1. WELCOME

2. SCIENTIFIC RANGELAND
MANAGEMENT FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION BY
CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN NEPAL
Group III
Roll No. 11 Indira Sharma
Roll No. 12 Kabita Pandey
Roll No. 13 Krishna K Yadav
Roll No. 14 Krishna P Acharya
Roll No. 15 Mahesh K.C. (Team Leader)
B.V.Sc. & A.H. 8th Sem

3. INTRODUCTION
• Environment can withstand climate change up to
certain level.
– Long term unmitigated climate change will exceed the
capacity of natural and human systems to adapt.
• The most climate-sensitive economic sectors are
agriculture, livestock and rural poor communities.
• Carbon sequestration in soils is low-cost climate-
change-mitigating strategy.
– movement of carbon from air to soil can be increased while
the release of carbon from the soil back to the atmosphere is
decreased. This transformation has the potential to reduce
atmospheric CO2, thereby slowing global warming.

4. • Enhancing carbon sequestration into soil
through environmentally sound scientific
rangeland practices offers a potentially useful
contribution to climate change mitigation.
• The same rangeland will act in diverse way -
potential carbon sink, constant grazing land
for livestock and low cost climate change
mitigation strategy.

5. • Burning issue - climate change, low cost climate
change mitigation strategy.
• 64 % accessible rangelands out of the 1.7 million
ha are 3.5-37 times overstocked and remaining
are inaccessible, which decrease the potentiality
of rangeland to sequester the Carbon.
• Grassland are an irreplaceable source of
livelihoods and foods security for the poor. The
project focuses on the diverse use of the same
rangeland - from climate change mitigation to
livestock and livelihood improvements.
RATIONALE OF STUDY

6. • Carbon is major contributing factor for climate
change. Royal society (2001) said that terrestrial
vegetation and soils have been absorbing
approximately 40% of global CO2 emissions.
• Implementing practices to build or rebuild soil
carbon stocks in grasslands could lead to
considerable mitigation, adaptation and
development benefits.
• No one knows what amount of carbon is
sequestrated in soil of Rangeland. The finding of
research will give the amount of carbon in soil of
rangeland and its contribution in carbon
sequestration.

7. Problem Tree
Climate change
Decrease in potential
carbon sink
Excessive production
of Carbon
Decrease in green vegetation
Rangeland
deterioration
Deforestation
Overgrazing Human pressure
Human settlement
issuesSocial issues
Environmental
issues
Increased green
house gas production
Effect on livelihood and Agriculture

8. Objective Tree
Climate change mitigation
Increase in potential carbon sink Decrease in production of carbon
Increase in vegetation
Potential rangeland management
Scientific livestock
grazing
Rotational grazing Proper stocking rate
Seeding
Brush
management
Fertilizing
Mechanical
treatmentWater
spreading
Decrease industrial
production
Low environmental problems Strengthening of society
Potential greenery maintenance Decreased green house gases
Improved livelihood and
Agriculture

9. OBJECTIVES
General objective:
To mitigate climate change by soil carbon
sequestration in scientifically managed
rangelands of Nepal

10. Specific objectives:
• To increase soil carbon sequestration through
maintenance of potential grazing lands with
different livestock grazing patterns.
• To mitigate climate change using a low cost
measure.
• To address the burning issues of carbon stock
quantification in rangeland of Nepal.
• To find out the amount of carbon in rangeland of
Nepal and its contribution in carbon
sequestration.

