integrated and participatory approach to revegetate village ecosystems in karnataka for carbon sink...
Post on 13-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Integrated And Participatory Approach To Revegetate Village Ecosystems In Karnataka For
Carbon Sink Enhancement And Biodiversity Conservation Through Sustained Livelihood
Development
Dr. M.H. SwaminathConservator of Forests
Karnataka Forest Department
WESTERN GHATS REGION – FEATURES
Western Ghats is a “megadiversity hotspot” in India
Area: 14 Mha with Forest area of 5.3 Mha
Large biodiversity
Flora (3500 species)
Fauna (48 genera of mammals, 275 genera of birds,
60 species of reptiles)
Watershed for several rivers
Provides NTFPs and livelihood to large population
Forest conservation is effectively implemented but forest
degradation continues
PROJECT AREA Western Ghats Region Kanara Circle 3 Forest Divisions Representing:
I Coastal Forest Ecosystem (Evergreen & Semi-evergreen forest type)
II Ghats or Mountain or Hill Ecosystem (Moist deciduous forest type)
III Dry Forest or Plain Ecosystem (Dry deciduous forest type)
Project Area: I. Coastal Ecosystem: 30 villages II. Hill Ecosystem: 30 villages III. Plain Ecosystem: 30 villages
OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT“Develop, implement and disseminate integrated and participatory
approach to revegetate village ecosystems for enhancing sustained
flow of benefits to the local communitiesTo enhance carbon stock and biodiversity in different land components of village ecosystems in the Western Ghats region
To enhance bio-resource supply to village communities to improve incomes and livelihoods
To develop and disseminate integrated village ecosystem revegetation package to different regions of the Western Ghats
To develop sustainable participatory institutions and build capacity, and
Participatory Monitoring for Biodiversity Conservation.
BASELINE SCENARIO
Forest degradation due to biomass demand and to a small extent demand for land for conversion.
Afforestation, social forestry, implemented on significant scale in the Kanara circle.
Dominated by fuelwood model, dominated by fast growing species such as Acacia auriculiformis.
Focus is largely on degraded forest land (Reserve Forest & Minor Forest lands).
Biodiversity or carbon sequestration is not the focus. JFM implemented in about 336 out of 1283 villages in the district.
Community participation limited to decisions on; revegetation system, species choice, protection etc.
Capacity building activities limited to VFC members and FD staff.
Contd….
Productivity (carbon sequestration) rate low for afforested area.
Current level of incentives inadequate for sustaining community
participation
Inadequate focus on NTFP species
Inadequate focus on NTFP processing, fuelwood conservation
devices etc.
Lack of integrated approach to revegetation or biodiversity
conservation
Inadequate resource for sustained institution and capacity
building activities.
GEF PROJECT SCENARIO – FEATURES
1. Integrated “Village Ecosystem” approach to revegetation of all land categories; forest, village commons, private forest, dryland, irrigated land, temple land, school compound, stream and pond fore shore area.
2. Focus on enhancing a. biodiversity
b. sequestering carbon in vegetation (biomass) and soil and
c. flow of forest products
3. Participatory approach to involve the stakeholders relevant to each land category in decisions on area to be planted, species choice etc. Community forest: Village assembly Temple land: Temple committee Farm land: Farmers School land: School teacher/School committee
Contd...
4. Strengthening existing and developing new institutions for
protection, management, participation in different activities
5. Building capacity for; village community, women, farmers,
NGOs, Forest Dept. staff to enable and empower them for
effective participation.
6. Developing information package on “Integrated and
participatory approach to revegetation of village ecosystem” and
its dissemination for replication.
Innovative aspects of the project Integrated village ecosystem revegetation approach
including forest and non-forest land categories through participatory approach
Focus on conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and flow of economic benefits of different stakeholders through decreasing dependence on forests enhanced planting of native species in different land use
systems biodiversity conservation through landscape approach,
e.x. water bodies, agroecosystems etc. enhancement of productivity through SMC measures,
innovative silvicultural interventions, intensive management on both forest and non-forest categories
enhancing the local need resources through sustained resource use in forest lands creation of resources in non-forest lands including private lands value addition at the local level improved market infrastructure empowerment and equity through innovative institutional
mechanisms
Intensive institutional and capacity building for sustaining participation
Information package development and dissemination
SUSTAINING BIODIVERSITY, CARBON SEQUESTERED AND FLOW OF BENEFITS
INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS Strong participatory institutions with capacity to manage
ecosystem resources developed Awareness and capacity built
Women groups created under the project will ensure sustainability of activities to ensure sustained flow of benefits
FD and NGOs will create appropriate institutions and incentives to enable project sustainability
ECONOMIC FACTORS Regeneration and planting of economically valuable tree and non-
tree species will provide forest products and income, creating a stake for different stakeholders
Contd...
Biodiversity and carbon sequestered on farmlands, around
temples and water bodies are unlikely to be felled, ensuring
sustenance of local benefits
TENURIAL AND POLICY CHANGES
Policy changes to ensure secure tenure for stakeholders
Financial management by local community
2 VillgesIntensive study
Andle & Bole
30 Villages
Karw ar & HonnavarForest Division
Coastal Ecosystem(Evergreen,
Sem i-evergreen forests)
2 VillgesIntensive study
Mogegaru &Kallur-Hosalli
30 Villages
Sirsi Forest Division
Hill Ecosystem s(Sem i-evergreen and
Moist deciduous)
2 VillgesIntensive studyChibbalageri &
Adike-Hosur
30 Villages
Haliayal Forest Division
Plain Ecosystem(M oist Deciduous and
Dry deciduous)
Forest Circle - KanaraUttara Kannada
Sampling framework
FIELD STUDY METHODS AND SAMPLING
Adikehosuru &Chibbalageri
Kanara Circle
Coastal ES Karwar &
Ankola Division
Hill ESSirsi Division
Plain ESHaliyal Division
Cluster of 30villages
Cluster of 30villages
Cluster of 30villages
- Landuse survey- Socio-economic studies- Afforestation
Andle & BoleKallur &
Maggegaru
- Detailed 100% landuse measurements- Census householdsurvey- Stakeholder consultationon revegetation- GIS maps of land use,vegetation, biodiversity,soil C
Biodiversity and carbon stock in major land use categories for three sample villages in threeecosystems
Coastal Ecosystem Hill Ecosystem Plain EcosystemLanduse categoryAndle Bole Mogagaru Kallur-
HosalliChibbalageri Adike-
HosurAgro-EcosystemNumber of Species 13 50 85 67 47 35Density/ha 95.6 160 926 205 402 149Basal area/ha 3.22 7.88 185.18 12.08 53.1 26.88Carbon Stock (t/ha) 7.89 24.42 653.4 39.3 184.8 91.83Homestead GardensNumber of Species 67 64 99 - - 24Density/ha 138.3 722 124.7 - - 260Basal area/ha 13.73 28.11 61.45 - - 38.88Carbon Stock (t/ha) 45.15 96.17 214.45 134.4ForestNumber of Species 43 10 55 8 30 20Density/ha 258 112 262 106 239 600Basal area/ha 9.54 2.62 18.2 7.15 5.1 19.44Carbon Stock (t/ha) 30.3 5.75 61.02 21.82 14.54 65.41Private/privileged ForestsNumber of Species 23 5 54 40 26 -Density/ha 578 80 564 308 804 -Basal area/ha 5.92 9.12 9.14 17.47 16.8 -Carbon Stock (t/ha) 17.45 28.65 28.87 58.42 56.05Stream/RiverNumber of Species 43 50 20 81 23 -Density/ha 38.4 100 28 264 237 -Basal area/ha 2.1 4.93 2.4 17.9 26.52 -Carbon Stock (t/ha) 3.88 13.94 4.94 59.95 90.9
Land area potential for different ecosystem based revegetation systems (coastal/Ghat/Plain) under project scenario in 90 aggregate villages
Carbon Emission avoided and sequesteredBaseline carbon stock (t/ha) GEF alternate projected carbon
stock (t/ha)Land use categories Area (ha)
AboveGround
Soil Total AboveGround
Soil Total
Carbonincrement
(t/ha)
Agricultural Land 350 33990 105 34095 148515 14852 163367 129271
Forest - Good 1000 47765 700 48465 10357.5 48304 58661 10196
Forest - Less Degraded 2000 74000 1400 75400 99005 29702 128707 53307
Forest - Degraded 7000 149135 4900 154035 747015 74702 821717 667682
Home Garden 150 5463 105 5568 43505 30454 73959 68391
School 100 25 30 55 126015 12602 138617 138561
Pond and tanks 100 3095 30 3125 126015 12602 138617 135492
Streams/rivers 300 7644 210 7854 144015 14402 158417 150563
Temple 100 42 30 72 126015 12602 138617 138545
Plantation 2000 4822 60 4882 297015 29702 326717 321835
Total 13100 325981 7570 333551 1867473 279919 2147392 1813841
Stakeholders choice of re-vegetation system for different ecosystem categories:
Kallur- Hosahalli village case study
Silvicultural package and innovations for the Integrated Ecosystem Development Project
Project Scenario; Revegetation systems, Silvicultural packages for different land categories developed based on participatory approach
Incremental Cost Matrix
Project Budget and Contribution of Different Agencies (in Rs. Million)
Contribution ofComponent TotalGEF Forest
Department(Baseline)
Bilateral Community
Objective 1: To enhancecarbon stock and biodiversityin different land componentsof village ecosystems in theWestern Ghats region
217 132 50 25 10
Objective 2: To enhancebio-resource supply tovillage communities toimprove incomes andlivelihoods
78 57 5 15 1
Objective 3: To develop anddisseminate integratedvillage ecosystemrevegetation package todifferent regions of theWestern Ghats
75 65 5 5 -
Objective 4: To developsustainable participatoryinstitutions and buildcapacity
40 25 5 10 -
Objective 5: Participatorymonitoring for biodiversityconservation.
10 10 - - -
Total Budget (Rs. million) 420 289 65 55 11
BUDGET in US $ million 8.9 6.15 1.38 1.17 0.234
1 US $ = Rs. 47.00
Implementation Arrangement
Potential risks and mitigation measures.
Risks Level ofrisk
Mitigation measures
1. Non-participation of differentstakeholders
Medium 1 Empowerment of village communities andrespective stakeholders and theirparticipation in all decision-making process
2 Awareness creation and transparency infunctions of different institutions
3 Enhanced biomass resource supply2. Low regeneration rates andproductivity of revegetated lands
Medium 4 Distribution of good quality seedlings5 Effective soil moisture conservation
measures3. Lack of communitypreparedness for revegetation
Low 6 Supply of species of local choice7 Training programmes for capacity building
4. Lack of demand for biomassresources and processed products
Medium 8 Market infrastructure development andcreation of market linkages
5. Lack of policy support Low 9 Awareness workshops for policy-makers10 Demonstration of successful
implementation and enhanced flow ofbenefits
SUMMARYINTEGRATED AND PARTICIPATORY APPROACH TO REVEGETATE
VILLAGE ECOSYSTEMS IN KARNATAKA FOR CARBON SINK ENHANCEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION THROUGH
SUSTAINED LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Local Executing Agency :Karnataka Forest Department (KFD)
Project Location :Western Ghats Uttara Kannada Circle
(District) Karnataka
Project Period :5 years
The project aims at:The development, implementation and large-scale dissemination of an integrated village ecosystem revegetation package for enhancing carbon sinks and biodiversity along with improvement in the livelihoods and incomes of local communities
The project components are: Developing a package for the Western Ghats region in
consultation with relevant stakeholders Implementing the package in 90 villages of 3 forest ecosystems
of the western Ghats region Developing institutions and enhancing the capacity to
implement, protect and manage the revegetation programme Developing participatory vegetation monitoring for biodiversity
conservation Developing and disseminating the approach in other parts of the
Western Ghats region Budget
GEF : $ 6.15 Million
Co-Financing Government of Karnataka : $1.38 Million Bilateral : $1.17 Million Beneficiaries : $0.234 Million Total Project Cost : $8.934 Million
top related