




































Georgian Geographical Journal 

79 
 

 

Protected Areas Policy and Geopolitics in 

Georgia: Convergence of Ecological 

Governance and Spatial Strategy 
Tamar Chichinadze1,* , Khatuna Tsiklauri2  
1 Vakhushti Bagrationi Institute of Geography, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State 

University, Tbilisi, Georgia 

2 National EnvironmentAgency, Ministry of Environment and Agriculture of 
Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia 
* Corresponding author: tamar.chichinadze@tsu.ge 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Georgia, with its unique geographical location and rich natural resources, is an important region where 
nature conservation policies and geopolitical strategies are closely linked. The system of protected 
areas, which includes national parks and reserves, aims to preserve biodiversity, protect ecosystems, 
and promote sustainable development (Paichadze, 2014). 

Abstract 

The history of the protection of natural areas in Georgia dates back centuries. 

As early as the 12th century, Queen Tamar issued royal decrees aimed at 

safeguarding specific natural territories. Five hundred years later, Vakhtang 

VI’s “Collection of Laws” identified the Korugi territory as a protected area, 

where logging and unregulated access were prohibited and the site was 

guarded. In mountainous regions, so-called “Khati forests” functioned as 

strictly protected sacred reserves. The first official state reserve was 

established in 1912 in Kakheti with the foundation of the Lagodekhi Reserve. 

During the 20th century, the network of reserves and protected areas gradually 

expanded throughout the territory of Georgia (BUDE, Protected Areas of 

Georgia, 2007). Following the restoration of independence, the policy of 

protected areas acquired new significance, shifting toward sustainable 

development, tourism, local community involvement, and alignment with 

international standards. The geopolitical dimension of this process is 

particularly important. Protected areas are no longer perceived solely as 

instruments of environmental protection; they have become mechanisms of 

spatial management and determinants of state interests. Georgia’s 

geographical location at the crossroads of Eurasia, where ecological, 

economic, and political boundaries intersect, makes nature conservation 

closely linked to territorial strategy. The interplay between ecological 

governance and geopolitics has become especially evident in recent years, as 

the state has introduced new formats, including geoparks, into the framework 

of protected area policy. As an international instrument, geoparks integrate 

the conservation of natural and cultural heritage with education, sustainable 

tourism, and geopolitical identity. In this way, ecological governance in 

Georgia is gradually transforming into a spatial strategy that intertwines 

environmental, economic, and diplomatic interests. Analyzing these 

processes provides insight into how protected area policy has evolved into a 

key aspect of geopolitical thinking, demonstrating how environmental 

protection goals intersect with state representation and regional dynamics. 

This paper examines the theoretical foundations of this convergence and its 

impact on contemporary nature protection policy in Georgia. 

Keywords: Protected Areas, Geoparks, Ecological Governance, Spatial 

Strategy, Geopolitics, Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Development. 

Citation: Chichinadze, T.; Tsiklauri, K. 

Protected Areas Policy and Geopolitics in 

Georgia: Convergence of Ecological 

Governance and Spatial Strategy. 

Georgian Geographical Journal 2025, 

5(3), 79-85. 

https://doi.org/10.52340/ggj.2025.05.03.09 

 

Georgian Geographical Journal, 2025, 5(3) 79-85 

© The Author(s) 2025 

 
This article is an open access article distributed under 

the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).  

DOI: 
https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GGJ 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-3485
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0467-8684


Chichinadze & Tsiklauri. 2025 5(3) 

80 
 

Geoparks, as a new concept, are a tool for protecting geoheritage and developing geotourism. In 
addition, they contribute to the economic development of local communities and the strengthening of 
geopolitical identity (Zhuang A., 2024). 

The integration of ecological governance and spatial strategy is an important aspect of modern nature 
conservation policy. This approach involves not only protecting natural resources, but also ensuring 

their sustainable use, which includes the creation of ecological corridors, the assessment of ecosystem 
services, and the consideration of natural factors in spatial planning processes (Elizbarashvili, 2019). 

The development of a network of protected areas in Georgia requires consideration of not only 
ecological, but also social and economic factors. It is important to involve local communities, take into 
account their needs and interests, so that protected areas do not become just a tool for nature protection, 
but also a platform for sustainable development (Elizbarashvili, 2019). 

The development of geoparks in Georgia is an important part of this process. Geoparks are not only a 

tool for protecting geoheritage, but also contribute to the promotion of local cultural and natural 
heritage, which has a positive impact on the development of tourism and the strengthening of the local 
economy (Elizbarashvili, 2021). 

It is important to note, however, that the policy of protected areas and geoparks should not be isolated. 
There should be close coordination and cooperation between them to ensure the effective management 
and sustainable use of natural resources. An important role in this process is assigned to state 
institutions, international organizations and local communities. 

This article will discuss the interdependence of the policy of protected areas and the development of 

geoparks in Georgia. Special attention will be paid to the processes of integration of ecological 
governance and spatial strategy, their impact on nature conservation policy and sustainable 
development prospects. 

Georgia’s Context and Political Evolution  

Protected areas policy in Georgia has gradually evolved since the restoration of independence, 
addressing the legacy of Soviet centralized governance while adapting to new environmental 
challenges. The Law on the System of Protected Territories (Parliament of Georgia, 1996) established 
the legal basis for the creation and functioning of protected areas, integrating the principles of 
sustainable development and the protection of both natural and cultural heritage. The subsequent Law 

on the Status of Protected Areas (Kakabadze, 2012) and complementary legal acts refined definitions, 
zoning, and management procedures. 

In recent years, the Georgian government has worked to strengthen governance mechanisms, develop 
long-term management plans, and enhance local community involvement. The first management plans 
in Georgia were developed for the Borjomi-Kharagauli, Lagodekhi, and Vashlovani Protected Areas, 
establishing the foundation for integrated conservation planning. In 2022, updated management plans 
were approved for the Borjomi-Kharagauli Protected Areas, Ktsia-Tabatskuri Managed Reserve, and 

Goderdzi Phosphorized Forest Natural Monument, integrating natural and cultural values, ecotourism 
potential, traditional livelihoods, and ecosystem services (Georgian Government, 2022). 

International Commitments and Global Framework: 

 Georgia’s protected areas policy is closely aligned with international environmental frameworks. The 
country is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which calls for the expansion 
of protected area networks and the implementation of ecosystem-based management principles (MEPA, 
2018) Georgia is also a party to the Ramsar Convention, which defines the mechanisms for the 
protection of wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Secretariat, 2018),  

Furthermore, Georgia participates in the UNESCO World Heritage and Emerald Network programs, 

which integrate the country into European biogeographical conservation systems (Council of Europe, 
1979; Council of Europe, 2019; UNESCO, 2023). These frameworks support not only nature 
conservation but also the protection of cultural landscapes and the strengthening of mutual trust in 
regional cooperation (Council of Europe, 2019; UNESCO, 2023). 

The Growing Role of Geoparks and Spatial Strategy 

 Geoparks have recently become a vital extension of Georgia’s protected areas policy - serving as 
platforms for the convergence of ecological, cultural, and geopolitical objectives. Research indicates 
that Georgia has multiple potential geopark areas that could serve simultaneously as environmental, 
educational, and economic assets (Gamkrelidze, 2021). 



Chichinadze & Tsiklauri. 2025 5(3) 

81 
 

Potential locations for conservation and geotourism initiatives include the Racha region, Samegrelo 
(Tsalenjikha, village Mukhuri), Kakheti, Javakheti, Kvemo Kartli, and Kazbegi. Significant natural 
features such as the Vashlovani Protected Areas with the “Areuli” erosion complex, paleontological 
objects of elephants and mollusks, Takhti-Tepa volcano, and the Lagodekhi Protected Areas with two 
large waterfalls, a high mountain lake, and gorges have been documented in previous conservation 

reports (Council of Europe, 2020). In addition, the Dariali Glacier Complex National Geopark 
represents both national natural heritage and opportunities for transboundary cooperation. Geopark 
initiatives are particularly promising in Samtskhe-Javakheti, Kvemo Kartli, and Kakheti—regions 
where natural and cultural heritage are closely intertwined with border geopolitics. 

Challenges and Development Pathways: The convergence between protected areas policy and 
geopolitics in Georgia is accompanied by a complex set of systemic, institutional, and spatial challenges 
that directly determine the effectiveness of the country’s ecological governance. 

The first and perhaps most critical issue concerns the deficit in protection effectiveness. Although the 
total area of protected territories in Georgia has expanded considerably in recent years, internal 
management remains largely formalistic. Many areas of high endemic and ecological value are still 
outside the official protected areas network or receive only nominal protection - the so-called “paper 
parks.” Research demonstrates that a significant portion of high conservation value (HCV) areas 
remains vulnerable to the combined pressures of climate change, unsustainable land use, and the spread 
of invasive species (Slodowicz, 2018). Simultaneously, intensive natural resource exploitation - 
including logging, mining, and hydropower development - often conflicts with the principles of 

ecological sustainability. This highlights the urgent need for comprehensive spatial planning and the 
full application of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) across all development sectors. And the 
boundaries and information of geoparks need to be included in the strategic development documents of 
the regions and the management plans of the administrations of protected areas and the strategic plans 
for the development of protected areas of Georgia. 

The second challenge lies in legal and institutional inconsistencies. Despite the existence of a 
comprehensive legal framework, management structures in Georgia still suffer from fragmentation. The 

Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture, the Forestry Agency, and the Agency of 
Protected Areas maintain overlapping mandates, complicating the implementation of unified policies. 
Land tenure and delineation remain legally ambiguous - particularly in emerging initiatives such as the 
Erusheti National Park, where community property rights continue to lack clear legal definition (MEPA, 
2023). Furthermore, the limited involvement of local populations in decision-making processes 
generates a deficit of trust and slows the democratization of environmental governance. 

A third difficulty involves financial and technical constraints. Funding for protected area management 

continues to rely heavily on international donor assistance, which undermines long-term sustainability. 
The lack of basic infrastructure - including access roads, monitoring stations, and educational centers - 
hampers the development of sustainable tourism and environmental education. Under these 
circumstances, the establishment of a national and transboundary geopark network emerges as a key 
opportunity for economic diversification, linking nature conservation, tourism, and cultural heritage 
within an integrated management framework. 

The fourth and increasingly relevant dimension pertains to geopolitical and transboundary 
complexities. Georgia’s geographic position within the South Caucasus - a region marked by political 

sensitivities and competing interests - creates both opportunities and constraints for cross-border 
environmental cooperation. The establishment of transboundary geoparks, such as David Gareja–
Gobustan (Georgia–Azerbaijan) and Javakheti-Arpi (Georgia–Armenia) (Ten years ago, the country 
began working with Azerbaijan to create the Lagodekhi-Zakatala transboundary protected area). 
requires mutual trust, functional coordination mechanisms, and clear legal agreements. Yet, ongoing 
border delimitation issues with Azerbaijan and differing legal regimes with Armenia pose tangible 
challenges to implementation. Meanwhile, participation in the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network 

demands adherence to international standards that integrate geological heritage protection, education, 
and community-based development (Eder, 2019). 

A fifth emerging challenge involves the intensifying impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures, 
altered precipitation patterns, and the increased frequency of extreme weather events have created new 
environmental threats, particularly in mountainous and semi-arid regions. Existing management plans 
often lack climate adaptation and risk assessment components, limiting their resilience and long-term 
effectiveness  (IUCN, 2020). However, it is noteworthy that over the past 3 years, the management 



Chichinadze & Tsiklauri. 2025 5(3) 

82 
 

plans of 7 protected area administrations have included information and planned activities on climate 
change, adaptation, and mitigation measures. 

