Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
Henri RUEF "Sustainable land management and carbon finance: a case study on landless mobile pastoralists in the Hindu Kush Himalaya mountains of northern Pakistan"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Henri RUEF "Sustainable land management and carbon finance: a case study on landless mobile pastoralists in the Hindu Kush Himalaya mountains of northern Pakistan"

  • 253 views
Published

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

Published in Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
253
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Sustainable land management and carbon finance: a case study on landless mobile pastoralists in the Hindu Kush Himalaya mountains of northern Pakistan Henri Rueff, Inam ur Rahim, Sayed Aziz Rehman, Daniel Maselli, Khurshid Muhammad, Nafees Muhammad henri.rueff@geog.ox.ac.uk
  • 2. Carbon in a pro-poor and pastoralism context> Rangelands are being only recently scrutinized for carbon schemes> 30% of the world’s land cover is rangeland> Pastoralists are often composing the poorest segment society> Perception towards pastoralists: contributors or degraders? Valuing ES!> Carbon market dysfunctions: CDM failed to deliver SD> Alternative: social carbon credits towards SD and poverty reduction, community based carbon projects (CCSB/Plan Vivo)> Advantages of a carbon scheme for herders: trading a commodity without a hub> Land richer in carbon enhances adaptation
  • 3. Research question> Poor current market conditions with low carbon prices: > what schemes could work?> Conventional mitigation schemes in rangelands are based on pasture improvement and stock reduction: > How does avoided emissions renouncing cropping compares to these conventional rangeland mitigation schemes? > How can carbon finance enhance SLM? Looking at an overstocking case Livelihood Baseline scenario (overstocking) Minimum carbon payment Mitigation scenario (carrying capacity) Time
  • 4. Context in the Naran valley (PakistanHimalayas)> Under the guidance of developement agencies in the 80s, herders have been planting off-season potatoes and peas at high altitude, which rewards 10 times the usual herding activity, nevertheless....> Steep slopes without terracing leading to soil loss> Rapid decline in yields> Land becomes unsuitable for cropping nor grazing after a short period> Herders are pushed to pastures at higher elevations fostering degradation because of a shorter growing season> Changes in the division of labour. The fittest crop, the weaker (elders) herd in hostile environments
  • 5. MethodologyHypotheses(i) cropping on alpine pastures reduces former carbon storage(ii) the avoided emission from renouncing cropping is a superior mitigation choice than improved pasturesTo solve (i)72 soil core samples discriminating in triplicates for> 2 land uses (cropping, pasture)> 3 aspects (North, South)> 3 elevations (low 3000, middle 3100, and high 3200 m a.s.l.)> 2 soil depths (shallow 0-10, deep 10-30 cm)Soil samples were air-dried, sifted36 above and below-ground (coarse roots) biomass samples oven-driedPotassium dichromate oxidation treatmentTo solve (ii) we compare data with existing literature and integrate an ex-ante model (FAO) (in progress)
  • 6. Case study: pastoral system in the Himalaya ofPakistan
  • 7. Results soil 18 400 18 21Soil organic carbon 15 350 15 18 300 15 12 12 [g kg-1] 250 12 9 9 200 9 6 150 6 6 3 3 100 3 50 0 0 0 Pasture Cropland South North Low Mid High 0-10 cm 10-30 cm
  • 8. Results biomass 400 Biomass carbon 350 300 [g m-2] 250 200 150 100 50 Pasture Cropland> Avoided emissions are likely to yield higher payments than conventional grassland improvement (under investigation) Preventing the conversion of pastures into cropping fields avoids an average loss of 12.2 t C ha-1 or 44.8 t CO2e ha-1.> Enteric methane release from livestock in the pasture scenario is largely nullified by increasing greenhouse gas releases due to fertilizer inputs needed in the cropping scenario. (likely, under investigation)
  • 9. Discussion – issues to consider> Solve non-market leakage issuesMitigate here but transfer emissions elsewhere!Solution: contractual, monitoring> Solve market leakage issuesConsequences of the lack of supply of off-season crops to the marketSolution: integrate in the mitigation scenario,use buffer credits, monitoring, terracing
  • 10. Discussion – issues to consider> Predict baselineSelling a commodity reflecting the avoidance ofwhat you think will occurSolution: use proxies, understand projectboundaries> Transaction costsMain cause of dysfunctionsSolution: create larger project units, sell highquality carbon credits at a higher price (povertyalleviation, SLM)
  • 11. Conclusion> Carbon payment is attractive but does it work?> Complex accounting, unawareness amongpractitioners and pastoralists> More important than carbon – valuing overallecosystem services provided by pastoralists andbuild societal awareness (food security, biodiversityLandscaping, cultural heritage etc…)
  • 12. Thank you