Research Article | Published: 01 December 2011

Carbon sequestration potential of selected plantation interventions in Nainital district of Uttarakhand

Neelu Gera, Mohit Gera and N. S. Bisht

Indian Journal of Forestry | Volume: 34 | Issue: 4 | Page No. 379-386 | 2011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2011-1Y0748 | Cite this article

Abstract

Selected afforestation and reforestation interventions have been studied in the Nainital district of Uttarakhand with the objectives to assess their carbon sequestration potential, and cost-effectiveness exclusive and inclusive of carbon benefits. The excel spreadsheet model “Project Based Comprehensive Mitigation Assessment Process” was employed to workout the annual incremental carbon sequestration, cost effectiveness indicators and likely benefits under different carbon price scenarios for each selected afforestation and reforestation intervention. The results have shown a wide range of sequestration potential, which varied from 0.19 tC/ha/yr in case of Plum block plantation to 4.81 tC/ha/yr for Pine block plantation, calculated for the assessment period 2008-38. The plantation interventions involving horticulture species demonstrated much lower carbon sequestration potential as compared to long rotation tree species, such as Oak and Pine. Among the selected plantation interventions Pine block, Mixed species block and Oak-Pine-mixed species block were observed to be associated with maximum carbon benefits, viz., Rs. 4060/ha/yr, Rs. 3370/ha/yr and Rs. 3112/ha/yr respectively. The study has demonstrated that plantation interventions involving long rotation tree species associated with recurring non-carbon benefits are more likely to succeed as afforestation and reforestation CDM project interventions compared to the horticulture species, associated with slower woody growth and limited carbon benefits.

Keywords

Avoided deforestation, Afforestation, Baseline soil, Mitigation, Internal rate of return, Cost effectiveness

Access Options

250/-

Buy Full Access in HTML Format

Instant access to the full article.

Get access to the full version of this article. Buy Full Access in HTML Format

References

1. FSI (2008). State of Forest Report 2005. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Forest Survey of India, Dehra Dun, India.

Google Scholar

2. Hooda, N., Gera, M., Andrasko, K., Sathaye, J., Gupta, M.K., Vasistha, H.B, Chandran, M. and Rassaily, S.S. (2007). Community and Farm Forestry mitigation projects: case studies from Uttaranchal, India. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change, 12: 1099-1130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9066-1

Google Scholar

3. IPCC (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. (Penman, J. et al., Eds.) Published by the Institute for Global Environment Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC under IPCC National GHG Inventories Programme.

Google Scholar

4. Makundi, W. and Sathaye, J. (1999). COMAP- Description and Instructions Manual. Environmental energy technologies division, Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. LBNL/PUB/3163.

Google Scholar

5. Makundi, W.R. and Sathaye, J.A. (2004). GHG mitigation potential and cost in tropical forestry–relative role for agroforestry. Envi., Dev. and Sustainability, 6: 235-260.  https://doi.org/10.2172/823930

Google Scholar

6. Pandey, P.K. and Sharma, S.C. (1993). Litter decomposition in some plantations in India. Ann. of For., 1(1): 90-101.

Google Scholar

7. Phartiyal, P. and Tewari, A. (2006). Challenges before marginalized hill communities for managing community forests, status of the village forest council in Uttaranchal, India. Paper presented in the Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, titled ‘Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities’, June 19-23, Bali, Indonesia

Google Scholar

8. Ravindranath, N.H. and Murthy, Indu. K. (2003). Clean Development Mechanism and Forestry Projects: Strategy for operationalization in India. Indi. For., 129(6): 691- 706.

Google Scholar

9. Ravindranath, N.H., Murthy, I.K., Chaturvedi, R., Andrasko, K. and Sathaye, J. 2007. Carbon forestry economic mitigation potential in India, by land classification. 12(6): 1027-1050.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9063-4

Google Scholar

10. Sathaye, J., Makundi, W. and Andrasko, K. (1995). A comprehensive mitigation analysis process (COMAP) for the evaluation of forestry mitigation options. Biomass and Bioenergy, 8(5): 345-356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(95)00027-5

Google Scholar

11. Walkley, A. (1947). An examination of methods for determining organic carbon and nitrogen in soils. J. Agr. Sci., 25: 298-609.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600019687

Google Scholar

12. Walkley, A. and Black, I. A. (1934). An Examination of Degtjareff Method for Determining Soil Organic Matter and a Proposed Modification of the Chromic Acid Titration Method. Soil Sci., 37:29-37.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003

Google Scholar

About this article

How to cite

Gera, N., Gera, M. and Bisht, N.S., 2011. Carbon sequestration potential of selected plantation interventions in Nainital district of Uttarakhand. Indian Journal of Forestry, 34(4), pp.379-386. https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2011-1Y0748

Publication History

Manuscript Published on 01 December 2011

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: