12/05/2016
Theme 2
Food, forestry and rural livelihoods
Climate change adaptation with
mitigation co-benefits in forests
and woodlands
Linkages between forests and
climate change vulnerability in the
complex Himalayan landscape
Anusheema Chakraborty1, Kamna Sachdeva1, and P K Joshi2
1 Department
2 School
of Natural Resources, TERI University, Delhi, India
of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
1
12/05/2016
Must we fundamentally change course to
conserve ecosystems in a changing climate?
•
•
•
•
•
What will happen?
Who is it about?
When will it take place?
Where will it take place?
How will it happen?
•
•
•
Growth
Mortality
Flowering
Species Level
•
•
•
•
•
Growth
Mortality
Regeneration
Competition
Thinning
Stand Level
•
•
•
•
Dispersal
Migration
Pest attacks
Forest fires
Landscape Level
•
•
•
Degradation
Extinction
Supply
- Goods
- Services
Scale of impact?
Ecosystem
Response to
Climate Change
and
Anthropogenic
Disturbances
Chakraborty et al. 2016
(unpublished)
11/10/2014
Ecosystem Level
4
2
12/05/2016
What is the study about?
 Climate change impacts and potential response of forests 
 Current scenario
 Predicted future scenarios
 Livelihood dependency of local communities on forests 
 Current opportunities
 Future possibilities
 Climate change vulnerability: Are they even vulnerable?
Conceptual Framework
Climate Change
Communities
Forests
Sensitivity
Adaptive Capacity
Sensitivity
Adaptive Capacity
Vulnerability of Coupled Socio-Ecological System
3
12/05/2016
Background
• Himalayan mountain system is highly fragile and sensitive to
climate change, the rate of warming is greater than the global
average warming
(IPCC, 2013; Pradhan and Shrestha, 2007; Xu et al., 2009)
• Studies indicate shifts in the Himalayan forests; western and
central Himalaya more vulnerable to projected impacts of
climate change
(Chaturvedi et al., 2011; Gopalakrishnan et al., 2011; Joshi et al., 2012; Shrestha et al., 2012)
• Himalayan forests are also prone to serious ecological
degradation
(Ives and Messerli, 1989; Pandit et al., 2007)
Problem Statement
• Lack of knowledge (scientists and practitioners)
• Lack of governance (government institutions)
• Lack of awareness (local communities)
• Understanding how adaptive current Himalayan
forests are, and how heterogeneity in regional
vulnerabilities influence such changes to broad range
of ecosystem functions and services, is missing
4
12/05/2016
“Climate Change” & “Forests”
What does this reflect?
Chakraborty et al. 2016 (unpublished)
What could be the reason?
• Uncertainties
–
–
Climate models (GCMs/RCMs)
Predictive niche modeling
• Driver(s) of change
–
–
Climate change (Telwala et al., 2013)
Human-induced disturbances
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11/10/2014
Encroachment (Brandt et al., 2013; Rawat et al., 2012)
Fire (Gupta, 1978)
Cutting (Awasthi et al., 2003)
Over-grazing (Nautiyal et al., 2004)
Deforestation (Kumar and Ram, 2005)
Intensive agriculture (Semwal et al., 2004)
Shifting cultivation (Singh and Singh, 1987)
Other land-use practices
10
5
12/05/2016
Forests
To identify the forest distribution in different climate
change scenarios
Communities
To know the impact of changing forest distribution on
livelihood options of local communities
…. thinking beyond the canopy!
6
12/05/2016
Past Information (Mapping)
Temporal
Window
1990
1999
2009
2013/14
Pre-Monsoon
Pre-Monsoon
Pre-Monsoon
Pre-Monsoon
Post-Monsoon
Post-Monsoon
Post-Monsoon
Post-Monsoon
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Time 4
Seasonality
Final Maps
Current Scenario
Change in land cover patterns over the years (type & density)
•
•
•
Forest area
Spatial distribution
Fragmentation
7
12/05/2016
Climate Change Impacts
(Future)
• Upper or Himalayan chir pine forest (9/C1b) — Pinus
roxburghii
• Ban oak forest (12/C1a) — Quercus leucotrichophora
• Kharsu oak forest (12/C2a) — Quercus semecarpifolia
• Moru oak forest (12/C1b) — Quercus floribunda
Economically and geographically dominant forest types
Climatic Layers
- Annual Trends
- Seasonality
- Extreme/Limiting
Factors
Physiography
-
Elevation
Slope
Aspect
Other Factors
• Solar Radiation
• Soil
Habitat
Suitability
Model
Occurrence Points
(Presence)
-
Ban Oak
Kharsu Oak
Moru Oak
Pine
8
12/05/2016
Common
Areas
Current Habitat
Suitability
Forest-Type Map
(FSI)
-
-
Actual distribution
of species
Champion-Seth
Classification
Dominant
geographically
distributed
species
-
Predicted (potential)
range of species
Fundamental niche
Realized Niche
Potential Distribution (Future
Scenarios)
Climatic Layers
- Annual Trends
- Seasonality
- Extreme/Limiting
Factors
Physiography
-
Elevation
Slope
Aspect
Other Factors
• Solar Radiation
• Soil
Occurrence Points
(Presence)
-
Ban Oak
Kharsu Oak
Moru Oak
Pine
IPCC’s 5th
Assessment
2050
2070
2.6
2.6
4.5
4.5
6.0
6.0
8.5
8.5
RCP
emissions
pathways
9
12/05/2016
Vulnerable - Potential Locations
Example
2050 – – 8.5
Common Areas
Realized
Niche
Selection of Villages
2050
2070
2050_2070
2.6
2.6
2.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
Example: Ban Oak
4 Species
Village Surveys
10
12/05/2016
What was found?
Information
Integration
Interdisciplinary
Research and assessments describe broad trends but
local conditions make the difference.
Study Area
11
12/05/2016
Comparison of dense & open forests (%) between
Forest Survey of India (FSI) and our map
Dense Forests
Districts
2014
2009
Open Forests
1999
1990
2014
2009
1999
1990
FSI
Our
Map
FSI
Our
Map
FSI
Our
Map
FSI
Our
Map
FSI
Our
Map
FSI
Our
Map
FSI
Our
Map
FSI
Our
Map
Almora
36.6
33.7
36.6
30.5
38.5
37.4
38.9
36.7
13.6
12.9
13.6
12.8
8.7
11.4
8.5
14.5
Bageshwar
48.1
35.3
48.0
37.2
---
---
---
---
13.6
17.3
13.5
13.8
---
---
---
---
Champawat
51.7
50.7
51.4
49.5
---
---
---
---
15.5
14.1
15.5
14.2
---
---
---
---
Nainital
58.9
43.2
59.3
42.7
43.0
30.9
43.4
32.6
13.4
18.6
13.5
17.8
9.6
16.7
9.7
17.8
Pithoragarh
23.8
18.2
23.7
18.9
24.7
26.6
24.6
27.4
5.9
8.8
5.8
6.2
9.3
10.2
9.1
12.0
Udham
Singh Nagar
16.2
6.0
16.5
7.8
---
---
---
---
5.3
4.5
4.9
5.6
---
---
---
---
Why?
• Population increase
• Extensive agriculture
• Expanding urban settlements
12
12/05/2016
Anthropogenic or Climate Change?
Forest Fragmentation
• Intact forest
patches decreased
• Lower altitudes
(anthropogenic
fragmentation)
• Higher altitudes
(natural
fragmentation)
• Low-lying districts
affected more
than high-lying
districts
13
12/05/2016
Where?
Current Climate
Scenario
14
12/05/2016
Overall predicted climate change impacts
for four tree species
Tree species
Increase/Decrease
Quercus
leucotrichophora
Quercus
semecarpifolia
Quercus floribunda
Pinus roxburghii
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Range shift
Significant change
+/--
↑↑
Yes
--
↓
No
∼∼
∼
No
∼∼∼/++
↑↑↑
Yes
+ as increase in potential area
– as decrease in potential area
∼ for unusual patterns
↑ for upward shift, and, (v) ↓ for downward shift
Village Surveys: What is required?
• To support policy experts and practitioners
and local communities
– Information
– Analysis
– Tools
• To ensure outcomes
– Effectiveness
– Efficiency
– Equity and co-benefits
• Understand
processes
• Find
solutions
15
12/05/2016
Purpose of the Study
•
•
Identify target locations in Central Himalaya
Collect target information
– Identification of indicators of climate change
– Dependent livelihoods from different forest types
– Importance of forest-based livelihoods
– Relative importance of forest types
– Other livelihood practices/future options
– Forest management practices
– Possible adaptation options
– Community action plans (if any)
In progress
What can we conclude?
16
12/05/2016
Inclusion of
people!
• Only in need of urgency?
• Why not pro-activeness?
17
12/05/2016
Summary (1)
• With expected climate change impacts, forests in the
Himalayan region are more vulnerable, since current
management practices have decreased adaptive capacities of
forests
• Increasing anthropogenic pressure and competition for forestbased resources, will lead to additional stress beyond the
capacities to withstand continuity of change from nature, as
well as from human influences
• Amalgamation of new scientific approaches based on
empirical evidence, along with traditional knowledge from
communities, a holistic approach for forest resource
utilization needs to be implemented
Summary (2)
• Considering climate change vulnerabilities of forests, most
planning initiatives and policy frameworks are based on
macro-level systems-based vulnerability assessments
• However, failure of such approaches can be associated with
lack of integration of ecosystem services of local planning in
the adaptation processes
• Any forest policy in order to be relevant and successful,
should involve appropriate expertise and participation from
different stakeholders (different forest types, different
dependency patterns)
• Adopting flexible adaptation policies, with adjustment from
communities is imperative to continuously benefit from goods
and services provided by the Himalayan forests.
18
12/05/2016
Thank you!
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @anusheema
19