Improving Watersheds & Community Livelihoods Through CDM Carbon Revenue Case Study from Himachal Pradesh, India

Transcription

1 Improving Watersheds & Community Livelihoods Through CDM Carbon Revenue Case Study from Himachal Pradesh, India RAJ KUMAR KAPOOR Adll. Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests cum Chief Project Director Mid Himalayan WatershedProject, (H. P) INDIA

2

3 Cold Dry High Hills Mid Hills Shiwaliks 92% human population lives in rural areas. 92% villages have population less than % population is engaged in agriculture sector 84.5% are small and marginal farmers Agrarian economy Mainly rain fed agriculture and horticulture.

4 Project Participants MHWDP FOREST DEPTT. GRAM PANCHYAT COMMUNITY GROUPS

5 Objectives of the Proposed Project Improvement of the productive potential of degraded lands or watershed catchment areas and enhance biomass production and carbon stocks in degraded lands, and Improvement of livelihoods and incomes of rural households residing in selected watersheds of MHWDP using socially inclusive and institutionally and environmentally sustainable approaches.

6 Guiding Principles i. Identify Native and local Species. ii. Involve Communities in reforestation efforts. iii. Value addition to ongoing watershed interventions. iv. Technical and financial support for reforestation by MHWDP (including capacity building). v. Carbon Revenue to go to communities as incentive to protect Forests/ Watersheds.

7 HP Project at a glance Reforestation project Title India: Himachal Pradesh Reforestation Project Improving Livelihoods and Watersheds Start date July 2006 Expected Operational Life time 60 Years Crediting period 20 years (Renewable Twice) Project proponents HPMHWDP / Forest Deptt.HP Project Partners Govt. of H.P; World Bank; Govt. of Spain Area 4003 Ha GPs 177 No. of parcels 420 Size of parcels 1 ha to 150 ha Land status degraded forest /community land/private land Transfer of technologies NA Methodology AR ACM 001 (Ver.03) Carbon Pool Selected 3 (AGB+BGB+SOC) Estimated ex ante GHG removals by sinks ~ 828 Kt CO2 e

8 Project Boundary & Land Eligibility Cluster of Multiple Discrete Parcels of land Remote Sensing Data GPs with significant quantities of eligible lands shortlisted (FSI data/survey maps). Communities sensitized, PRA conducted to identify Spare able/agreed land parcels likely to qualify. GPS Survey Generate Boundaries/polygans, measure area. FSI did analysis for eligibility using Satellite Data 1990 (TM) and current (LIS III). Generated output on maps. Scrutiny by Validation Team Onsite Visit / Satellite Data

9 1989 LANDSAT TM 2004 IRS P6 LISS III

10

11 Parcel Eligibility Polygon Submitted to FSI Polygon Eligible as per Report Number Area (ha) Number Area(ha) Polygon Validated Number Area (ha)

12 SPREAD OF PARCELS DISTRICT.

13 BILASPUR DISTRICT.

14 NM 046 F2

15 NM 060 P1

16 Legal Status Wise Sr No Division Forest Community Private Total 1 Dharamshala Mandi Bhattiyat Nurpur Sujanpur Solan Swarghat Nahn Kullu Rampur Namhol

17 Revenue from sale of CERs CERs (tco2 e) (20 yrs Project) CERs/year (tco 2 e) CER revenue (Rs./year) at US$ 5/tCO 2 (1$= Rs48) CER revenue (Rs./year) at US$ 10/tCO 2 Total for the whole project area 8,28,016 41, Average per hectare

18 Baseline & Project Stratification Degraded Forest Land (Restoration Forestry Model) Low ( m) Medium ( m) High ( m) Degraded Community Land (Community Forestry) Low ( m) Medium ( m) High ( m) Degraded Private Land (Farm Forestry) Low ( m) Medium ( m) High ( m)

19 S. No. Scientific Name S. No. Scientific Name S. No. Scientific Name 1 Acacia catechu 16 Gravellia robusta 31 Terminalia arjuna 2 Aegle marmelos 17 Grewia optiva/g. 32 Terminalia chebula oppositifolia 3 Aesculus indica 18 Juglans regia 33 Artocarpus lakoocha 4 Ailanthus altissima/a. 19 Mangifera indica 34 Hicoria carya excelsa 5 Albizzia procera 20 Melia azadirchta 35 Dendrocalamus spps 6 Albizzia lebbek 21 Morus alba 36 Tectona grandis 7 Albizzia stipulata 22 Pinus roxburghii 37 Terminalia tomentosa 8 Alnus nepalensis/a. nitida 23 Pongamia pinnata 38 Prunus armeniaca 9 Azadirachta indica 24 Populus ciliata/p. Alba/P. deltoids 39 Ulmus laevigata/u. wallichiana. 10 Bauhinia variegata 25 Quercus leucotrichophora 11 Bombax ceiba 26 Robinia pseudoacacia 40 Prunus cornuta/p. Cerassoides/P.padus 41 Olea glandulifera 12 Toona ciliata 27 Salix alba 42 Pinus wallichiana 13 Cedrus deodara 28 Sapindus mukorossii 43 Cassia seamia 14 Dalbergia sissoo 29 Syzygium cuminii 44 Acacia nilotica 15 Emblica officinalis 30 Terminalia bellerica 45 Butea monosperma

20 Stratification

21 Technology Fencing (wherever required) 50% Wood (Lops and Tops) Bamboo Stone Seed High Quality (Identified Source) Nursery Decentralized (Reduce Transportation Emissions). Healthy Tall Seedlings (12 18 Months) Bigger P. Bags Site Preparation Layout 1100 Plants per Ha. Pit size 45x45x45 cm Soil Disturbance/ha. 70 m 2 /ha. Only Manual Labour (No Mechanical Device) No Fertilizer Application in Plantations

22 Swarghat Division KHERI-II Nursery Amla (Phyllanthus embelica) Kachnar (Bauhinia verigata)

23

24 Methodology & Tools Consolidated afforestation and reforestation baseline and monitoring methodology AR ACM0001/version 03 Tools Combined Tool (v01) Calculation of No of Sample Plots (v2) Tool for Testing Significance of GHG emissions Estimation of Emission from Clearing, Burning of Veg Tool for Estimation of GHG emissions Displacement of Grazing (v2) Tool for Identification of Degraded Lands Procedure to define Eligibility of Land for A/R (v1 Soil Organic Carbon Pool Significance

25 Baseline Data Land Category ABG Non Tree Biomass Dry/t/ha/Yr Tree Biomass t/ha (SE ) Soil Organic Carbon (tc/ha) (SE ) Forest Community Private Estimation of ex ante Baseline Net GHG Removals Degraded Lands have Negligible or Zero other Carbon Pools (Litter, Dead Wood, Non Tree Biomass) MAI = t/ha/yr Av. Growing Stock = 3.27 t/ha (Insignificant, Not Included)

26 Measurement Plan Baseline Step 1: MEASURE Carbon at beginning of project Carbon (t C/ha) t C/ha Time (years)

27 Measurement Plan Baseline Step 1: Carbon at beginning of project Step 2: ESTIMATE Carbon over time E.g.: Change in Carbon Stocks 125 Carbon (t C/ha) Baseline: 14 t C/ha Baseline: Year t C/ha Time (years)

28 Measurement Plan Project: Plant Trees Step 1: Carbon at beginning of project Step 2: MEASURE Carbon over time Carbon (t C/ha) Project: Year t C/ha Baseline: Year t C/ha Time (years)

29 Measurement Plan Project: Plant Trees Step 1: Carbon at beginning of project Step 2: Carbon over time 40 years Net Sequestered: = 78 t C/ha Carbon (t C/ha) Project: Year t C/ha Baseline: Year t C/ha Time (years)

30 Demonstration of Additionality (Combined Tool) Alternative Scenarios Forest & Community Lands can t be put to other use except Afforestation; Pvt. Lands Degraded (Unfit for Agriculture) Barrier Financial F & C Currently Low budget allocation ; P No State budget available nor Financial access from Capital markets Ecological Degraded Lands require Higher & Continuous Caring, Tending & After Care of Plantations Common Practice Analysis Incentive of Carbon Revenue for Continous Caring & Tending of Plantations; Improved Silviculture Practices

31 Estimation of Net GHG Removals (Ex ante) TARAM model of WB used Compilation of Rep. Growth Rate of a Age Class for Stand Model as input to TARAM has been a challenge Species 45 Strata 9 Age Classes 4 (<5y; 5 10y; 11 20y; >20y) Growth Rates 2 (Fast ; Slow) Large No of Literature Values of CAI/MAI Lack of Complete/Sufficient Rep Regional Data

32 Calculation of Carbon Stocks (A) Cumulative Area under each Strata (stand) (B) Av. MAI [t/ha] (Literature): Fast Growing (C) Av. BEF (IPCC default) : 1.2 (D) Total AGB : (A)*(B)*(C) (E) Total AG_Carbon : (D)*0.5 (F) Total BG_ Carbon: (E)*0.22 Slow Growing (G) Total Carbon: AG_C+ BG_C+SoC (0.5t/ha) (H) Total CO2 Eq: (G)*3.66

33 Approach for Generating CAI/MAI Step 1 Literature Values of Growth rates (CAI/ MAI of Sp. Collated as per age Classes. Value closest to Mean Selected(Eg. Data for Pinus roxburghii) Age < Reference J.K. Rawat, V. N.Tandon (1993), Biomass production and mineral cycling in young Chir Pine plantations in Himachal Pradesh, Indian Forester, December S.K. Suri (1984), Growth analysis of Chir(Pinus roxburghii, sargent) plantations in Supkhar of Balaghat division of Madhya Pradesh,Indian Forester, May

34 Step 2 Growth Rates Stand Model : To ensure Conservativeness Value Closest to Mean Selected Altitude Growth rate Species mix < High ( m) Fast Slow Data used in case of nonavailability of data for a particular species A. nepalensis Alnus nitida 5.30 (22 yrs) Juglans regia Populus ciliata P.deltoides Quercus leucotrichophora Salix alba Toona ciliata 6.33 Conservative Mean Robinia pseudoacacia 3.59 Ailanthus excelsa Prunus armenica Aesculus indica Cedrus deodara 0.95 Pinus wallichiana P. roxburghii Conservative Mean

35 Step 3 Conservative CAI/ MAI for each Stand Model Fast & Slow Growing Sp. Group Compiled Altitude Growth rate Species mix < Fast growing Alnus nitida,juglans regia,populus ciliata,quercus leucotrichophora,salix alba.,toona ciliata High ( m) Slow growing Ailanthus excelsa,prunus armenica,robinia pseudoacacia, Aesculus indica,cedrus deodara,pinus wallichiana

36 Step 4 Single value computed for each Stand Model considering Weighted Value Stand model Restoration Rate of growt h Fraction of total density MAI for calculation (t/ha/yr) < Altitude range No. of trees/ha High ( m) Fast Slow Total

37 Final Table for Input to TARAM Stand model Altitude range MAI for calculation (t/ha/yr) < Average MAI over 20 years Restoration Community forestry Farm forestry High ( m) Medium ( m) Low ( m) High ( m) Medium ( m) Low ( m) High ( m) Medium ( m) Low ( m)

38 Values Used for C stock Estimation BEF : Literature Value of 17 Sp. Taken Av. Value 1.98 ( ) Conservative Value 1.2 (IPCC GPG 2003) used Root : Shoot Ratio Literature Value of 13 Sp Av. Value 0.22 ( ) used IPCC Default 0.26 (Higher) Carbon Fraction 0.5 SoC 0.5 tc/ha/yr (Methodology)

39 Monitoring Plan Monitoring of Plantation/Establishment Site Preparation Sp. Planted Survival Weeding/Hoeing regime Sampling Design Living Bio mass Permanent Sample Plots Systematic Sampling with Random Start Total 224 Plots in 9 Sub Strata Plot Size = 25x20 m Monitoring Frequency AGB 5 yrs.

40 Benefits to Himachal Pradesh Reclamation of degraded lands Increased area under forests Reduced pressure on forests For biomass and grazing Carbon sink enhancement Reduced flooding Reduced landslides Livelihoods and Income Enhancement of Communities Institutional Strengthening

41 Panchayats Boundary Grass root Level Institutions Forest Land Parcel 1 Forest Land Parcel 2 Forest Land Parcel 3 User group/vfds (for each land parcel or group of land parcels) Private Land Parcel 1 Private Land Parcel 2 Community Land Parcel 1 Private land owner/ attorney

42 CARBON REVENUE 10 % Overhead Charges MHWDP/ FOREST DEPARTMENT PRIVATE LAND 90 % of carbon revenue Owner or Attorney 20 % of remaining carbon revenue FOREST LAND Gram Panchayats GP FUND (undertaking works as approved in GPWDP ) 80 % of remaining carbon revenue USER GROUP/VFDS (members responsible for protection of land parcel) COMMUNITY LAND Gram Panchayats GP FUND (undertaking works as approved in GPWDP ) bal. 90 % of remaining carbon revenue 80 % of remaining carbon revenue with GP USER GROUP/VFDS USER GROUPS/ VFDS (members responsible for protection of land parcel depending upon their share /rights in land parcel)

43 BIO CARBON FUND FLOW MECHANISM BIO CARBON FUND Policy Decisions CPD MHWDP Separate CDM account CDM Executive Board WATERSHED DIVISION (on the basis of no. of land parcels) Recommend CDM Executive Committee User group/vfds Private Land (Owner/Attorney) INDIVISUALS/ HOUSEHOLDS

44 HP CDM Bio Carbon Project A Win Win Scenario Plantations/ Forest Important for Watershed Protection CDM Money Communities Protect Plantations & watersheds For..