Application of PROCOMAP – Case Study of Mancherial Forest Division, Adilabad Indu K. Murthy

Objectives Present a case study of application of PROCOMAP model Data Requirement Sources of Data Method or Approach Data Inputs Data Outputs

Land Use Pattern in Mancherial Forest Division Land UseArea in 1996 (ha) Area in 2000 (ha) Geographic area Forest area Dense forest Open forest Scrub Blanks

Afforestation and Reforestation in Mancherial Forest Division

Baseline Scenario Area under forest in 1996 & in 2000 Projected to increase during 2000 to 2012, if funding available and decrease if no funding Afforestation rate in 1996 – very low & in 2000 – high, 2290 ha afforested Projected to increase/decrease during 2000 to 2012, depending on funding

Project Scenario Land category Total area (ha) Mitigation activity Propose d area (ha) Phasing (No. of years) Scrub24395Natural regeneration Blanks8560Short rotation plantation Long rotation plantation 34245

Project Boundary

Data Needs, Source & Methods for Baseline DataSource / Approach Land use- Forest Department Potential area- Scrubs and Blanks Afforestation rates- Forest Department C-stocks- AGB: Field studies (Plot Method) - BGB: Default ratio - Litter: Literature - Soil C: Field sampling and laboratory analysis Investment on blanks, scrub etc. - No dedicated expenditure Income from blanks, scrub etc. - Grass yield: 5 t of fresh grass - Shrubs (twigs): 1 t / ha/yr - Financial value: Rs. 750 (grass) + Rs. 500 (fuelwood)

Data Needs and Methods- Project Scenario Project activity Based on JFM patterns - Teak, secondary forest regeneration Multi-component & objective - Short rotation: FW, income - Long rotation: Timber, income - Sec forest reg.: BD, NTFP Area & rate of A&R - Based on past trends & barriers - Forest division selected as project boundary - Land categories allocated to project activities - Rate/phasing * Aim to afforest in 3 to 5 years * Feasible if investment funds available

Contd… Above Ground Biomass- Field studies in past A&R areas with similar climate and topography - Plot method - Teak, eucalyptus of different age selected, secondary regeneration Below Ground Biomass- Conversion factor Woody Litter- Marginal due to fuelwood extraction - 4 t/ha Soil Organic Carbon- Field sampling - Laboratory analysis Growth Rate- AGB (Teak plantation - BSL) divided by age - SOC (Teak plantation - BSL) divided by age

Financial Data: Costs and Benefits Establishment cost- Forest Department per ha data for 3 years * Land preparation, nursery, planting, gap filling etc. Protection and maintenance cost (Silvicultural practices) - Forest Department records Monitoring- Field studies Harvesting- Forest Department records Allocation of MAI to different components - Literature Outputs & Prices- Survey

Approach Select C-pools Estimate C-stock under baseline & project scenario Estimate C-stock change under project scenario Estimate annual & cumulative net C-stock change Net carbon benefit can be estimated for any selected period Benefit: Cost Discount cash flow analysis Change in C-stock under project scenario – Change in C-stock under baseline scenario

Data Input - Baseline DataUnitDetails Area suitable for the project HaScrub – Blanks – 8560 Phasing of projectYears1 to 5 AGBtons/haShort rotation: 0.87 Long rotation: 0.67 Regeneration: 0.87 BGBtons/haAGB/ha * 0.26 SOCtC/haDegraded lands to Investment CostRs/haNil BenefitsRs/ha1050

Data Inputs: Project Scenario Area (ha)Short rotation (Eucalyptus): 5136 Long rotation (Teak): 3424 Regeneration (Sec forest): MAI (AGB) (t/ha/yr) Short rotation (Eucalyptus): 9 Long rotation (Teak): 7.33 Regeneration (Sec forest): BGB (t/ha/yr)MAI (AGB) X 0.26 Litter (t/ha/yr)Literature SOC (tC/ha/yr)Short rotation (Eucalyptus): 0.3 Long rotation (Teak): 1 Regeneration (Sec forest): 1.2

Cost, Production & Benefit Details TeakEucalyptusNatural regeneration Y1Y2Y3Y1Y2Y3Y1Y2Y3 Initial cost Recurring cost Monitoring cost Monitoring every fifth year only Current prices of timber, pole and fuelwood

C-Stock Changes in Baseline No change in C-stock, remains constant

C-Stock Changes in Project Scenario ~ 41 t/ha accumulated ~ 3.5 t/ha/yr

Net Carbon Benefit ( )

Cost-Effectiveness Project activityInvestment cost (Rs) Life cycle cost (Rs) Per haPer tCPer haPer tC Long rotation Short rotation Natural regeneration Total

Project Level Carbon Benefits