2) RCP6.0 1.7 3.4 1.5 3.1 1.5 2.9 (0.0, 3.7) (1.2, 5.8) (0.2, 3.1) (1.3, 4.9) (0.0, 2.8) (1.0, 4.5) RCP8.5 2.6 5.4 2.4 4.9 2.3 4.7 (0.4, 4.8) (2.8, 7.8) (0.5, 4.1) (2.9, 7.0) (0.4, 3.8) (2.6, 6.6) Source: The World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank. 2021. Climate Risk Country Profile: Georgia. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/707481/climate-risk-country-profile-georgia.pdf TABLE 3 . Projections of average temperature anomaly (°C) in Georgia for different seasons (3-monthly time slices) over different time horizons and emissions pathways, showing the median estimates of the full CCKP model ensemble and the 10th and 90th percentiles in brackets 22 Rainfall projections for Georgia are much more variable and projections indicate a likely increase in days with heavy represent the areas’ natural inter-annual variability. What has 2040–2059 greater than 20mm, in western and northern precipitation, 2080–2099 been observed, more Scenario generally, is that Jun–Aug the intensity of daily Dec–Feb areas of Georgia, Jun–Aug especially alongDec–Feb the Black Sea, and a extreme rainfall events increases with temperature increases, likely reduction of these days in eastern and southern areas RCP2.6 1.7 1.4 1.7 however this is a phenomenon highly dependent on local of the country [4]. Precipitation 1.4 is projected to remain (−0.4, 4.6) (−0.3, 2.6) (−0.7, 4.6) (−0.2, 2.6) geographical contexts and it is not certain how it will affect largely constant in western Georgia through mid-century. In RCP4.5 different regions in Georgia. While2.1 overall, precipitation1.6 in 2.1 2.9 the decreased pattern eastern Georgia, will be replaced by (0.0, 5.3) (−0.3, 2.7) (0.9, 6.2) (0.6, 3.5) Georgia is not projected to change substantially, climate precipitation increase (average 3.4 percent) by 2050. [22]. RCP6.0 1.9 1.7 3.8 2.9 (0.2, 4.0) (0.3, 2.9) (1.5, 6.4) (1.4, 4.1) RCP8.5 3.1 2.0 6.1 4.1 (0.9, 5.9) (−0.2, 3.2) (3.7, 9.3) (2.5, 5.5) Georgia 11 Projected mean annual precipitation for the 2040-2059 mean of 653 mm) and Abkhazia (+26 mm compared to period under RCP 8.5 is 796 mm (median) which is a the period 1986-2005, reaching a mean of 960 mm), while negative anomaly (reduction in precipitation by 13 mm) as it will remain stable in the regions of Kvemo Kartli (+4 mm compared to the reference period 1986-2005. Seasonal compared to the period 1986-2005, reaching a mean of precipitation for March, April, May is projected to reach 279 730 mm) and Samergelo – Zemo (upper) Svaneti (-3 mm mm, with an increase of 14mm compared to the reference compared to the period 1986-2005, reaching a mean of period 1986-2005. In the summer period (June, July, 1032 mm). August), precipitation will decrease by 20 mm reaching an average mean of 162 mm compared to the reference period The mean of precipitation will further decrease for the period 1986-2005. Seasonal precipitation for September, October, 2080-2099 (compared to the period 1986-2005) under RCP November is projected to reach to 156 mm with a decrease 8.5. Georgia precipitation is expected to be reduced over of 7 mm compared to the reference period of 1986-2005. the entire territory reaching mean annual precipitation of 774 mm / year with a difference of -35 mm compared to At the subnational level for the timeline 2040-2059, the reference period of 1986-2005. The average mean will precipitation is expected to decrease for the regions of be 278 mm for the spring period (March, April, May) with a Adjara (-31 mm, reaching a mean of 969 mm), Guria (-20 difference of +13 mm compared to the reference period mm compared to the period 1986-2005, reaching a mean of 1986-2005. In the summer period (June, July, August), of 989 mm), Imereti (-31 mm compared to the period 1986- precipitation will decrease by 46 mm reaching an average 2005, reaching a mean of 960 mm), Shida Kartli (-24 mm mean of 136 mm compared to the reference period 1986- compared to the period 1986-2005, reaching a mean of 2005. The average mean will be 148 mm for the autumn 799mm), Racha Lechkhumi – Kvemo (lower) Svaneti (-37 period (September, October, November) with a difference mm compared to the period 1986-2005, reaching mean of of -15 mm compared to the reference period of 1986-2005. 947 mm) and slightly increase in the regions of Kakheti Figure 13 shows the seasonal cycle of precipitation for the (+18 mm compared to the period 1986-2005, reaching a country. Figure 13. Projected seasonal cycle for Georgia’s monthly precipitation for Projected the period 2040-2059,of Climatology Precipitation under RCP8.5,for 2040-2059 reference period 1986-2005 ​Georgia; (Reference Period: 1986-2005), RCP 8.5, all 200 175 150 125 mm 100 75 50 25 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Historical Ref. Period, 1986-2005 RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 6.0 RCP 8.5 Source: WBG Climate Change Knowledge Portal (CCKP 2021) Georgia. Climate Data. Projections. Available at: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/georgia/climate-data-projections Note: The black solid line represents the historical reference period, 1986- 2005; the solid red line represents the multi-model ensemble median, with the shaded range representing the 10th and 90th percentiles of the multi-model ensemble range. 12 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Projected precipitation patterns for Georgia for mid-century are likely to have impacts across the agricultural sector. through to end of century indicate a slight reduction in Figure 14 shows long-term monthly trends as precipitation precipitation with increased seasonal aridity for the country’s anomalies. A clear reduction in precipitation is shown, key agricultural seasons (March-May and September under RCP8.5 for the key agricultural period for the second to November). These changes in precipitation patterns half of the century. Figure 14. Projected Precipitation Monthly Anomaly for Georgia, 1951-2100, RCP8.5 Anomaly Projected Precipitation ​Georgia; (Ref. Period: 1986-2005), RCP 8.5, all Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 51 61 71 81 91 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 -20… -15mm -10mm -5mm 0mm 5mm 10mm 15mm Source: WBG Climate Change Knowledge Portal (CCKP 2021) Georgia. Climate Data. Projections. Available at: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/georgia/climate-data-projections Expected impact of climate change compared to the historical data (1956-1985) [23]. The last of these severe droughts happened in 2020, resulting in on specific agricultural sub-sectors in yields that were lower than average. The negative impact Georgia of warming will be more evident in rainfed and drought- prone regions like Shiraki and Eldari. If sufficient moisture Georgian agriculture is expected to be negatively affected by is available, an increase in carbon dioxide concentration will the direct impact of temperature and precipitation changes have a positive effect on wheat productivity. The projected on crops, the increased irrigation demand required to average annual temperature rise of 3.6°C expected in maintain yields, and the decline in water supply associated 2071-2100 will reduce wheat yields approximately by 15- with higher evaporation and lower rainfall, including the 25 percent, if the same agro-technology is applied. Higher potential for more dry days (consecutive days without rainfall expected temperatures will create favorable conditions events). The expected impact of climate change on specific for an increase in pest populations, which can also have agricultural produce is described below. adverse impacts on wheat yields [23]. Wheat: Over 60 percent of wheat is produced in Kakheti Maize: About 70 percent of maize comes from western (eastern region), and the rest is almost completely Georgia, where humidity is high and therefore production is concentrated in other regions of eastern Georgia (Shida not significantly dependent on the irrigation system. Kakheti Kartli and Kvemo Kartli). In the current climatology, wheat is in the east, also a maize producing region, has seen a change more frequently subject to drought during the tillering phase in rainfall pattern which requires the use of irrigation for short Georgia 13 periods in summer, at critical stages of grain filling. The along with droughts in July through August. Frequency projected average annual temperature rise of 3.6°C expected duration and velocity of hot winds have been increasing in 2071-2100 will reduce maize yields approximately by in the last five years which have damaged the harvest and 15-25 percent, if the same agro-technology is applied. In negatively also influenced the future harvest as the plant is addition, higher expected temperatures will create favorable weaker and poorly developed. Future climate projections conditions for an increase in pest populations, which can indicate a negative impact on the yields, specifically in long have adverse impacts on maize yields [23]. dry periods and after warm winters. Increased amount of extreme precipitation in Samegrelo would cause temporary Viticulture: The cultivation of grapes is widely practiced flooding of lowlands. Changes in temperature regime would in Georgia, particularly in the country’s eastern region: increase the harmful pathogen load and cause the need for approximately 38,000 to 40,000 hectares are currently more comprehensive plant protection measures. Stronger dedicated to grape production, and there are more than hot winds would increase losses and decrease yield [22], 35,000 small-scale grape growers. Over the past two [23]. decades, Georgia has faced increasingly heavy rainfall, hail, and flooding events, which have affected the Kakheti wine Livestock: Warm winters can increase the spreading of region, causing severe damage to hundreds of vineyards. livestock diseases and even the introduction of new types The expected climate change may have a significant negative of pests and diseases. Temperature and prolonged periods impact on yields, primarily because of longer drought of hot days in summer may cause heat stress in animals periods, which would result in significant deterioration of that impacts animal health and productivity. Georgia counts yield and quality characteristics [23]. about 1.9 million ha of meadows and pasture areas, half of which is in Kakheti (eastern region) [24]. The most severe Potatoes: Almost half of the potato production in Georgia impacts are expected in arid and semi-arid grazing systems, comes from Samtskhe-Javakheti (central southern region), where higher temperatures and lower rainfall are expected where the precipitation level (May - June) has increased by to reduce yields and increase land degradation. 10 percent in the past ten years. This has led to high water and flooding in areas of newly harvested potato seeds as well as higher infestations of fungus, especially phytophtora CSA technologies and practices and alternaria. A joint assessment by Aquacrop (FAO) model and experts on the impact of present and expected climate CSA technologies and practices present opportunities changes on potato productivity in three regions of Georgia for addressing climate change, as well as for sustainable (Akhaltsikhe, Dusheti-Pasanauri, Khulo) revealed that, based economic growth and development of the agriculture on climate change scenario of A1B, non-irrigated potato sector. For this profile, practices are considered CSA if productivity will probably increase in Mtskheta-Mtianeti, they sustainably increase agricultural productivity and and will significantly decrease in the highland of Adjara (by incomes while meeting at least one of the other objectives 10-40 percent) and Khulo. Productivity of irrigated potato of the CSA approach (climate change adaptation and/ cultivation is expected to increase in all production areas; or mitigation). Hundreds of technologies and approaches the effect of irrigation is especially high in Akhaltsikhe and around the world fall under the heading of CSA. The Ministry is relatively insignificant in Mtskheta –Mtianeti, which is of Environmental Protection and Agriculture (MEPA) of explained by different precipitation regimes and, also, the Georgia has identified three main research areas for CSA granulometric composition of soil [22]. as follows: (i) reducing GHG emissions, (ii) sustainable agriculture productivity, and (iii) management of crop, soil, Tangerines: Most of the tangerines in Georgia come from and water resources. According to the Technology Action the Adjara and Guria region (south-western region). The Plans for Climate Change Adaptation (2012) and the Fourth expected increase in average temperatures, in general, National Communication to the UNFCCC (2021), Georgia will positively impact the sector in terms of expected yield, has set specific climate priorities: extension of suitable area, and duration of harvest season. However, currently the sector is characterized by huge i. Increase of irrigated land parcels; production and price volatility due to frequent early fall frosts and hail, when fruits are not yet fully developed and are highly ii Carrying out of studies on degraded soils and take susceptible to climatic conditions. In addition, moisture measures to recover and improve soil fertility as well as needed for citrus production will substantially drop by 2100, soil water retention; thus zones favorable for tangerine (citrus) production will be reduced by three times if irrigation does not occur. Climate iii Creation of legal framework for windbreak change could also increase the conditions suitable for pest management and development; and disease occurrence in the coastal areas which might affect tangerine productivity [23]. iv. Introduction of new rules of legislation for protection and maintenance of biodiversity to ensure the sustainable Hazelnuts: More than half of the hazelnut production comes use of biological resources; from Samegrelo (western region). Increases in precipitation levels during the vegetation period have been observed 14 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile v. Introduction of and support to the sustainable forestry The CSA practices identified in this study (Table 2) management practice through the establishment of address important challenges faced by the country’s effective mechanisms of forest care, protection and agricultural sector and are the result of research as well as recovery, which will facilitate the maintenance and a participatory stakeholder workshop (held in June 2021) improvement of qualitative and quantitative forest and consultations for each production system (carried out indicators; between June and October 2021). Most of the practices and technologies identified for crop and livestock systems vi. Extension and development of modelling capacity of have a low degree of adoption rate (<30 percent) in Georgia the hydro meteorological surveillance network aimed at despite their multiple CSA benefits. The key cross-cutting reducing the threats originated from natural disasters barriers to wider-scale adoption of CSA include limited conditioned by the climate change, and introduction of financial capacities, lack of knowledge and practice, lack of national system of early warning; equipment and skills. vii. Improvement of atmospheric air, water and soil The selected CSA practices and technologies enjoy varied quality monitoring and assessment system, along with climate smartness scores on CSA indicators according the systems of atmospheric air pollution with harmful to expert evaluations (Annex 3). The average climate substances and recordings of water use; smartness score is calculated based on the practice’s individual scores on eight climate smartness dimensions viii. Transition to the integrated water resource that relate to the CSA pillars: yield (productivity), income, management system based on the sustainable water, soil, risk (adaptation), energy, carbon, and nitrogen management of water resources and European (mitigation). A practice can have a negative/positive/zero principles of basin management; impact on a selected CSA indicator, with 10 (+/–) indicating a 100 percent change (positive/ negative) and 0 indicating ix. Improvement of waste and chemical substance no change. A detailed explanation of the methodology and management system, introduction of various a more comprehensive list of practices analyzed for Georgia mechanisms in line with the applicable European Union can be found in Annexes 1, 2, and 3. (EU) standards, which will facilitate the prevention of waste generation and re-use of the waste. Table 2. Selected CSA practices and technologies for production systems in Georgia Predominant farm scale Type of Main region of S: small scale agricultural CSA Practice Adoption rate Impact production M: medium produce scale L: large scale Productivity Increase of crop yield and income. Conservation Adaptation Agriculture (Crop >60% Increase soil organic Kakheti (65%) rotation, mulching, no carbon, maintain tillage) Shida Kartli (14%) productive soils enhance Wheat soil structure, enhance Kvemo Kartli (14%) soil water holding Conservation Other region (7%) Agriculture (Crop capacity, decrease in rotation, mulching, <30% erosion (water and wind). minimum tillage) Mitigation Decrease of GHG emissions and GHG emissions intensity. Productivity Imereti (33%) After 3 to 5 years increase Samegrelo – Zemo of crop yield and income. Svaneti (28%) Conservation Adaptation Agriculture (Crop Increase soil organic Maize Kakheti (15%) rotation, mulching, no <30% carbon, maintain tillage) productive soils enhance Guria (7%) soil structure, enhance Kvemo Kartli (6%) soil water holding capacity. Georgia 15 Predominant farm scale Type of Main region of S: small scale agricultural CSA Practice Adoption rate Impact production M: medium produce scale L: large scale Productivity Irrigation improvements Samtskhe – Drip irrigation, water can increase crop Javakheti (46%) collectors and draining <30% yield and income, technologies5 in potato then increase farm Kvemo Kartli (26%) fields of Samtskhe- productivity. Autonomous Javakheti Potatoes Adaptation Republic (A.R.) of Draining systems Adjara (6%) evacuate excess water in Set up special cellar to store harvest in winter short. high precipitation Other regions period periods. (22%) Mitigation Reduce GHG emissions. Drip irrigation with row <30% Productivity middle grass cover Supply localized water to crop to increase yields. Grapes Kakheti Adaptation Organic mulching with <30% Reduce erosion and efficient use of fertilizer fertilizer leaching. Introduction of high productivity and late tangerine varieties - Unshiu and Tiakhara Adaptation Tangerine A.R. of Adjara Unshiu - in order to <30% Reduce erosion and support tangerine fertilizer leaching. harvesting and trading season in the Adjara region [22] Adaptation and Productivity Samegrelo- Increase hazelnut quality Svaneti (50%) and yield in sheltered Wind breaker (Wind areas by providing lower Guria (22%) protecting trees) <30% temperatures, increasing relative humidity and Halzenuts Imereti (12%) retaining soil moisture, A.R. of Adjara (6%) Leaving inter-rows <30% reducing damage of soil using mulcher mowers erosion due to strong Other regions winds. (10%) Adaptation Soil and weed management, mulching. 5 While in Western Georgia, well developed draining canals were established, the central and eastern part of the country do not have this type of structure in place. A well-designed drainage system allows for quick evacuation of water during the short intense rains that are hitting the east in some years. 16 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Predominant farm scale Type of Main region of S: small scale agricultural CSA Practice Adoption rate Impact production M: medium produce scale L: large scale Free movement Productivity shelter with rotational <30% Rotational grazing grazing on improved enhances the quality and pastures (grass- digestibility of the forage. legume mixture), using Adaptation cattle forage blend supplements (including Increase of food feed supplements availability, soil quality, and premixes), and water & fertilizer use automatic milking. efficiency, biodiversity, reduction of soil erosion. ND Mitigation Grazing management Reduction of GHG is a key climate smart emissions and GHG livestock intervention; emissions intensity. Kvemo by optimizing the Kartli, Imereti, grazing pressure on land and by improving Samegrelo Zemo grasslands for animal Cattle (milk) Svaneti, Samtskhe feed, grassland will Javakheti, and be more productive Shida Kartli. and provide feed with a better nutritional quality for livestock. Productivity Increase of forage and Free movement shelter farmers income. without grazing, Adaptation using cattle forage Increase of food ND blend (including availability, water, and feed supplements fertilizer use. and premixes), and Mitigation automatic milking Increase of GHG emissions and GHG emissions intensity. Free movement shelter Productivity (cold season) with <30% Rotational grazing rotational grazing enhances the quality and (warm season) on digestibility of the forage. improved pastures Adaptation (grass- legume mixture) Increase of food and feed supplements. availability, soil quality, Grazing management water and fertilizer is a key climate smart use efficiency, and ND livestock intervention; biodiversity; and by optimizing the reduction of soil erosion. grazing pressure on Mitigation land and by improving Reduction of GHG grasslands for animal feed, grassland will emissions but increase of Kakheti, be more productive GHG emissions intensity. Kvemo Kartli and provide feed with Sheep (meat) and Samstkhe a better nutritional Javakheti quality for livestock. Productivity Increase of yield and income. Adaptation Free movement shelter Increase of food (cold season) with availability, soil quality, grazing (warm season) ND water and fertilizer use, on improved pastures (grass- legume mixture) and biodiversity; and and feed supplements reduction of soil erosion. Mitigation Reduction of GHG emissions but increase of GHG emissions intensity. ND: No Data Georgia 17 Environmentally farming practices applied in Georgia that increase yields and save costs – Case study for no-tillage No tillage is an environmentally friendly practice of cultivation when the farmer prepares land for planting crops without excessively disturbing the soil. This method keeps organic materials in the soil that helps to recycle nutrition elements, protecting beneficial flora and fauna in the soil, and altogether creating additional pores in the ground and keeps the levels humidity. No-till method is not only cost-efficient (as it contributes to improved use of water, and a reduced use of fuel for tractors), but also protects the soil from erosion and reduces the impact from droughts. Moreover, the farms do not need to burn the stubble anymore. Since 2019, the EU and FAO have been working Source: EU Delegation to Georgia together under the third phase of the European Photographer: Lasha Gigauri Location: Khurvaleti Village, Gori Neighbourhood Programme for Agriculture and Municipality, Georgia Rural Development (ENPARD) program to bring modern and environmentally friendly agriculture techniques to Georgia by arranging demonstration plots and farmer extension services, specifically on conservation agriculture (no-till practice). Since 2019, the program trained over 1,300 farmers in modern agricultural techniques, established more than 80 demonstration plots in Georgia, established 10 farmer field schools, and awarded farmers with 160 grants of more than US$ 3.1 million. Giorgi Khosroshvili, a farmer from Dedoplitskaro municipality in the Kakheti region of Georgia has been growing wheat, barley and corn for 15 years. Owning a total of 130 hectares of land, the farmer proceeded with caution, trying it out only on one hectare. Giorgi was able to save up to 20 percent of costs on fuel and mechanization services. He also expects the summer harvest to be high, adding that in the coming autumn season (2021) he plans to expand the area with no-till approach to ten hectares (source: FAO in Georgia article on Kakhetian farmer increases yields and saves costs by introducing innovative no-till technology published on 30 July 2020. http://www.fao.org/georgia/news/detail- events/en/c/1301050/ ). In the Gori municipality, Gocha Danielashvili, a local wheat grower farmer, sowed on one hectare of his land with no-till method. He has already harvested 3.5 tons per hectare, which is about 800 kilograms more per hectare compared to the previous years (source: FAO in Georgia Georgian farmers increase yields and lower costs with new environmentally friendly techniques introduced by EU and FAO published on 22 July 2020. http://www.fao.org/georgia/news/detail- events/en/c/1418225/ ) . Source: EU Delegation to Georgia Photographer: Lasha Gigauri All farmers confirmed their interest to Location: Khurvaleti Village, Gori Municipality, Georgia continue using no-till for the next years, and they expect many other farmers to also join. Cutting edge technology is used not only for wheat, barley and corn in Kakheti, but for the vegetables in mountainous regions as well, lacking good agricultural land. FAO agronomists, in close cooperation with Georgia’s MEPA, organized Farmers Field Schools and numerous training for the farmers all around the country. 18 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Enabling institutions and policies through encouraging CSA and agrotourism. In addition for CSA to the NDC that advocates explicitly for CSA, the Rural Development Strategy of Georgia (2021-2027) also aims to disseminate climate-smart and environmentally adapted Environmental concerns have been high on the priority agricultural practices (under Goal 2 - Sustainable usage of list for the Government of Georgia. CSA has been gaining natural resources, retaining the eco-system, adaptation to traction only recently, however, and efforts are ongoing to climate change). Furthermore, the 2030 Vision outlined in raise awareness on CSA, mainstream it at policy level, and to the Climate Change National Adaptation Plan for Georgia’s disseminate CSA practices. This CSA Country Profile is part agriculture sector calls for the practice of CSA in Georgia, of these efforts, as is the MEPA, FAO and EU CSA Working and sustainability of agro-ecosystem services through the Group that was established in 2020 with the support of introduction of highly effective production methods and the European Neighborhood Programme for Agriculture management of the climate change associated risks. and Rural Development (ENPARD).6 In the framework of the 23rd ENPARD Stakeholders’ Meeting (January 2020), Georgia’s National Climate Change Strategy 2021-2030 representatives of MEPA led the establishment of the CSA and Action Plan 2021-2023, adopted by the Government at Working Group under the Ministry’s Environment and the same time as the NDC, outline the concrete actions the Climate Change Department. The CSA Working Group is country will take to implement this ambitious agenda. The charged to promote and monitor the implementation of Strategy outlines sectoral priorities, goals, and objectives CSA practices in Georgia as well as to mainstream CSA in for climate adaptation, lays out the institutional structure the national strategic documents and policies. for the implementation of it, identifies financing needs and sources of funding, and sets forth the methodology Decision making over environmental issues is entrusted for monitoring and evaluating the outcomes. The Action at ministerial level, while over climate issues to an inter- Plan identifies measures and actions that support the sectoral body. The Ministry of Environment and Natural development of Georgia’s economy and infrastructure in a Resources Protection (MoENRP) used to be the authority way enabling to meet the country’s international obligations for implementing and enforcing environmental legislation and national ambitions for climate change mitigation. and policy. Following restructuring in 2017, however, the Measuring progress in the implementation of the Action MoENRP was merged to the Ministry of Agriculture, now Plan 2021-2023 will help Georgia to remain on track in named MEPA. Another government agency, the National the delivery against the current NDC and will also serve as Environmental Agency (NEA), under MEPA, is responsible an important orientation to inform the determination of an for natural resources and environmental monitoring (e.g., appropriate and realistic level of ambition when updating extreme events, hazardous, soil and water monitoring of the NDC in future revision cycles. chemical pollutants). Georgia has established a high-level, inter-sectoral Climate Change Council, chaired by the MEPA Key components of Georgia’s new climate pledge include: Minister. The Council is intended to provide policy direction and guidance on climate action; improve cross-ministerial • Unconditionally limiting its total GHGs by 35 percent co-ordination; and oversee the country’s measuring, below the 1990 level by 2030 and potentially increasing reporting, and verification system [25]. this commitment (with sufficient international support) to 50 to 57 percent; Strategies to ensure environment management and climate • Continuing to record GHGs not regulated by the change mitigation and adaptation have been developed in Montreal Protocol in its National GHG Inventory; Georgia’s Fourth National Communication to the UNFCCC. • Setting out feasible targets for limiting emissions in The country submitted its Intended Nationally Determined seven sectors (transport, buildings, energy generation Contribution (INDC) in 2019. In 2021, the Government of and transmission, agriculture, industry, waste, and Georgia adopted the updated NDC, and submitted it to forestry); the UNFCCC in the same year. Georgia’s NDC expands • Shifting to low-carbon development approaches in the country’s pledge to reduce its total GHG emissions and the construction, waste management and agriculture reflects the country’s commitment to unconditionally reduce sectors; its GHG emissions to 35 percent below its 1990 baseline • Assessing specific impacts of climate change on coastal level (an approximately 16 percent per capita reduction) by zones, mountain ecosystems, forests and water resources 2030. and introducing relevant adaptation measures; • Assessing the economic, social and health impacts of CSA has started being explicitly featured in national strategies climate change and introducing relevant adaptation and policies. Georgia’s updated NDC supports the low measures; carbon development approaches of the agriculture sector 6 The programme ENPARD aims to (i) build capacity and support government institutions in the reform of the agriculture and rural development sector; (ii) improve employment and living conditions of rural populations by strengthening farmers’ cooperation skills and access to resources; (iii) promote diversified social and economic opportunities in rural areas, particularly for women and youth, in due respect to the environment and the cultural heritage. More information is available here: https://eu4georgia.eu/enpard/ Georgia 19 • Promoting biodiversity conservation with a focus on the agency introduced several new programs in response endemic, indigenous and endangered species; to the COVID-19 crisis that include: (i) new sub-component • Taking measures to reduce losses and damage for working capital under the Agro-Credit program; (ii) caused by climate-induced disasters and extreme new sub-component for the food industry fixed assets and weather events; and new purposes for fixed assets component of the Agro- • Upholding Georgia’s commitments to the principles Credit program; and (iii) new matching grant (50 percent of gender equality and the Sustainable Development grant) program for fixed assets in primary agriculture Goals by empowering women as agents of change production (mainly focusing on machinery, drip irrigation and increasing their participation in decision-making and greenhouses) [27]. CSA-driven agri-initiatives could be in all NDC areas, including energy efficiency and the introduced under state-funded programs that could boost sustainable use of water resources. introducing CSA practices in Georgia. This would also be in line with the Priority Actions for the Koronivia Joint Work on Lastly, Georgia’s Climate Change Strategy explicitly calls Agriculture, as per the “Submission from the International for building capacities to generate scientific evidence for Centre for Tropical Agriculture and the World Bank” [28]. development of climate-smart approaches in the agriculture sector (under Objective 5.2). The Strategy mentions the While these programs have led to an increase in both the plan to undertake research and consultations to identify absolute level and the share of total lending in agriculture CSA practices that are economically and socially relevant and agribusiness, measures are still needed to enable more for Georgia and to support implementation of CSA practices commercial bank lending without public support which through extension and awareness-raising campaigns. would help to broaden and deepen the mobilization of private sector finance for investment, together with increased use of guarantees and other collateral substitutes (e.g., warehouse Financing CSA receipts) as an alternative to collateral-based lending. Such a move would also enable women to benefit from agri- Access to finance for farmers and the private sector is vital finance products and services. Since women tend not to for agricultural development and to scale CSA. Climate be registered as property owners of land, houses, capital finance can act as a catalyst for the broader adoption of CSA equipment or other assets, they are less likely to qualify for practices by demonstrating the feasibility these approaches and access agri-finance [29]. Wider use of loan guarantees have in terms of their social, environmental, and financial could also be linked to a reduction of interest rates and a returns. To further facilitate this process, more research reduced consequent use of subsidized credit. is needed on non-monetary benefits of CSA, in terms of ecosystem services flows and natural capital stock. Indeed, over the last five years, commercial banks have shown a growing interest for investments in the agricultural Georgia has relied on government programs that sector with an increase of their agricultural portfolio by 133 are primarily focused on subsidizing interest rates to percent in local currency (from 734 million Gel in 2015 expand lending to agriculture and agribusinesses. Since to 1,816 million Gel in 2020). Other sources of financing 2010, public expenditure on agriculture has increased include multilateral channels such as the UNFCCC significantly, both in absolute terms and as a share of financing mechanisms, multilateral development banks total public expenditure,7 signaling the prioritization of (MDBs), National Bank of Georgia (NBG), bilateral donors the agricultural sector development by the Government and other international institutions and funds such as the of Georgia [26]. Major initiatives include launching more Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environmental than ten agricultural support programs managed by the Facility (GEF), Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and Agricultural and Rural Development Agency (ARDA), the the Adaptation Fund (AF). mission of which is to contribute to the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and the sustainable production of agricultural goods though introduction of international food safety standards. The main programs of the agency are: (i) Preferential Agro-Credit, which co-finances interest rates on investment loans; (ii) Plant the Future, which co-finances (with grants) projects for the growth of perennial orchards and creation of nurseries; and (iii) Processing & Storage Enterprises, which provides grant co-financing that can be matched with Agro-Credit loans. Other programs include the Program for Agricultural Modernization, Market Access and Flexibility (AMMAR) and Young Entrepreneurs. In 2020, 7 For the period 2010-2019 the average annual rate of growth for agricultural spending was ten times faster than that of total public spending. It has accounted for two to three percent of total expenditure since 2012 [24]. 20 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Outlook Georgia has developed various policies and strategies related to CSA activities and climate change with the support of development partners. However, more institutional coordination is needed and concerted efforts on disseminating CSA practices. Support to climate change adaptation and mitigation among farmers rarely works when it is directed from outside or focused only on direct technology transfer. Farmers need incentives and enabling conditions to make transformations on the ground, which must be facilitated by institutions and policies. State institutions are particularly important for the production and dissemination of information related to technology options and management methods, climate variability, and value chain conditions. In addition to governmental institutions, non-governmental entities can play a major role in CSA adoption. Development partners such as the United Nations agencies, the EU, USAID, GIZ, the World Bank and others promote CSA in Georgia, and when implementing operations, also engage local entities (such as non-governmental organizations) building local capacity and further disseminating practices. CSA development requires intensive communication between the farmers, authorities, and agribusinesses. Moreover, due to the diversity of the Georgian landscape, climate change can have a different impact in different regions of the country. Therefore, it is suggested to follow a regional approach – regional coordination strengthening as well as creation /reinforcement of regional communication platforms to facilitate the adoption of agronomic practices by farmers. Moreover, hands-on experience such as that gained through demonstration plots and farmer field schools allows farmers to better understand CSA good practices. This profile has identified several promising CSA practices and technologies for Georgia. These practices can contribute to the diversification of farming systems and income sources, and address climate change challenges while attracting investments to develop the agricultural sector. Moreover, the analysis presented in this profile could be included in forthcoming climate policy planning, including mid-century long-term low GHG emissions development strategies or other strategies. Long-term investments in agricultural infrastructure (food supply chain, veterinary, machinery, etc.), capacity building of farmers and agricultural value chain actors and, implementation of CSA- related strategies and programs are all crucial to promote the sustainable development of agriculture in Georgia. Georgia 21 Works cited [18] World Bank. 2022. Agriculture, Water, and Land Policies to Scale Up Sustainable Agri-Food Systems in [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Georgia; Synthesis Report and Way Forward. https:// (FAO). 2010. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Policies, practices and documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- financing for food security, adaptation, and mitigation. Rome: reports/documentdetail/099455101282294918/ FAO. p17570501890ab0b088ea0378110de9904 [2] FAO. 2013. Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook. Rome: [19] World Bank. 2015. Georgia Country Environmental FAO. Analysis: Institutional, Economic, and Poverty Aspects of Georgia’s Road to Environmental Sustainability. Environment and [3] GeoStat. 2021. National Statistic Office of Georgia. natural resources global practice country environmental analysis. Population and Demography. Washington, DC. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank. org/handle/10986/22287 [4] World Bank Group and Asian Development Bank. 2021. Climate Risk Country Profile: Georgia. https://www.adb.org/sites/ [20] European Commission. 2021. INFORM Index for Risk default/files/publication/707481/climate-risk-country-profile- Management. Georgia Country Profile. https://drmkc.jrc. georgia.pdf ec.europa.eu/Inform-Index/Portals/0/InfoRM/CountryProfiles/GEO. pdf [5] Geostat. 2021. National Statistic Office of Georgia. Georgia’s population under absolute poverty line. [21] World Bank and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). 2017. Disaster Risk Finance Country [6] GeoStat. 2021. National Statistic Office of Georgia. Note: Georgia. https://www.gfdrr.org/en/publication/disaster-risk- Georgia’s agriculture data. https://www.geostat.ge/en/modules/ finance-country-note-georgia categories/196/agriculture [22] MEPA. 2017. Climate Change National Adaptation Plan for [7] GeoStat. 2021. National Statistic Office of Georgia. Georgia’s Agriculture Sector. Georgia’s employment data. https://www.geostat.ge/en/modules/ categories/683/Employment-Unemployment [23] MEPA. 2021. Fourth National Communication (2021) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [8] GeoStat. 2021. National Statistic Office of Georgia. Exports (UNFCCC). https://unfccc.int/dicuments/271341 and Imports of Food. [24] FAO. 2020. Smallholders and family farms in Georgia. [9] World Bank. 2020. Georgia – Maximizing Finance for Country study report 2019. Budapest. https://doi.org/10.4060/ Inclusive Development of Agri-Food Value Chains; Synthesis ca9822en Report. [25] Organization for Economic Co-operation Development [10] FAOStat. 2019. Georgia: Land, Input and Sustainability (OECD). 2021. Sustainable Infrastructure for Low-carbon Data. Development in the EU Eastern Partnership: Hotspot Analysis and Needs Assessment. Green Finance and Investment. https://doi. [11] Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of org/10.1787/c1b2b68d-en Georgia (MEPA). 2018, National target setting to achieve land degradation neutrality. https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/ [26] World Bank. 2020. Georgia – Maximizing Finance for default/files/ldn_targets/201811/Georgia%20LDN%20TSP%20 Inclusive Development of Agri-Food Value Chains; Analysis of Country%20Report.pdf Public Spending in Agriculture in Georgia. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. [12] GeoStat. 2021. National Statistic Office of Georgia. Distribution of agricultural holdings. [27] World Bank. 2020. Georgia – Maximizing Finance for Inclusive Development of Agri-food Value Chains; Assessment of [13] FAO. 2018. Georgia at a glance. http://www.fao.org/georgia/ the Supply of Agriculture Finance in Georgia. Washington, D.C.: fao-in-georgia/georgia-at-a glance/en/#:~:text=Georgia%20 World Bank. has%20favorable%20climatic%20and,area%20is%20covered%20 with%20forest [28] CIAT and World Bank. ND. Future topics not listed in decision 4/CP .23 and views on the progress of the Koronivia [14] FAO. 2017. Aquastat Georgia database. Joint Work on Agriculture in order to report to the Conference of the Parties as per decision 4/CP.23, paragraph 4.https://www4. [15] FAO, WFP , UNECE, UNICEF, WHO, WMO. 2021. Regional unfccc.int/sites/SubmissionsStaging/Documents/202111032230- Overview of Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central -World%20Bank%20%20CIAT%20Submission%20on%20 Asia 2020: Affordable healthy diets to address all forms of Koronivia%20Joint%20Work%20on%20Agriculture%2003-11- malnutrition for better health. Budapest. https://www.fao.org/ 2021.pdf documents/card/fr/c/cb3849en/ [29] FAO. 2018. Gender, agriculture and rural development in [16] Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC). Georgia – Country Gender Assessment Series. Rome, pp. 80 2020. Georgia Profile. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO [17] MEPA. 2021. Georgia National Inventory Report. 22 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile This publication is the product of a collaborative effort between the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in Georgia, the European Union Delegation (EUD) in Georgia, and the World Bank, to identify country-specific baselines on CSA in Georgia /the South Caucasus. It is based on a methodology prepared by CIAT, the World Bank, and the Center for Research and Higher Education in Tropical Agriculture in 2014 and revisited in 2015 by Andreea Nowak, Caitlin Corner-Dolloff, Miguel Lizarazo, Andy Jarvis, Evan Girvetz, Jennifer Twyman, Julian Ramírez, Carlos Navarro, Jaime Tarapues (CIAT/CCAFS), Charles Spillane, Colm Duffy, and Una Murray (University of Galway) and modified to fit the Georgia case study. Climate data presented in this assessment derives from CMIP5 – the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5. The CMIP efforts are overseen by the World Climate Research Program, which supports the coordination for the production of global and regional climate model compilations that advance scientific understanding of the multi-scale dynamic interactions between the natural and social systems affecting climate. CMIP5 is the foundational data used to present global climate change projections presented in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CMIP5 uses four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), which are used to represent the response of the climate system to different future development and emission pathways, defined by their total radiative forcing (cumulative measure of GHG emissions from all sources, measured in W/m2) by 2100. For example, RCP2.6 represents a very strong mitigation scenario, whereas the RCP8.5 assumes a very high emissions scenario. The CMIP6 collection represents the next iteration of climate model compilations. However this was released after the production of this Climate Profile, thus this assessment relies upon CMIP5 data. The authors of this study are Nicolò Massa Bernucci (FAO CFI Rome), Jumber Maruashvili (FAO Tbilisi), Allan Pineda Burgos (FAO Tbilisi) and Aira Htenas (World Bank). Design and layout: Fernanda Rubiano (independent consultant) and CIAT (Alliance) Infographics: Fernanda Rubiano (independent consultant) This document should be cited as: WB and FAO (World Bank and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2022. Climate Smart Agriculture in Georgia. CSA Country Profiles for Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean Series. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Group. Acknowledgements Special thanks to the representatives of the following institutions for providing information for this study: Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture of Georgia (MEPA), FAO of the United Nations Georgia, Scientific Research Center of Agriculture (SRCA) in Georgia, Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN), and Georgian Farmers’ Association (GFA). The following parties were consulted in the CSA prioritization exercise: Scientific Research Centre of Agriculture (SRCA); University of Georgia (agriculture); MEPA, FAO and EUD Climate Smart Agriculture Working Group; Rural Development Agency (RDA); National Environmental Agency (NEA); Environmental Information and Education Center (EIEC); MEPA; and FAO Georgia. This profile has benefited from comments received from colleagues: Ioannis Vasileiou, C. MacKenzie Dove, Nkulumo Zinyengere, Pierrick Fraval, Ranu Sinha, Darejan Kapanadze, and Sergio Vallesi (World Bank); Stephanie Jaquet (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT); Javier Sanz Alvarez, Federica Matteoli and Guido Agostinucci (FAO); and from the members of the MEPA, FAO and EUD Climate Smart Agriculture Working Group in Georgia. Georgia 23 Annex 1: Climate Smartness Assessment The analysis of CSA practices and technologies is shaped around the landscape / agroecozones perspective. It aims to recognize that a CSA practice is not universally applicable and that its application depends on a broader set of social, cultural, institutional, policy, economic and agro-environmental variables. One practice may have different impacts (positive/negative) when applied to different production systems and different agroecozones. For collecting data on CSA practices in the country (types of practices, levels of adoption, climate-smartness scores, etc.) several processes and methods have been used, as described below. Step 1: A first identification and initial listing of practices is carried out through literature review and were determined based on the feasibility of implementing them in the important production systems of the country. The list of practices was then confirmed with criteria from in-country experts (mainly agronomists with experience in the selected production systems or agricultural regions of interest in the country). Step 2: After a first validation of the list of CSA practices identified in the country (and related to the main production systems), experts are asked to provide, via semi-structured interviews, surveys or focus group discussions, information on where, how, and to what extent the practice is adopted in the country and the production system it is associated with. Step 3: Experts are then asked to characterize the practices and give qualitative evaluations of different components of the ‘climate smartness’ concept for each of the identified practices. For characterizing the practices, several variables have been used, as follows: • Agroecozone(s) where the analyzed practice is being implemented • Predominant farm scale where the practice is implemented (small, medium, large) • Practice adoption levels (out of the country’s agricultural area) • Climate-smartness levels of the practice (elaborated below) • Impacts on productivity, adaptation, and mitigation pillars (qualitative description of the observed/ expected impacts) • Barriers to adoption of the practice For assessing climate-smartness levels of a practice we created categories of indicators and sub-indicators related to the CSA pillars: • Productivity: yield smart (yields, post-harvest loss [only for crop systems]) and income smart (income), • Adaptation: water smart (water availability, water use efficiency, water quality, ecosystem function, soils water retention capacity), soils smart (soil disturbance), and info smart (climate risks management, climate risk prevention, agriculture diversification, local/traditional knowledge use). • Mitigation: energy smart (energy use from fossil fuels, energy use from renewable sources), carbon smart (above- ground biomass, below-ground biomass, soil carbon stock, methane emissions [only for livestock systems], manure management), and nitrogen smart (nutrient use efficiency). • In order to operationalize the analysis of the practice’s performance in the six categories of interest, we asked experts specific questions that offer insights