From a development perspective, Georgia must transition toward an integrated governance model that 
unites nature conservation, geopolitical stability, and socio-economic sustainability. Key strategic 
priorities include: 

1. Implementation of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to improve monitoring and 
spatial decision-making; 

2. Enhanced community engagement in the management of national parks and geoparks; 
3. Institutionalization of transboundary cooperation, especially in southern and eastern 

regions; 
4. Expansion of educational and research programs to strengthen national expertise and 

capacity. 

Ultimately, the path forward for Georgia’s protected areas policy and geopolitics depends on the 
country’s ability to transform its management paradigm from one of “regulatory protection” toward a 
model of “shared socio-ecological stewardship.” In this model, conservation goals are embedded within 
spatial strategies and cross-border cooperation, turning natural heritage into both an environmental and 
geopolitical asset. 

1. Policy and Governance Dimensions 

The evolution of Georgia’s protected areas system reflects a gradual transition from a conservation 
model rooted in post-Soviet environmental management to a modern governance framework that 
integrates sustainability, participation, and spatial equity. While early institutional efforts were focused 

primarily on biodiversity preservation, recent reforms have expanded the political and social role of 
protected areas as instruments of regional development and environmental diplomacy (Dudley, 2018; 
IUCN, 2020). 

The establishment of large-scale management plans, the inclusion of cultural landscapes, and the 
increased attention to ecosystem services all mark a shift toward more adaptive and inclusive 
management paradigms. However, despite these improvements, governance effectiveness remains 
limited by overlapping administrative mandates, fragmented coordination between agencies, and 
inconsistent implementation of international obligations (MEPA, 2023). 

2. The Geopolitical Perspective 

The geopolitical dimension of protected areas in Georgia extends beyond ecological management. It 
encompasses the strategic use of territory in maintaining sovereignty, facilitating cross-border relations, 
and stabilizing frontier regions. In this regard, Georgia’s location between the Black and Caspian seas 
and along the South Caucasus corridor creates a unique interface between conservation, national 
identity, and regional security (Eder F, 2019). Protected areas situated near borders - such as 
Vashlovani, Lagodekhi, and Javakheti - serve as both ecological buffers and symbolic representations 
of state presence. The management of these territories must, therefore, balance environmental priorities 
with geopolitical sensitivities. In regions adjacent to disputed or sensitive borders, protected areas often 

function as instruments of “soft diplomacy,” fostering cooperation through ecological science, cultural 
exchange, and shared management frameworks (Council of Europe, 2019). 

Yet, the potential for cross-border collabora.tion is uneven. Relations with Armenia are relatively 
stable and institutionally supported, making transboundary cooperation - particularly within the 
Javakheti-Arpi ecological complex - more feasible. Conversely, the Georgian-Azerbaijani frontier 
remains politically sensitive, constraining the development of the David Gareja-Gobustan Geopark 
concept, despite its exceptional cultural and geomorphological potential. 

3. The Role of Geoparks in Policy and Spatial Strategy 

Geoparks in the contemporary world represent a significant instrument that integrates environmental 

governance, regional development, and cultural diplomacy. They create a bridge between nature 
conservation, education, and sustainable tourism, while in border regions they often facilitate political 
cooperation. 

In Georgia, several areas are identified as important for geopark planning, with the Racha region being 
one of the most significant. Located in the northwestern part of Georgia on the southern slopes of the 
Great Caucasus, Racha represents a prospective segment for geopark development. The region has 
undergone geomorphological zoning and comprehensive relief studies, with the central part featuring 



Chichinadze & Tsiklauri. 2025 5(3) 

83 
 

Cambrian and Paleozoic crystalline substrates (gneisses, migmatites, crystalline schists) and granitoid 
intrusions of varying ages. The Great Caucasus and higher massifs are composed of granitoid, gneissic, 
and metamorphic schists, the oldest rocks (600 million years) are observed in the highest peaks. Due to 
hypsometric effects, the age of rocks decreases in the lower areas (70–30 million years) (Chichinadze, 
2022). 

