“Greening India Mission; Landscape

Management Approach -

Methodological Challenges”

Prof. N.H. Ravindranath

Indian Institute of Science

Bangalore, India

Outline

1. Challenges facing Land and landscapes in Developing

countries

2. Why Landscape approach

3. Greening India Mission and Landscape Management

Approach

4. Methods and approaches – Limitations of GIM

5. Methodological, Data and modeling Challenges in

Adopting LSM approach

2

Challenges Facing Land or Landscape Management

in Developing countries

1. Land Degradation / Land fragmentation / Desertification - continues

2. Land scarcity and multiple demands for land – large dependence of rural communities on land for agriculture and livelihoods

3. Water scarcity – especially Ground Water – critical for Agric.

4. High climate variability – abnormal monsoon - Climate change

5. Sustaining food production to meet growing demand – in the face of Land degradation + Water scarcity + Climate change

6. Biodiversity is under threat, ecosystem services are declining (e.g. pollination)

7. Land for Bioenergy could threaten food production and biodiversity

8. Managing land & water are critical for sustaining Food production, Water supply, livelihoods and biodiversity.

3

Features of Forest Sector in India

1. Forest account for nearly 22% of land area and Govt. has a

plan to increase it to 33%

2. Low or marginal rates of deforestation – Forest area

stabilized or increasing - despite large forest dependence

3. Large afforestation / reforestation

4. Forest sector programs - Focus only on Forest resources &

afforestation of Degraded public lands

NO integrated management of land

4

INDC and Green India Mission

To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to

3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through

additional forest and tree cover by 2030.

India is committed to implementation of

Greening India Mission under INDC

Budget = US$ 8 billion

5

National Mission for a “Green India” (GIM)

GIM envisages a holistic view of greening & focuses on

multiple ecosystem services;

biodiversity, water, biomass (including food),

preserving mangroves, wetlands, critical habitats etc.

& Carbon seq. as a co-benefit.

GIM has adopted an integrated cross-sectoral

approach at a landscape level & will be implemented on

both public as well as private lands with a

key role for local communities in planning, decision

making, implementation and monitoring

6

Specific Objectives of GIM

1. Increased forest/tree cover to the extent of 5 Mha and improved

quality of forest/tree cover of another 5 Mha of forest/non-forest

lands

2. Improved/enhanced eco-system services like carbon sequestration

and storage (in forests and other ecosystems), hydrological services

and biodiversity; along with provisioning services like fuel, fodder,

and timber and non-timber forest produces (NTFPs)

3. Increased resilience of rural communities and improve livelihoods

4. Adoption of “Decentralized – Landscape based approach”

5. Agriculture sector to be addressed using other ongoing programs.

7

Why landscape management approach

1. A landscape consists not only of interacting biological and geophysical elements but also of people, land uses, infrastructure, social organizations, institutional arrangements, and cultural, spiritual, and utility values

2. Landscapes are also the primary level at which the actions of individual households intersect those of others resources and users.

3. A greening strategy at a landscape level offers an opportunity to address multiple objectives aimed at achieving multiple interlinked benefits

4. Improves inter-sectoral coordination and cost-effectiveness at multiple levels

5. Empowers communities through multi-stakeholder processes and inclusive governance

6. Enhances transboundary and regional cooperation

8

Why adopting Landscape Approach

7. Spatial ecological linkages among land components:

The landscape components such as forestland, grassland and cropland are

spatially and functionally linked through flow of biomass, energy, water and

nutrients

8. Possible to Addressing Biodiversity & Provision of Ecosystem services:

Natural ecosystems provide humankind a multitude of resources and

processes and these ecologically as well as socially beneficial services are

collectively known as ecosystem services

9. Feasibility of Integrated approach:

Landscape approach enables an integrated approach, lacking in current programmes,

addressing all the elements such as cropland, grassland, water bodies and livestock.

10. Addressing Climate Change:

Climate Change will impact all the land use components of a landscape which are inter-

linked.

Criteria for identification and delineation of landscapes

in the GIM

1. Potential for biodiversity conservation and

enhancing ecosystem services:

2. Vulnerability to climate change: Potential for

enhancing carbon mitigation-adaptation

benefits:.

3. Potential of enhancing socio-economic or

livelihoods benefits:

Guidelines and methodology for

planning and implementing GIM11

Integrated cross-sectoral approach to implementation

The Mission will foster an integrated approach that treats

forests and non-forest public lands

private lands (including crop lands) simultaneously,

in project units/ sub-landscapes/ sub-watersheds.

Livelihood dependencies diversification will be addressed to enhance resilience using

inter-sectoral convergence (e.g., animal husbandry, forest, agriculture, rural development and energy).

Mission aims at convergence with other developmental programs on

Agriculture, Watershed development, Rural development, etc

12

Landscape approach to GIM:

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India has developed guidelines for designing, implementing and monitoring of GIM.

The main guidelines for implementing GIM is based on “Landscape” approach.

Criteria for identification of Landscapes

1. Based on biophysical and socio-economic parameters; with an operational unit (about 5000-10,000 ha) often co-terminus with micro/mini watersheds.

2. As a contiguous area, the operational units within larger landscapes to address ecological as well as socio-economic objectives

3. Projected vulnerability to climate change

4. Status of forest cover,

5. Significance of biodiversity and other ecosystem values, critical habitats and corridors

6. Potential of area as a carbon sink

7. Overlays of socio economic criteria like poverty and ethnicity (tribal /non-tribal) to further help prioritization of project areas within the candidate landscapes.

13

Classification of landscape levels in GIM

Level-1: Large contiguous areas of forest and non

forests lands in a given landform / catchment

Level-2: Operational units, usually Mili Watershed

of approximately - 5,000 to 10,000 ha

Level-3: Working units, usually micro watersheds

and villages within L2 landscape for actual

implementation of the Mission Activities

14

Data/information inputs for perspective planning

Bio-physical Information –

Land use

Area of forest/non-forest

Vegetation & fauna

Biodiversity

Watershed classification and catchment area

Types of forests & regeneration status

NTFP resources

Surface water and ground water resources

Biomass and Carbon stock

Degraded forest and waste lands

Areas needing special attention

Fire/erosion prone areas/incidences

15

Socio – economic information -

Administrative (ii) Population (iii) Landholding

pattern (iv) Cropping pattern (v) Livestock (vi) Drinking water (vii) Domestic

Energy (viii) Occupation (ix) Infrastructure (x) Sources of income (xi) Forestbased

livelihood enterprises (xii) Recreation/eco-tourism

Criteria for identification of Landscape Levels

16

The datasets in addition to the ones identified above are likely to include the following indicators…

Sr.no Layer Data type Criteria Source

1 High resolution

imagery

Raster To develop hi-resolution landuse/land cover map as a baseline

2 Topography

- contours

V/ Image Will help correlate topography with forest cover and identify forests

that are under-represented in topographic terms. If available in vector

format, could also be used to create 3-D DEMs

SOI

3 Village, forest

boundaries

Vector All forest and village/hamlet boundaries should be digitized on a

priority basis

Revenue

/Forest.

Dept

4 Wetlands /

tanks

Vector Location or Boundary of water bodies State

5 Drinking

water supply

intake points

Points Shows points of intake for drinking water schemes - from springs,

streams, rivers, wells, handpumps etc. Areas upstream of these will

be drinking water catchments (if available)

Water

supply

depts.

6 Forest cover change

map over the last

5/10 Years

Raster This will show recent trajectory of change for forest cover and help

identify areas under threat, establish the previous rate of

deforestation and help estimate future threats of Deforestation

FSI

7 Urban / peri-urban

areas

Vector Boundary of urban areas, to help identify urban/peri-urban forest

patches – current and potential

State8 Areas already treated Vector Help identify extent of investments made in the past (1/5 year )

9 Community

Conserved areas

Vector A cross-cutting intervention in the GIM

17

The institutional structure for approval of GIM plan18

Institutional Arrangements

Principles and Approaches

Strengthening of Decentralized forest Governance

Convergence of Mission activities with other developmental

programs and activities

Adoption of existing Institutions, rather than creation of new

institutions

Aim is to Strengthen Institutions for Decentralized

Governance

At Village level

At Landscape level

19

Inadequate Guidelines & Limited Experience of

implementing Green India Mission

Implementation of GIM has just begun

The Mission implementation is totally committed to adoption of Landscape approach

The Guidelines several limitations

1. But it is weak on many aspects of Landscape Management approach

2. Limited guidance on how to achieve multi-objectives or promote synergies

3. Methodology or approach on “How to avoid tradeoffs”

4. How to manage “Agriculture dominated Landscapes”

5. Limited methodological guidance on planning process

6. Limited modeling guidance except Climate change vulnerability profiling

20

Broad Challenges in landscape management by

Projects

1. Integrated landscape management is a long-term endeavour

requiring constant support and inputs (e.g., human, monetary,

technological, and infrastructural) and thus is hard to sustain

2. Poor integration, inconsistency or conflicting laws or policies

as a major challenge to meeting Landscape objectives

3. Lack of practical methods for “Natural Ecosystem and

Agriculture dominated landscapes”

4. Stakeholder participation and funding problems

5. Insufficient and sustained support from government Depts.

21

Methodological Challenges in LSM1. Selection of unit or scale for land use planning – Landscape, Watershed, village,

etc – what is the optimal scale & Scientific criteria

2. Defining / quantifying the multiple demands on land and Multiple objectives

3. Multiple land ownership – private / farmer / community / Govt / Forest Dept.

4. Models for Optimizing or maximizing Agricultural production sustainably in

Agricultural dominated landscapes –

Along with biodiversity and ecosystem services objectives

5. How to mainstream Adaptation to climate change – Short and long term –

Incremental & Transformational Adaptation

6. How to synergistically integrate Mitigation with Adaptation & other Goals

7. Methods for addressing trade-offs among competing objectives

8. How to integrate livelihood improvement in optimal land management

22

Challenges in LSM

1. Integration of information/policy/data

Integrating diverse data representing economic, social and biophysical systems in a way that it could be included in the scenario development and lead to recommendations for the policy process seems to be a considerable challenge encountered.

2. Managing complexity and the interdisciplinary nature of the projects

- The complexity inherent in an LSM systems is challenging and lack of tools that sufficiently capture the richness of human and ecosystem processes.

4. Uncertainty and risk analysis

- uncertainties into developed models, scenarios, recommended policies, and consequently into the decisions-making processes

5. Data gathering and management challenges:

Lack of data (or at least non-accessibility in the reasonable timeframe) for certain indicators, Data on inappropriate temporal and spatial scale for modelling.

Diverse frequency of collected data within and in between social, economic and environmental domains, Data requiring significant financial inputs

23

Challenges.. Contd..

6. Defining and measuring landscape indicators

- across scales and linking them to global or regional indicators of

other phenomena can assist in avoiding methodological problem

7. Incorporating Economic or cost : benefit analysis in to Bio-

physical Landscape management methods / models

8. Monitoring actual changes on the landscape through the use of

monitoring indicators and reporting,

Adapting or modifying plans and actions to ensure desired future

conditions are attained.

9. Linking the case study project and its results to decision-making

processes at macro-level

24

There are still many challenges in

Adopting LSM Approach……..!!!

THANK YOU25

26

Challenges and Lessons Learned from Integrated

Landscape Management Projects

1. Assessing past and current conditions and trends of the systems

including landscapes, to create a baseline scenario (often based on past

data) for strategic planning.

2. Envisioning or forecasting potential future pathways and desired

conditions for the analyzed landscape.

3. Establishing plans and objectives to attain these desired conditions in a

collaborative inter-jurisdictional context.

28

29

Internal structure of the INGRID landscape mode

30

Mainstreaming Mitigation and Adaptation to climate

change into LSM31

Locatell et al. 2015

Global Experience in Designing and Implementing

LSM Approaches

Integrated landscape management has been implemented and tested in

a wide range of environments and cultures across the globe, providing

practical examples of place-based implementation.

A recent continental review by the Landscape for People, Food and

Nature Initiative identified

365 programs in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South and

Southeast Asia that are utilizing methods and practices that characterize

them as integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs).

Results from the continental reviews show that simultaneous

improvements in conservation, agriculture, livelihoods, and

institutional capacity and coordination can be achieved using an ILM

approach

32