Adaptation to Climate Change in Panchase Mountain Ecological Regions of Nepal

Adhikari, S. B., et al., 2018. Environments

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Rural mountain communities in developing countries are considered particularly vulnerable to environmental change, including climate change. Forests and agriculture provide numerous ecosystem goods and services (EGS) to local communities and can help people adapt to the impacts of climate change. There is however poor documentation on the role of EGS in people’s livelihood and adaptation practices. This study in the rural Panchase Mountain Ecological Region of Nepal identifies practices being used to adapt to a changing environment through key informant interviews and focus group discussions. At the household level, livelihood diversification, changes in cropping patterns and farming practices, use of multipurpose plant species and income-generation activities were identified as adaptation strategies. Among major strategies at the community level were community forestry-based climate adaptation plans of action for forest and water resource management. Landscape-level adaptation strategies were large-scale collaborative projects and programs, such as Ecosystem-based Adaptation and Chitwan Annapurna Landscape conservation; which had implications at both the local and landscape-level. A proper blending and integration of adaptation strategies from individual households through to the community and to the landscape level is needed for implementing effective adaptation in the region.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-258-3
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    "Intervention described as a 'community-level adaptation' defined as ""a community-led process and practices designed to empower people to plan and cope with the impacts of climate change"" Community-based Forest Landscape Restoration (CBFLR); major activities: Plantation in open spaces, roadside areas and protection of plantation areas."

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Soil erosion  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Loss of ecosystem goods: “Increased forest coverage and varieties of EGS” Soil erosion: “Reduced soil erosion and help in soil conservation…Sediment control in low lying area.”
    Loss of other ecosystem goods  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Loss of ecosystem goods: “Increased forest coverage and varieties of EGS” Soil erosion: “Reduced soil erosion and help in soil conservation…Sediment control in low lying area.”
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Panchase Mountain Ecological Region (PMER) (latitude: 28 803600 N to 28 1801700 N, longitude: 83 4306900 E to 83 590500 E) of western Nepal (Figure 1). The PMER represents the mountain ecosystem linking the lowlands and the high Himalayas of the Annapurna range of Himalaya. Five villages, i.e., Bhadaure Tamagi, Chapakot, Pumdighumdi, Kaskikot, and Dhikurpokhari, were used for the study purpose within this PMER. Out of five villages, Bhadaure Tamagi is the one principally used for data collection. Bhadaure Tamagi typically represents both upstream and downstream regions with distinct land use and farming practices. At the same time, it covers the top of the landscape to the valley bottom downstream.

  • Country: Nepal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Community-based adaptation
    Forest landscape restoration

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: **For map, intervention type should be coded as CRT only Only section that has evidence on effectiveness is the "Community-Level Adaptation Practices"
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: N/A
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: Same as climate impact b/c linked to specific groups of people **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Loss of ecosystem goods: “Increased forest coverage and varieties of EGS” Soil erosion: “Reduced soil erosion and help in soil conservation…Sediment control in low lying area.”
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Qualitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-258-2
  • Intervention type: Combination
  • Intervention description:

    "Intervention described as a 'community-level adaptation' defined as ""a community-led process and practices designed to empower people to plan and cope with the impacts of climate change"" Community Forest- based Adaptation Plan of Action (CAPA); major activities: • Preparation of a CAPA separate from forest management operational plan • Focus of CAPA on water management within the CF, especially for drinking water • Forest fire management • Restoration of traditional pond/springs and rainwater harvesting • Water source protection CAPA was designed to protect water sources in the forest and water supply to the village. Other areas incorporated into the CAPA include the conservation and recharge of ponds and managing forest fires in the dry season. "

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Reduced water availability  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Water availability: [Positive] “A supply of drinking water from the forest, as envisioned in a CF-based CAPA, has helped meet community water requirements in the upstream region but not in the downstream region….water management does not appear to be effective at the community level, requiring more robust local institutional and governance mechanisms to support the initiative.” “Yet protection and maintenance of community-level conservation ponds in different parts of the region have helped recharge groundwater by collecting excess water in the rainy season Landslides: [Positive]“Yet protection and maintenance of community-level conservation ponds in different parts of the region have helped recharge groundwater by collecting excess water in the rainy season and reducing water-induced hazards such as landslides”
    Mudslides / Landslides  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Water availability: [Positive] “A supply of drinking water from the forest, as envisioned in a CF-based CAPA, has helped meet community water requirements in the upstream region but not in the downstream region….water management does not appear to be effective at the community level, requiring more robust local institutional and governance mechanisms to support the initiative.” “Yet protection and maintenance of community-level conservation ponds in different parts of the region have helped recharge groundwater by collecting excess water in the rainy season Landslides: [Positive]“Yet protection and maintenance of community-level conservation ponds in different parts of the region have helped recharge groundwater by collecting excess water in the rainy season and reducing water-induced hazards such as landslides”
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Panchase Mountain Ecological Region (PMER) (latitude: 28 803600 N to 28 1801700 N, longitude: 83 4306900 E to 83 590500 E) of western Nepal (Figure 1). The PMER represents the mountain ecosystem linking the lowlands and the high Himalayas of the Annapurna range of Himalaya. Five villages, i.e., Bhadaure Tamagi, Chapakot, Pumdighumdi, Kaskikot, and Dhikurpokhari, were used for the study purpose within this PMER. Out of five villages, Bhadaure Tamagi is the one principally used for data collection. Bhadaure Tamagi typically represents both upstream and downstream regions with distinct land use and farming practices. At the same time, it covers the top of the landscape to the valley bottom downstream.

