Al Jabal Al Akhdar Initiative 2004 -2007 A post project analysis

Reginald Victor

Deanship of Research

and Department of Biology, College of Science, P.O. Box 36, Sultan Qaboos University, PC123, Sultanate of Oman.

Email: rvictor@squ.edu.om

Landsat TM Bands 7,4,2 Color composite – 13 Dec. 1999

Significance of Al Jabal Al Akhdar

• An important terrestrial ecoregion in the world

• Unique in its geography, climate, geology,

biodiversity, history, culture and aesthetic

value

• Fragile ecosystem; delicate interrelationships

between the physical environment, the flora,

fauna and most of all man

Jabal Akhdar - Past

• Regulated wilderness with controlled and difficult

access

• Predominantly, isolated and insulated

communities

• Relatively small number of residents and

transients

• No serious threats to ecosystem and cultural

integrity

• Poor infrastructure and service facilities

Al Jabal Al Akhdar Initiative

• A multidisciplinary case study research

funded by HM’s Strategic Research Grant for the period 2004 – 2007

• Objective is conservation and sustainable development using the integrated approach advocated by the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)

• Follow-up of a proposal made by Victor (2003) to study Al Jabal Al Akhdar in NBSAP framework

Research components

• Climate – Atsu Dorvlo, David Ampretwam and Andy Kwarteng

• Biodiversity inventory- Reginald Victor

• Vegetation ecology- Annette Patzelt

• Birds- Jens Eriksen

• Water resources – Reginald Victor and Mushtaque Ahmed

• Soil resources – Malik Al Wardi

• Overgrazing and animal husbandry issues – Osman Maghoub

and Michael Robinson

• Optimization of ecotourism- Dipak Chadhuri and Ram Ramanathan

• Socioeconomic impacts of tourism- Ram Ramanathan and Geetha

Subramanian

What is the outcome?

• The results produced a blue print for the conservation and sustainable development of the JA region.

• Results were discussed in the International Mountain Conference, February 2008

• Proceedings contain the extended abstracts of some results presented (Victor and Robinson, 2009)

This presentation

• Here an overview of post project analysis

is presented

• Methodology: Modified Pressure-States-

Response (PSR) approach

• Pressures identified in 2004

• States described at the end of 2007

• Responses till now in 2010

Climate

• Pressure – Part of the Global Climate Change

• States: Significantly increasing trend in temperature; low

rainfall; low vapour pressure; low humidity; inadequate

precipitation

• Problem: Data deficiency, only for < 20 years: met

stations need to be upgraded

• Response: Still awaited Daily average temperature 1987 to 2004 relative to 1987 average

YEAR

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

Total

Celsi

us ch

ange

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

Average daily temperature for Saiq 1987-2003

Year

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

Total

Daily

aver

age t

empe

ratur

e in c

elsius

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

Flora and Vegetation • Pressures: Urban development, changes in in

agricultural practices and overgrazing

• States: One fourth all Oman flora is still here. High

species diversity and high endemism. Key biodiversity

region.

• Response despite recommendations: Expansion of

intensive agriculture and developmental activities;

destruction of woodlands and no protected areas.

Faunal biodiversity

• Pressures: Same as flora; additional problem

that many species will disappear even before

discovery.

• States: 437 species excluding birds; bird

species increased from 68 – 77 (indicative of

degradation of mountain habitats)

• Response: Protected areas and taxonomic

studies sorely needed

Water Resources

• Pressures: Poor rainfall; eutrophication of surface waters; underutilization of reservoirs; increase in population and demand; overexploitation of groundwater

• States: Groundwater extraction exceeds recharge potential of aquifers; water quality of all reservoirs unacceptable for consumption.

• Response: Further increases in groundwater extraction due to increases in demand due to urban development. No attempts yet to improve the water use efficiency of reservoir waters

Soil Resources

• Pressures: Developmental and agricultural

activities

• States: Erosion due to soil instability; topsoil

removal; seed bank removal; increase in surface

run off and nutrient removal

• Response: Land use strategies awaited.

Goat Husbandry • Pressures: Animal numbers and overgrazing of the

range; myth that range feeding goats taste better

• States: Range did not provide sufficient nutrition; herding impacted due to loss of child labour; stall feeding preferred, but financial constraints restricts practice

• Response: Pen feeding with nutrient supplement + short periods of grazing. Positive response from herders; good government support

Overgrazing

• Pressures: Goats, Sheep and Feral

donkeys

• States: Grazing pressures on shared diet

plants was great; feral donkeys may be

reducing small stock productivity; grazing

intensity beyond sustainable levels.

• Response: Changes in range

management policies awaited

Ecotourism Development

• Pressures: Tourism initiatives

• States: High priority area for tourism development;

intense promotion of tourism; lack of understanding of

ecotourism. Optimization of the benefits of ecotourism

and guidelines

• Response: Study because of its highly sophisticated

modeling approach is misunderstood and is posing a

threat from unchecked tourism activities

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

of Tourism Development • Pressures: Expected. Threat to environment, local

tradition and culture; non-accrual of benefits to locals; pressure on existing infrastructure

• States: No pressures on existing infra structure, which actually improved; increase in employment opportunity for locals; improvement in revenue generation.

• Response: Socioeconomic Environment Management Plan proposed. Tourism development has intensified reversing the local perception of tourism being beneficial

Jabal Akhdar - Present

• Open and easy access

• Villages and communities well connected with roads

• Increase in the number of residents and households;

very high number of transients

• Good infrastructure with improved service facilities

• Very rapid development for maximizing tourism revenues

Conclusion

• In 2008, a question, “Are we losing Al Jabal Akhdar?” was asked (Victor 2009) based on problems with scientific uncertainties, not addressed by the Initiative

• This post project analysis, based on empirical data affirms that we are rapidly losing the ecosystem integrity of Al Jabal Akhdar.

Thank you for your attention