This document presents a case study on using carbon finance to promote sustainable land management practices among landless mobile pastoralists in northern Pakistan. It finds that: 1) Cropping on alpine pastures reduces soil and biomass carbon storage compared to pasture land. 2) Avoiding emissions from preventing the conversion of pastures to cropland generates higher payments than conventional grassland improvement schemes. 3) Transaction costs are a major challenge, but carbon payments could still incentivize herders to adopt sustainable practices if projects are designed to reduce costs and address issues like baseline prediction, leakage, and monitoring. Overall, valuing the ecosystem services provided by pastoralism may be more impactful than a sole

1. Sustainable land management and carbon
finance: a case study on landless mobile
pastoralists in the Hindu Kush Himalaya
mountains of northern Pakistan
Henri Rueff, Inam ur Rahim, Sayed Aziz
Rehman, Daniel Maselli, Khurshid
Muhammad, Nafees Muhammad
henri.rueff@geog.ox.ac.uk

2. Carbon in a pro-poor and pastoralism context
> Rangelands are being only recently scrutinized for carbon
schemes
> 30% of the world’s land cover is rangeland
> Pastoralists are often composing the poorest segment society
> Perception towards pastoralists: contributors or degraders?
Valuing ES!
> Carbon market dysfunctions: CDM failed to deliver SD
> Alternative: social carbon credits towards SD and poverty
reduction, community based carbon projects (CCSB/Plan Vivo)
> Advantages of a carbon scheme for herders: trading a
commodity without a hub
> Land richer in carbon enhances adaptation

3. Research question
> Poor current market conditions with low carbon prices:
> what schemes could work?
> Conventional mitigation schemes in rangelands are based on pasture
improvement and stock reduction:
> How does avoided emissions renouncing cropping compares to these
conventional rangeland mitigation schemes?
> How can carbon finance enhance SLM?
Looking at an overstocking case
Livelihood
Baseline scenario (overstocking)
Minimum carbon payment
Mitigation scenario (carrying capacity)
Time

4. Context in the Naran valley (Pakistan
Himalayas)
> Under the guidance of developement agencies in the 80s, herders
have been planting off-season potatoes and peas at high altitude,
which rewards 10 times the usual herding activity, nevertheless....
> Steep slopes without terracing leading to soil loss
> Rapid decline in yields
> Land becomes unsuitable for cropping nor grazing after a short
period
> Herders are pushed to pastures at higher elevations fostering
degradation because of a shorter growing season
> Changes in the division of labour. The fittest crop, the weaker
(elders) herd in hostile environments

5. Methodology
Hypotheses
(i) cropping on alpine pastures reduces former carbon storage
(ii) the avoided emission from renouncing cropping is a superior mitigation
choice than improved pastures
To solve (i)
72 soil core samples discriminating in triplicates for
> 2 land uses (cropping, pasture)
> 3 aspects (North, South)
> 3 elevations (low 3000, middle 3100, and high 3200 m a.s.l.)
> 2 soil depths (shallow 0-10, deep 10-30 cm)
Soil samples were air-dried, sifted
36 above and below-ground (coarse roots) biomass samples oven-dried
Potassium dichromate oxidation treatment
To solve (ii) we compare data with existing literature and integrate an ex-ante
model (FAO) (in progress)

6. Case study: pastoral system in the Himalaya of
Pakistan

8. Results soil
18
400 18 21
Soil organic carbon
15
350 15 18
300 15 12
12
[g kg-1]
250 12 9
9
200 9 6
150 6 6
3 3
100 3
50 0 0 0
Pasture Cropland South North Low Mid High 0-10 cm 10-30 cm

9. Results biomass
400
Biomass carbon
350
300
[g m-2]
250
200
150
100
50
Pasture Cropland
> Avoided emissions are likely to yield higher payments than
conventional grassland improvement (under investigation)
Preventing the conversion of pastures into cropping fields avoids
an average loss of 12.2 t C ha-1 or 44.8 t CO2e ha-1.
> Enteric methane release from livestock in the pasture scenario is
largely nullified by increasing greenhouse gas releases due to
fertilizer inputs needed in the cropping scenario. (likely, under
investigation)

10. Discussion – issues to consider
> Solve non-market leakage issues
Mitigate here but transfer emissions elsewhere!
Solution: contractual, monitoring
> Solve market leakage issues
Consequences of the lack of supply of off-
season crops to the market
Solution: integrate in the mitigation scenario,
use buffer credits, monitoring, terracing

11. Discussion – issues to consider
> Predict baseline
Selling a commodity reflecting the avoidance of
what you think will occur
Solution: use proxies, understand project
boundaries
> Transaction costs
Main cause of dysfunctions
Solution: create larger project units, sell high
quality carbon credits at a higher price (poverty
alleviation, SLM)

12. Conclusion
> Carbon payment is attractive but does it work?
> Complex accounting, unawareness among
practitioners and pastoralists
> More important than carbon – valuing overall
ecosystem services provided by pastoralists and
build societal awareness (food security, biodiversity
Landscaping, cultural heritage etc…)

13. Thank you