  • Country: Nepal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
  • Issue specific term: Community-based adaptation

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: coded as positive for water b/c positive for one group, no effect on other group "Only section that has evidence on effectiveness is the ""Community-Level Adaptation Practices"
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures: N/A
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: Same as climate impact b/c linked to specific groups of people "**No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Water availability: [Positive] “A supply of drinking water from the forest, as envisioned in a CF-based CAPA, has helped meet community water requirements in the upstream region but not in the downstream region….water management does not appear to be effective at the community level, requiring more robust local institutional and governance mechanisms to support the initiative.” “Yet protection and maintenance of community-level conservation ponds in different parts of the region have helped recharge groundwater by collecting excess water in the rainy season Landslides: [Positive]“Yet protection and maintenance of community-level conservation ponds in different parts of the region have helped recharge groundwater by collecting excess water in the rainy season and reducing water-induced hazards such as landslides”"
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Qualitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-258-1
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    "Intervention described as a 'community-level adaptation' defined as ""a community-led process and practices designed to empower people to plan and cope with the impacts of climate change"" Management of Forest EGS through Community Forest (CF) Management; major activities include: Formation of CFUGs to manage forest EGS, Use of forest products and other ES from the forest, Investment of earning from community forest in forest management, poverty alleviation and community development activities, Coordination with other community-based organizations"

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of food production  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Positive effects on all impacts Loss of ecosystem goods: “Enhanced range of forest ecosystem goods and services to help adopt to adverse climatic impacts” Water availability: “Creation of … water resources” [positive] Agricultural production: “Enhanced farm forest linkage, and increased farm and forest-based EGS”
    Reduced water availability  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Positive effects on all impacts Loss of ecosystem goods: “Enhanced range of forest ecosystem goods and services to help adopt to adverse climatic impacts” Water availability: “Creation of … water resources” [positive] Agricultural production: “Enhanced farm forest linkage, and increased farm and forest-based EGS”
    Loss of other ecosystem goods  Positive **No specific quantified outcome measures reported. Outcomes based on points summarized by authors collected from interviews, focus groups, and Published and unpublished reports of relevant government entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were reviewed as secondary sources Positive effects on all impacts Loss of ecosystem goods: “Enhanced range of forest ecosystem goods and services to help adopt to adverse climatic impacts” Water availability: “Creation of … water resources” [positive] Agricultural production: “Enhanced farm forest linkage, and increased farm and forest-based EGS”
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Panchase Mountain Ecological Region (PMER) (latitude: 28 803600 N to 28 1801700 N, longitude: 83 4306900 E to 83 590500 E) of western Nepal (Figure 1). The PMER represents the mountain ecosystem linking the lowlands and the high Himalayas of the Annapurna range of Himalaya. Five villages, i.e., Bhadaure Tamagi, Chapakot, Pumdighumdi, Kaskikot, and Dhikurpokhari, were used for the study purpose within this PMER. Out of five villages, Bhadaure Tamagi is the one principally used for data collection. Bhadaure Tamagi typically represents both upstream and downstream regions with distinct land use and farming practices. At the same time, it covers the top of the landscape to the valley bottom downstream.

  • Country: Nepal
  • Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
  • Issue specific term: Community-based adaptation

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: "Only section that has evidence on effectiveness is the ""Community-Level Adaptation Practices"" Although only brief mention of link between forest intervention and agricultural production (“Enhanced farm forest linkage, and increased farm and forest-based EGS”), in intro it is stated that forests are linked to crop production ""Forests support agricultural land by providing protection from erosion and landslides, as well as different products such as water resources for irrigation, forage for livestock, and litter for nutrients and organic matter. "" Did not code for wildfire because no indication what was involved in fire management - seems to be more about awareness building "
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: Increased forest coverage and better forest condition
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
  • Impacts for people: Positive
  • People measures: "**same as climate impacts b/c linked to specific group of people Additional outcomes are from the implementation of the intervention and co-benefits of poverty reduction: Contribution to poverty reduction and community development such as rural road construction and maintenance of school buildings Robust institutional mechanism with authority to manage forest at the local level “Although not designed for adaptation to the impacts of climate change, community forest (CF) management has significantly helped enhance the adaptive capacity of local communities to climate change. Adaptive capacity of local communities has increased due to the formation of natural capital, livelihood (human and social) capital, strong grassroots institutions, and the capacity to manage and use forests within the community [38].”"
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Qualitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: