Presentation on activities in the Black Sea Catchment of Georgia. Presented at the Black Sea – Danube Regional Conference on Nutrient Pollution Control in Chisinau, Moldova – October 2006

1. Agricultural Research, Extension and Training
Project
ENVIRONMENT POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM
2001-2006
BLACK SEA CATCHMENT AREA OF GEORGIA
Moldova 2006

2. Project Components:
 Competitive Grant Scheme to support adaptive research and technology
dissemination at the farm level
 Reform of Agricultural System for a selected high priority research
direction
 Environment Pollution Control Program to reduce agricultural nutrient
pollution of the rivers draining into the Black Sea
Agricultural Research, Extension and
Training Project

3. Environment Pollution Control (EPC)
Program
Investments made under EPC Program:
 GEF – USD 1, 3 mln
 Beneficiaries –USD 0, 02 mln
 GEF and IDA (sub projects implemented
through the Competitive Grant Scheme) –
USD 0,9

4.  Strengthen Georgia’s national capacity to meet
international commitments assumed through
becoming a party to the Bucharest Convention on
the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
 Support the country in its efforts to achieve
compliance with international standards of the
quality of environment towards integration into the
European Community
EPC Program
The Mission

5. Improve management of the land and water
resources that will ultimately lead to the decreased
nutrient pollution of the Black Sea.
EPC Program
Overall Goal

6.  Decrease the nutrient pollution to the rivers of West Georgia draining into the
black Sea through introducing and promoting environment friendly agricultural
practices,
 Support the newly emerged private farmers and small entrepreneurs through
introducing, adapting and applying environmentally and economically sustainable
and efficient agricultural technologies;
 Establish and develop cooperation between farmers and scientists with the
purpose of addressing specific agro-ecologic problems;
 Adapt methodologies for monitoring and managing agricultural non-point source
pollution of the environment (soil, ground water, surface water);
 Elaborate recommendations for decreasing adverse environmental impact of
agriculture through studying correlation between various technologies and
pollution.
EPC Program
Objectives

7.  Achieve gradual reduction of pollution of ground and surface
waters in the Black Sea basin;
 Arrest erosion process in the selected plots by introducing
erosion control practices;
 Cut pollutant contents in crops and soil;
 Increase productivity of the degraded and non-fertile
agricultural lands;
 Improve socio-economic conditions of farmers through
adoption of environment friendly BGD technology.
Expected Outcomes
EPC Program

8.  Three districts in the EPC Program target region of
Khobistskali river basin – since 2001
 Five additional districts in the expanded area of the EPC
Program implementation – during 2004 through 2006
2001-2006 total coverage: - 154 villages
- over 800 farm households
- 1058 ha area of land
Black Sea Catchment area in Georgia
EPC Program Coverage

9. Map of Geographical Area covered by the
EPC Program

10. Rivers control cross – sections: Chanistkali River- pollution changes at
Tsalenjikha district level , Ochkomuri River – pollution changes at
homogeneous agro-climatic zone; Choga River – pollution changes at
village level.
1
6
5
7
8
3
4
9
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
Black
Sea
r.
Khobi
r.
Chanistskali
r.
Choga
r.
Ochkhomuri

11. Why the Khobistkali River Basin?
 Appropriate natural location of the Khobistskali river and its
tributaries in terms of
- reflecting anthropogenic impact on the environment at
village, town, district, region levels;
- assessment of impact of cleaner technologies on
environmental conditions.
 high concentration of Cattle
 high contamination with the residues of the mineral
fertilizers.
 vast area of eroded plots.

12. EPC Program Outcomes - 1
River pollution dynamics over 2002-2006
Persistent reduction of pollution in the main rivers of Khobisatskali
river basin
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1
4
7
10
NO3(mg/l)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0,00
0,03
0,06
PO4(mg/l)
Chogha River, NO3 Choga river, PO4

13. EPC Program Outcomes - 2
Application of integrated practices against soil erosion:
Terracing, contour cultivation, buffer stripes
 Pollution of the adjacent rivers with suspended load
particles and absorbed organic matter reduced;
 Soil erosion reduced by 65%
 Soil fertility increased by 25% on average
 Yields increased by 29% on average
(maize 20-30%, hazelnuts 20-25%, soybeans 50%)

14. EPC Program Outcomes – 3a
The nitrates content in crops (mg/kg)
Control
2003
2004
2005
Control
2003
2004
2005
Control
2003
2004
2005
Mandarin Maize Potato
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Nitrate contents in agricultural crops reduced by 30% on average
in result of manure application

15. EPC Program Outcomes – 3b
Soil pollution with nitrates dropped over 2003-2005 in the target farms in
result of applying a set of improved agricultural practices
Soil surface (L)
Soil deep (30 cm) (R)
07.2003
09.2003
10.2003
11.2003
04.2004
06.2004
10.2004
11.2004
08.2005
10.2005
11.2005
12.2005
15,07
28,44
40,15
133,40
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55

16.  Extension and application of the environment-friendly agricultural technologies;
 Introduction of manure management practices;
 Monitoring and management of environment (soil, ground water, surface water,
crops ) pollution;
 Assessment of impact of improved agricultural practices of farming efficiency
and environment quality;
 Raising awareness and skills of Farmers through trainings, publications,
individual recommendation;
 Development of National Code of Good agricultural practices.
The Environmental Pollution Control (EPC) Program
Main Activities

17. In 2002-2005 the environment-friendly technologies were
extended to 340 places of 129 villages of the Black Sea
coastal region; totally – 571 ha. area of land covered.
1. Environment-friendly agricultural technologies;
EPCP Main activities

18. 1.1 Apply biological methods for the protection of plants from pests and diseases;
 Practices Introduced: application of microbiological preparations, bioinsectoacaricides,
biofungicides, superparasites, entomophages for protecting annual and perennial crops (cucumber,
tomato, maize, hazelnut, tangerine)
 Implementation area: 14 farms of 8 villages; total area – 6 ha;
2.2 Combat soil erosion through terracing, contour plowing, arrangement of buffer strips, etc.;
 Practices Introduced: Single strip plowing of soil; Arranging buffer strips by linear planting of
perennial crops; Subsequent planting of annual and perennial crops; Extension and dissemination of
draught and wind resisting crop – hybrid maize “Enguri 5”.
 Implementation area – 108 farms of 52 villages; total area – 68ha.
2.3 Assess and analyze the qualitative parameters of agricultural plots;
 Practices Introduced: Large-scale examination of soils; Field examination of soils; Laboratory
analysis of the soil samples; Development of appropriate cartographic materials.
 Implementation Area: 10 farms of 8 villages, total area – 30ha.
2.4 Increase soil productivity by using the processed manure, and other organic fertilizers;
Demonstrate efficiency of organic methods of farming;
 Practices Introduced: Defining soils fertility of the target area; Defining fertility of various types of
manure (raw, processed in the manure storage facilities and bio-gas digesters – biomass, bio-humus
obtained from frame-containers, natural compost and etc.); Assessment of the agricultural crop
productivity as a result of application of the processed manure; Assessment of the agricultural crop
quality/cleanness after application of processed manure;
 Defining nitrate consistence in various layers of soil and ground waters.
 Implementation Area: 64 farms of 28 villages; total area 58ha
EPCP Main activities
1. Environment-friendly agricultural technologies;

19. 2.5. Demonstration and dissemination of efficient practices of bio-mass application to the soil;
 Practices introduced: Defining the nutrient consistence in soils and bio-mass and dosage of
application; Development of simplified methods for bio-mass extraction from the bio-gas digesters
(manual and foot pumps); Production of small-scale machinery (particular tanks) for biomass
transportation and application into the soil; Arranging farmers’ training and demonstration days.
 Implementation Area: 6 farms of 3 villages, total area 4 ha.
2.6 Apply bio-stimulators for the rapid growth of plants;
 Practices introduced: Extraction of bio-stimulating substances from plants and antagonist fungi;
Preliminary treatment of cucumber, tomato, maize seeds by bio-stimulating substances (before
sawing); Assessment of the efficiency of the used bio-stimulators in light of reducing negative
impact of fungi (fuzarioses, verticilioses, and etc); Assessment of the efficiency of the used bio-
stimulators in light of increasing agricultural crop quality (eco-cleanness).
 Implementation Area: 2 farms of one village, total area – 3 ha.
2.7 Increase productivity of the degraded and non-fertile arable lands through. seed rotation,
introduction of new crop varieties, amelioration, etc Implementation Area: 75 farms in 39
village, total area – 95ha.
EPCP Main activities
1. Environment-friendly agricultural technologies;

20. 2.1 Designing and constructing improved manure storage facilities (MSF) and
acquisition of modern manure management practices (collection, processing,
storing and application)
Implementation Area: 540 farms of 38 villages, total area – 324ha.
2.2 Designing and constructing bio-gas digesters (BGD) utilization of bio-gas and
bio-mass, acquisition of modern manure management practices (collection,
processing, storing and application)
Implementation area 272 farms in 56 villages; total area – 163ha
2.3 Development of Individual Nutrient (N and P) Management Plans for
Farmers
Implementation area 220 farmers of 22 villages, total area 132ha
EPCP Main activities
2. Demonstration, extension and dissemination of the
modern practices of manure management

21. memarcvleobis dargSi

23. Practices introduced:
 Developing optimum system for complex investigation of the soil, ground water and river
quality monitoring;
 Developing operational manual for “Quality Control / Safety Precautions to ensure validity
of data;
 Providing sample analyses according to ISO standards;
 Providing the co-relation and regressive analysis of the statistical data;
 Developing diagrams of changes in pollutants
Implementation area: Khobi, Tsalenjikha and Chkhorotsku districts of the Khobistskali river
basin
Frequency of sampling: rivers- monthly, ground waters – biannualy, Soils – seasonally- 4
times during the year.
(Total 2934 samples soils (surface, deep laid layers), surface drained waters, ground waters,
rivers (channel sections, bad loads), crops were taken for 93 times at 100 different places
during 2002-2006 years).
M
3. Environment pollution monitoring: Soil, ground water, drinking
and river water, crop quality monitoring within the Khobistskali river
basin
EPCP Main activities

24. Table of Environmental Pollution indicators:
Soils Rivers Ground Waters
Piezometers Water Wells
_phosphates_ PO4 -
P
_nitrates_ NO3
- N
-pH;
-suspended load
particles
-pH;
- suspended load
particles
-pH;
- suspended load
particles
Heavy metals Cu _ phosphates _ PO4 -
P
_ nitrates _ NO3
- N
_ phosphates _ PO4 -
P
_ nitrates _ NO3
- N
_ phosphates _ PO4 -
P
_ nitrates _ NO3
- N
Heavy metals Cu Heavy metals Cu Heavy metals Cu
Coli index Coli index
oxygen demand oxygen demand
Frequency of sampling: rivers- monthly, ground waters – biannualy, Soils – seasonally- 4
times during the year.

25. 4.1. Methodology for assessing impact of the extended improved agricultural
practices developed.
 Up to 14 828 numerical data obtained from laboratory testing of samples were
subjected to statistical processing and mathematical analysis for evaluating
effectiveness of the adopted good agricultural practices.
4.2 Correlation between adoption of environmentally sustainable agricultural
practices and quality of environment established.
 Co-relation, regressive and factor analysis of the efficiency of activities
implemented under the Program during 2002-2006.
4.3 Impact of applying advanced agricultural practices on the farm productivity
and pollution to the environment at the levels of individual farm units, villages,
river basins and administrative districts assessed.
4. Assessment of impact of improved agricultural practices
on farming efficiency and environment quality.
EPCP Main activities

26. - TV Program on bio-gas digesters, numerously aired video film (in Georgian
and English languages) on a local and rural TV, widely circulated books and
brochures;
- More than 2 500 farmers took part in 200 trainings arranged for 679 farmers
participating in the program and for their neighbors during 2002-2004.
- Recommendations for application of various agricultural technologies for 220
farmers were developed and disseminated
5. Raising awareness and skills of Farmers through trainings,
publications, individual recommendation.
EPCP Main activities

27. 6. Development of National Code of Good agricultural
practices- under development.
Objective
 Provide information on gained experience of agricultural practices to local farmers
and farmers’ associations what will ensure farm sustainability and increase prospects
of efficient selling the product on internal as well as external markets.
 The Code sets recommendations taking into consideration of which will enable
reduction of environmental pollution from agricultural sources by economically and
environmentally efficient ways.
Participants: parties involved in agriculture management, scientific research and
economic activities (public employees, sector specialists and representative of
NGOs)
EPCP Main activities

28. EPCP
Outcomes
A. Gradual reduction of the Black Sea Basin Environment Pollution in parallel
with increased on the farm productivity within the program target area
achieved. (2002-2006)
A (1) As a result of introduction of integrated practicies against soil erosion (terracing,
contour cultivation, construction of buffer zones)
 (a) pollution of the adjacent rivers with suspended load particles (turbidity) and organic
mixtures absorbed by them was reduced;
 (b) an erosion indicator of agricultural soils was reduced by 65.2%;
 (c) productivity of agricultural crops was increased by 29% on average (maize – by 20-
30%, hazelnuts – by 20-25%, soya – by 50%);
 (d) productivity of soil was increased by 25% on average

29. A (2). As a result of performance of agrarian practices soil pollution was dynamically reduced
in 2003-2005.
 Note: samples have been taken from those farmers’ plots where all the activities were performed
EPCP
Outcomes

30. A (3). Nitrate content in agricultural crops was reduced by 30%
on average as a result of biomanure application.
The nitrates content incrops (mg/kg)
Control
2003
2004
2005
Control
2003
2004
2005
Control
2003
2004
2005
Mandarin Maize Potato
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
EPCP
Outcomes

31. A (3.a) . Biomass (manure processed in biogas digesters) application has the
best results in terms of pollution reduction, at the same time the productivity
is quite high in comparison with control samples
Table 1. The productivity and nitrate content (in soil, product and plant) ranking analysis.
(from 1 to 6 in decreasing consistency)
Types of
fertilizers
applied
Soil pollution Plant
pollution
Product
pollution
productivity
biomass 6 6 6 3
manure 5 5 5 4-5
Slurry manure 4 4 4 6
manure (80%)
+ NPK (20%)
2-3 1 2-3 2
biomass (80%)
+ NPK (20%)
2-3 2-3 2-3 1
NPK 1 2-3 1 4-5
A (3.b.) By the correlation of biomass and NPK to 4/1 the best yields are achievable though
the pollution extent remains comparatively high.
EPCP
Outcomes

32. A (4). As a result of application of technologies for increase of productivity ofA (4). As a result of application of technologies for increase of productivity of
degraded and low fertile agricultural land plots (seed rotation, introduction of newdegraded and low fertile agricultural land plots (seed rotation, introduction of new
crops, drainage etc) thecrops, drainage etc) the soil fertility was increased by 22%soil fertility was increased by 22% on average,on average, productivityproductivity
was increased by 30% and nitrat content was reduced by 28.5%.was increased by 30% and nitrat content was reduced by 28.5%.
Table 2. Environment friendly agricultural technologies impact analasys:
Project name Increase of
Soil
fertility
Average
increase of
productivity
of
agricultural
crops %
Average amount of mineral
fertilizers withdrawn from
application
Reduction of
nitrate content
in agricultural
crops %
Resulted
saving
GEL
Reduction
of erosion
indicator
%
From a farm
of each
farmer
kg/year
Per ha
kg
Increase of soil fertility by
processed manure application
10-15 21-27 450 300-350 15,5 600
Increase of productivity of
degraded and low fertile
agricultural land plots (seed
rotation, introduction of new
crops, drainage)
20-25 30 0,89 350-375 28,5 192-240
Perfomance of soil erosion
control activities (terracing,
countour cultivation,
construction of buffer zones
etc).
30-40 29 65,2
EPCP
Outcomes

33. A (5). River Pollution Reduction Dynamics 2002-2006
In the Khobistskhali River basin the regular reduction of pollution of main rivers of the
basin with NO3 and PO4 organic parameters was in progress from 2002 through 2005;
drawing 3. the Chogha River, NO3 drawing 4. Chogha River, PO4
EPCP
Outcomes
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0,00
0,03
0,06
PO4(mg/l)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
1
4
7
10
NO3(mg/l)

34. B. Developed Methodology for assessing impact of the
extended improved agricultural practices;
B (6). The general methodology for selection of modern agro-technologies
and optimal values for their parameters is being developed for sustainable
development of farms;
Methodology enables us to select an optimal technology for each particular
condition (soil, area, inputs, prices, etc) in terms of economical and
ecological efficiency.
EPCP Outcomes

35. EPCP Outcomes
C. Established correlation between adoption of environmentally
sustainable agricultural practices and quality of environment
C(7) Correlation of the nutrient content in soil
 hydrolyzed nitrogen and digestible potassium contents in soil have similar
growth and reduction tendency;
 possitive correlation between phosphorus contents digestible in soil in spring
and autumn;
 possitive correlation between hydrolyzed nitrogen contents as well as
between digestible potassium contents in soil in spring and autumn;
 negative correlation between the hydrolyzed nitrogen content digestible in
spring and the phosphorus content digestible in autumn and between
phosphorus content digestible in spring and the hydrolyzed nitrogen content
digestible in automn.
.

36. C(8) correlation between environmental components
 fluctuation of river pollution coincides with the fluctuation of pollution of soil surface layers
and fluctuation of ground water pollution is similar to the fluctualtion of the deep-laid soil layers
 possitive correlation between the ground water and soil pollutions, in particular the correlation
between the piezometer water and soil surface layer pollutions amounts to 0.76 having 0.95
probability
C (9) Correlation between nutrient content in soil and yeild amount (productivity)
 Yields of maize and tomato change similarly i.e. smilarly depend on hydrolyzed nitrogen and
digestible potassium contents in soil.
 Maize and tomato yield (productivity) functionally depend on hydrolyzed nitrogen and
digestible potassium contents in soil i autumn.
 Productivity (yield) of citrus per land plot lineary depends on the amount of fertilzers applied.
 Posssitive correlation between the nitrate contents in maize, cucumber and tomato i.e. the
higher the nitrate contents in one crop the higher it is in the other crops and vice versa.
EPCP Outcomes
C. Established correlation between adoption of environmentally
sustainable agricultural practices and quality of environment

37. EEEPCP
Socio - Economical Impact
•As a result of operating MSFs and BGDS during 2002-2006, 842 farms of the Black
Sea Coastal Region obtained 6,850 – 7,830 tons of organic fertilizer per year, that led
to decreased soil and water pollution from 25 – 27 tons of mineral fertilizers used
annually in the past. 272 Farmers that acquired BGDs started to produce 180 – 200 m3
of methane annually that can be used as a substitute for 900-1000 m3
of fuelwood.
• Annual savings of farmers stimulated by gradual substitution of mineral fertilizers
with organics obtained from on-farm processing of manure and other wastes, made up
about 200 GEL per annum, while expenditures for mineral fertilizers, firewood and
liquid gas reduced by 600 GEL owing to the use of bio-gas and bio-mass produced in
bio-digesters.

38. EPCP
Socio - Economical Impact
 The neighbors of target farmers also benefit from Biodigesters using the extra
biomass in their land plots. Cases of making of profit by selling of biomass have
been also observed.
 Increased demand for novelties among farmers was resulted in expansion of the
Program coverage and program activities over additional districts of the Black Sea
coastal zone (Zugdidi, Lanchkhuti, Ozurgeti, Kobuleti, and Khelvachauri).
• Georgian farmers from different regions of the country and various international
organizations operating in Georgia (GTZ, USAID, UMCOR, MERCY CORPS,
CARE) have demonstrated interest in BGDs of the mentioned design and started
constructing them in a number of districts. Notwithstanding of the high costs about
20 farmers installed the BDGs at their own expense

39.  Increased local capacity and skills of about ten construction
companies,increased number of employed local inhabitants. (Totally 2040
individuals employed).
 Increased number of research institutions, construction and consulting companies
NGOs (including local), researchers, specialists (including local) and farmers
(direct and indirect beneficiaries) participating in the program.
 The interest and willingness of local governments to contribute to the project
have been increased. The Adjarian government financed 10% of construction
60 biogas digesters in 2002-2006.
 Political Support strengthened: The Presidential National Program of 2006
envisages implementation of activities for support of introduction of biogas
digesters.
EPCP
Socio - Economical Impact

40. EPCP
Lessons Learned
• Adoption of advanced agricultural practices takes changing of farmers’
behavioral pattern that is usually deeply entrenched; on-farm activities is the
best way to demonstrate to farmers the economic and environmental advantages
of sustainable agricultural practices;
• proved importance and urgency of developing and extending recommendations
on the proper application of fertilizers (organic and non-organic); necessity to
take into consideration an agro-chemical condition of each land plot before
introduction of the selected agro-ecological technology in specific farms.
• consequent accumulation of more statistical data and Ensuring continuity of
the established monitoring schemes, (resulted from increased number of control
points and stability of monitoring in terms of timing and placing of control points)
would allow detecting with a higher precision the causative relations between
Program interventions and its outcomes.
• Results of a cause- and – effect (correlative, regressive, factor) analysis enables
us to (a) objective evaluate efficiency of the agro-technologies introduced and (b)
increase liability of fair control over proper implementation of agro-technologies
and monitoring.

41.  Direct economic benefit of application of the environment friendly
technologies is the issue of crucial interest to the farmers; like gas and
manure produced by biogas digesters, increased lands, resulted from the
application of terracing practices etc.
 Low awareness of farmers remains as the most significant problems
encountered. There is a need for performance of regular trainings more
widely.
 Successful implementation of the program is in many respects conditioned by
participitation and support of varios stakeholders, e.i. NGOs,.local
administrations, donors, academicians etc.
EPCP
Lessons Learned

42. Environmental Pollution Control Program
Prospective

43. Environmental Pollution Control Program
Thanks for your
attention!
Georgia, 2006.