The geological structure of Racha shapes karstic, erosional-denudational, volcanic, and periglacial 
reliefs, including caves, valleys, canyons, glacial and rocky lakes, waterfalls, deep gorges, and mineral 
springs. This diversity has significantly influenced the formation of ancient settlements and cultural 
development in the region, particularly near the sources of the Rioni River, where natural deposits of 
iron, gold, and copper supported early human societies. 

A particularly important component of the geopark planning is the microzone of viticulture and 
winemaking, where traditional vineyards and wine production practices have maintained economic and 

cultural significance from the past to the present. In addition, the Upper Racha archaeological sites - 
Oni, Brili, Tevresho, and Ghebi - contribute additional cultural value and provide opportunities for 
integrated cultural tourism within the geopark (Chichinadze, 2021). 

Regarding cross-border regional cooperation, the Kakheti-Shaki-Zagatala region stands out for its 
high biodiversity and rich cultural heritage. Existing protected areas (Lagodekhi Protected Area, 
Zagatala State Reserve) and territorial stability provide a solid foundation for the creation of a joint 
geopark, promoting sustainable tourism, scientific collaboration, and strengthening cross-border trust. 

The Javakheti and Arpi Plateau represents a potential cross-border geopark aimed at conserving 

volcanic and lake ecosystems within the framework of Georgia-Armenia cooperation. 
All of these initiatives integrate ecological, social, and political objectives, supporting tourism, local 

community engagement, education, and sustainable development strategies. International experience 
confirms the effectiveness of such approaches: in Europe, the Teruel–Aliagas Geopark (Spain) and the 
Hațeg Geopark (Romania) combine nature conservation, multi-sectoral governance, and active local 
community participation. 

Georgia's geopolitical realities, particularly border restrictions with Azerbaijan, require an adapted 

governance model. The optimal approach may involve a hybrid structure that simultaneously integrates 
national coordination and bilateral technical committees. This model creates a realistic basis for the 
development of transboundary geoparks and facilitates a safe, sustainable, and cooperation-based 
spatial strategy. 

5. Toward a Georgian Model of Geopark Governance 

Based on comparative European experiences and Georgia’s own institutional context, an optimal 
national model for geopark governance would combine the following principles: 

1. Polycentric management — a framework where local, regional, and national authorities share 
decision-making responsibilities; 

2. Participatory governance — ensuring meaningful engagement of communities, universities, 
and NGOs in management processes; 

3. Scientific integration — involving research institutions in geological mapping, monitoring, 
and risk assessment; 

4. Cross-border coordination mechanisms — bilateral working groups or joint commissions 
for data sharing and heritage protection; 

5. Economic diversification — aligning geopark strategies with regional development and eco-

tourism planning. 
Such a model would enable Georgia to strengthen its environmental diplomacy and position itself as 

a regional leader in sustainable landscape governance. The geopark initiative, if effectively 
institutionalized, could become a symbol of cooperation across political boundaries and a new 
dimension of “green geopolitics” in the South Caucasus. 

 
Conclusion 

In conclusion, the history of protected areas in Georgia spans more than a century. The evolution of 

the policy reflects a shift from post-Soviet conservation practices to an adaptive model that integrates 
ecological protection, sustainable development, and geopolitical awareness. Protected areas now 
encompass a diverse range of natural and geological features, many of which have the status of natural 
monuments. 

 



Chichinadze & Tsiklauri. 2025 5(3) 

84 
 

In addition to their primary functions of protection and management, these areas support scientific 
research, environmental education, public engagement, and institutional collaboration. Such activities 
highlight the growing convergence between traditional protected area management and geopark 
initiatives, highlighting their common principles, complementary goals, and potential for integrated 
conservation and sustainable development. 

Overall, Georgia’s protected areas continue to serve not only as reserves of biodiversity and 
geodiversity, but also as strategic spaces where ecological, cultural, and diplomatic interests intersect. 
This combination of natural and geological heritage creates a solid foundation for future geopark 
programs, while maintaining conservation mandates and strengthening the country’s role in regional 
cooperation and environmental governance. 

Competing interests 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Authors’ contribution 

Both authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and manuscript. 

ORCID iD 

Tamar Chichinadze https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-3485 

Khatuna Tsiklauri https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0467-8684 

Reference 

BUDE, Protected Areas of Georgia. (2007). Tbilisi. 

Chichinadze T. (2021, November 17). The Role of Traditional Viticulture and Winemaking in the Development 

of the Geopark in Racha Region. Open Journal of Applied Sciences. 

Chichinadze T. (2022, March 10). Geomorphological structure and geological evolution of the Racha region. 

Open Journal of Geology, pp. 179-187. 

Council of Europe. (1979). Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern 

Convention). Bern: Council of Europe. 

Council of Europe. (2019). Cross-border cooperation and environmental governance in the South Caucasus. 

Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

Council of Europe. (2019). Emerald Network and UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Georgia. Council of 

Europe. 

Council of Europe. (2019). merald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest: Progress and 

Implementation Report. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. 

Council of Europe. (2020). Report on the on-the-spot expert appraisal of the Vashlovani Protected Areas. 

Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

Dudley N., S. S. (2018). The role of protected areas in governance and sustainable development. London: 

Routledge. 

E., K. (2012). Protected areas of Georgia situational analysis. Georgia. 

Eder F. (2019). Transboundary geoparks and international cooperation: Challenges and best practices. Global 

Geoparks Journal, 8(2), 45–62. 

Eder F. (2019). Transboundary geoparks and international cooperation: Challenges and best practices. Global 

Geoparks Journal, 45–62. 

Elizbarashvili N., D. G. (2019, March). Selection principles and focuses of landscape planning of protected 

areas. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, pp. Pages 33-44. 

Elizbarashvili N., L. N. (2021). Geographical Diversity of Georgia and Perspectives of Planning of Geoparks 

(Geo Heritages). Springer. 

Elizbarashvili N., M. G. (2015, July 1). Some Urgent Issues of Georgia's Geography. Earth Sciences, 2328-

5974. 

Gamkrelidze R., O. N. (2021). Potential Geoparks of Georgia: Environmental, Cultural, and Economic 

Opportunities. Springer Nature. 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-3485
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0467-8684


Chichinadze & Tsiklauri. 2025 5(3) 

85 
 

Georgia, M. o. (2018). CBD Fourth National Report – Georgia. Tbilisi: Secretariat of the Convention on 

Biological Diversity (CBD). 

Georgia, P. o. (1996). Law on the System of Protected Territories. Tbilisi: Parliament of Georgia. Retrieved 

from https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/geo22866ENG.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com: 

https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/geo22866ENG.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com 

Georgian Government . (2022). Management Plans for Specific Protected Areas. Tbilisi: Georgian government.  

IUCN. (2020). Climate change and protected areas: Guidance for resilient management. Gland, Switzerland: 

IUCN. 

IUCN. (2020). Climate change and protected areas: Guidance for resilient management. Gland, Switzerland: 

IUCN. 

MEPA. (2023). Report on protected areas and community engagement in national parks. Tbilisi: MEPA. 

MEPA. (2023). Report on protected areas and community engagement in national parks. Tbilisi: MEPA. 

Paichadze, L. M. (2014). Ecological Corridors and Spatial Organization for Protected Areas of the Small 

Caucasus, Georgia. GeoConference on ECOLOGY, ECONOMICS, EDUCATION AND 

LEGISLATION. Bulgaria, Albena: SGEM. 

Ramsar Secretariat. (2018). National Report of Georgia to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Ramsar: 

Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 

Slodowicz L., K. R. (2018). High conservation value areas under threat: Assessment of biodiversity and land use 

pressures. Journal of Environmental Management, 215, 100–112. 

UNESCO. (2023). World Heritage List and Programmes Overview. Paris, France: UNESCO. 

Zhuang A., S. A. (2024, June 14). The complex governance of protected areas: Insights from geoheritage and 

geopark management in China. Environmental Policy and Governance: Volume 34, Issue 6, pp. pp. 679-

690. 