into the indicators mentioned above. For each indicator they gave values from -10 to 10, which can also be associated with % change (-100 % loss to 100% gain). Table 7 below shows how the different indicators suggested were evaluated. Indicators for assessing climate smartness of a practice, technology, or service. Qualitative scale explained: -10=completely decreases (-100% compared to baseline); -5=decreases by half (-50% compared to baseline); 0=no change; =increases by half (50% compared to baseline); 10=completely increases (+100% compared to baseline); Other: if the change is off the current scale (>-100% or >+100%) 24 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Annex 2: CSA questionnaire Smartness Pillar Q# Indicator Expected change Metric category By implementing the practice, what are the Q1 YIELD kg/ha FOOD SMART expected changes in yields? (or Yield By implementing the practice, what are the Smart) Q2 POST-HARVEST LOSS expected changes in crop losses experienced kg/ha PRODUCTIVITY after harvesting? INCOME By implementing the practice, what are the ($/ha/ season or Q3 INCOME SMART expected changes in income? year) (m3/ By implementing the practice, what are the Q4 WATER AVAILABILITY expected changes in the quantity of water season available for agriculture? By implementing the practice, what are the WATER USE expected changes in the quantity of water used (liters/kg of Q5 WATER EFFICIENCY per unit of product? (refers to water used for product/ season) SMART - crop irrigation and/or livestock production). Impacts on water use and By implementing the practice, what are the Q6 WATER QUALITY N/A management expected changes in water quality? By implementing the practice, what is the ECOSYSTEM Q7 expected change in the water cycle equilibrium N/A FUNCTION in the ecosystem? By implementing the practice, what are the WATER RETENTION (mm OR % OR J/ Q8 expected changes in soil’s ability to retain CAPACITY OF SOILS Kg) water? ADAPTATION By implementing the practice, what are the SOIL SMART Q9 SOIL DISTURBANCE N/A expected changes in soil disturbance? By implementing the practice, what are the CLIMATE RISKS Q10 expected changes in farmers’ capacity to N/A MANAGEMENT manage climate risks? By implementing the practice, what are the CLIMATE RISKS Q11 expected changes in farmers’ capacity to limit N/A PREVENTION RISK the exposure to climate risks? SMART (or Knowledge By implementing the practice, what are the (number of ag. AGRICULTURE Smart, tbd) Q12 expected changes in the level of diversification activities on the DIVERSIFICATION of farmers’ agricultural activities on the farm? farm) By implementing the practice, what are the LOCAL/ expected changes in how much farmers use Q13 TRADITIONAL N/A local and traditional knowledge for managing KNOWLEDGE the farm? By implementing the practice, what are the ENERGY USE (FOSSIL (Kw/kg of product/ ENERGY Q14 expected changes in the quantity of fossil fuel FUELS) season) SMART - energy used to manage every season? (impacts on energy use By implementing the practice, what are the efficiency) ENERGY USE (Kw/kg of product/ MITIGATION Q15 expected changes in the quantity of renewable (RENEWABLE) season) energy used to manage every season? By implementing the practice, what are the CARBON BIOMASS (ABOVE- Q16 expected changes in the availability of above- (ton/ha) SMART GROUND) ground biomass on the farm every season? Georgia 25 Smartness Pillar Q# Indicator Expected change Metric category By implementing the practice, what are the BIOMASS (BELOW- Q17 GROUND) expected changes in the availability of below- (ton/ha) ground biomass on the farm every season? By implementing the practice, what are the (% OR kg/ha OR g/ Q18 SOIL CARBON STOCK expected changes in the quantity of organic m3 OR kg/m3) matter accumulated in soil? CARBON SMART METHANE By implementing the practice, what are the Q19 EMISSIONS (only for N/A livestock PS) expected changes in the quality of animal diet? MITIGATION By implementing the practice, what are the expected changes in the quantity of manure MANURE Q20 MANAGEMENT that is left of pastures/fields? (-10 = much more N/A manure left to 10 = decreased amount of manure) NITROGEN By implementing the practice, what are the Reduction of g SMART (or NUTRIENT USE Q21 expected changes in the quantity of fertilizers N2O/m2/year per Nutrient EFFICIENCY Smart tbd) used per unit of product in a season? ton of product 26 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Crop / Livestock Wheat Maize Potatoes Tangerine Grapes Hazelnuts Cattle (milk) Sheep (meat) system Free move- Free Free move- Free Drip irriga- Introduction Drip ment move- Organic Leaving ment shel- move- C.A. tion, water of high pro- irrigation mulching inter-rows shelter ter without ment ment Climate C.A. (No collectors ductivity and with row Wind with shelter Smart C.A. (No tillage) (Min with effi- using grazing, shelter tillage) and draining early or late middle breaker rotational (cold sea- Practice tillage cient use of mulcher using cattle (cold sea- technolo- tangerine grass grazing son) with fertilizer mowers forage son) with gies varieties cover on im- rotational blend grazing proved grazing pastures Q1 2,5 0 0 7,5 2,5 4 2 2,5 0 N/A N/A Q2 2,5 2,5 2,5 7,5 2,5 0 1 0 0 N/A N/A Q3 2,5 2,5 2,5 5 2,5 4 4 0 0 N/A N/A Q4 5 N/A 2,5 5 5 6 4 0 2,5 N/A N/A Q5 0 N/A 0 5 2,5 6 4 0 2,5 N/A N/A Q6 0 N/A 0 0 5 4 2 0 0 N/A N/A Q7 2,5 N/A 2,5 2,5 5 1 1 2,5 0 N/A N/A Q8 5 0,5-1 5 7,5 2,5 3 4 2,5 2,5 N/A N/A Q9 10 5 5 7,5 2,5 1 1 0 2,5 N/A N/A Q10 2,5 2,5 2,5 5 2,5 3 2 2,5 2,5 N/A N/A Q11 2,5 2,5 2,5 5 0 3 3 2,5 2,5 N/A N/A Q12 5 N/A 0 0 5 7 5 0 0 N/A N/A Q13 2,5 N/A 0 0 2,5 5 2 0 0 N/A N/A Q14 5 N/A 5 2,5 2,5 1 0 0 2,5 N/A N/A Q15 2,5 0 0 0 2,5 1 1 0 0 N/A N/A Q16 7,5 2,5 2,5 0 2,5 4 2 2,5 0 N/A N/A Annex 3: Climate smartness assessment result findings Q17 5 5 0 0 2,5 4 3 0 2,5 N/A N/A Q18 7,5 1-1,5 2,5 0 2,5 6 3 0 2,5 N/A N/A Q19 2,5 0 0 0 2,5 5 0 0 0 2,5 2,5 Q20 2,5 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 5 5 Q21 2,5 2,5 2,5 7,5 2,5 3 5 0 2,5 7,5 7,5 Georgia 27 Crop / 28 Livestock Wheat Maize Potatoes Tangerine Grapes Hazelnuts Cattle (milk) Sheep (meat) system Free move- Free Free move- Free Drip irriga- Introduction Drip ment move- Organic Leaving ment shel- move- C.A. tion, water of high pro- irrigation mulching inter-rows shelter ter without ment ment Climate C.A. (No collectors ductivity and with row Wind with shelter Smart C.A. (No tillage) (Min with effi- using grazing, shelter tillage) and draining early or late middle breaker rotational (cold sea- Practice tillage cient use of mulcher using cattle (cold sea- technolo- tangerine grass grazing son) with fertilizer mowers forage son) with gies varieties cover on im- rotational blend grazing proved grazing pastures Small and Large Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Q22 Large scale Small scale Large scale scale scale scale scale scale scale Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile Q23 >60% <30% <30% <30% <30% <30% <30% <30% <30% Lack of L ack of Lack of Lack of Limited Lack of Lack of Lack of Q24 knowledge and equipment knowledge knowledge financial equipment knowledge Limited info equipment practice and skills and practice and practice capacities and skills and practice and skills N/A: Not applicable