11. • Soil carbon is an important part of terrestrial carbon pool
(Lal and Kimble 1998) and soils of the world are potentially
viable sinks for atmospheric carbon (Lal et al. 1998;
Bajracharya et al. 1998a; Singh and Lal 2001).
• Kirschbaum (2000) estimated that world’s soil contain
about 1500Gt of organic carbon to a depth of 1m and a
further 900Gt from 1-2 m. However, soil is deteriorating at
an alarming rate in developing countries like Nepal due to
land use changes (IPCC 2000), lowering C sequestration.
• Gradual conversion of forest and grassland to cropland has
resulted in historically significant losses of soil carbon
worldwide (Lal 2002).
• Grassland accounts for 12% of the total land area of Nepal
(LMP 1993) which will be a good source for carbon sink.
LITERATURE REVIEW

12. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• Geographic location: Sub-tropical and temperate
rangeland will be selected randomly in each
development regions of Nepal.
• Local survey will be done for stocking density and
carrying capacity.
• Stratified sampling method with plot size 1m*1m will
be used to estimate the productivity of the rangeland
for Biomass and Dry Matter.
• Stratification of rangeland will be done into broad
classes i.e., high yield, fair yield and low yield grassland
types (Chen et al. 1998).

13. • At least five soil samples from each plot
using ring sampler (4.8cm diameter, 10cm
long) will be taken and soil testing will be
done in lab.
• The carbon sequestrated by the rangeland
will be estimated by data analysis and
calculations.
• Intensive training and education regarding
the importance and diverse use of grassland
will be provided.

14. • Seeding, watering, fertilizing, scientific grazing,
brush management and mechanical treatment
will be done.
• In every month of implementation period
monitoring, evaluation, and data collection will
be done.
• New data of the rangeland and carbon content
will be collected at the end of project period.
• Data analysis and publication will be done
finally.

15. EXPECTED OUTCOME
• Climate change mitigation.
• A model for a potentially inexpensive option with
environmental co-benefits for carbon
sequestration.
• A well established range land.
• Enhance productivity of livestock.
• Increase the status of most climate-sensitive
economic sectors - agriculture, livestock and rural
poor communities.
• Increase the livelihood.

16. TIMELINE AND BUDGET
Timeline
• Project period: 1 year
– Determination of rangeland productivity, stocking density,
initial carbon content of the rangeland: 3 months
– Method demonstration regarding stocking rate, education,
trainings, rotational grazing, enclosure from livestock
grazing: 1 month
– Project Implementation period: 6 months
– Determination of net effect of the project regarding the
final capacity of the rangeland, amount of carbon
sequestrated: 2 months

17. Timeline
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Survey
Education
and training
Project
implementati
on
Reporting

18. • Estimated budget:
• Pre-survey, data collection regarding rangeland area, type, climatic
condition, livestock population: NRs.2,00,000
• Determination of rangeland dry matter, livestock stocking density,
carbon contained in the soil of rangeland: NRs.5,00,000
• Education to livestock farmers, training to VAHW, DFOs, local
leaders: NRs. 2,00,000
• project implementation: NRs.13,00,000
• Different purchases, utilities, stationery materials, and other seen
and unseen expenses: NRs. 5,00,000
• Data collection and analysis: NRs. 3,00,000
• Total : NRs. 30,00,000

19. References
Bajracharya, R.M. et al. (1998a) Long term tillage effect on soil organic distribution in
aggregates and primary particle fractions of two Ohio soils. In : Lal, R. et al, (eds.)
Management of carbon sequestration in soil, pp 113-123. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA.
Chen, Y. and Fischer, G. (1998) A new digital geo-referenced database of grassland in China.
International institute for applied systems analysis interim report, IR-98-
062.Laxenburg (Austria): IIASA.
Craig, S. (1996) Pasture management, indigenous veterinary care and the role of the horse in
Mustang, Nepal. In: Miller, D.J. and Craig, S.R. (eds.), Rangelands and pastoral
development in the Hindu Kush – Himalayas, ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp. 147-
170.
IPCC (2000) The Intergovernmental panel on climate change, special report on land use, Land-
use change and forestry. Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UK.
Kirshbaum, M.U.F. (2000) Will changes in soils organic carbon act as a positive or negative
feedback on global warming? Biogeochemistry 48(1):21-51.
Lal, R. et al. (1998) Land use and C pools in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Lal, R. and Stewart, B.A.
(eds.) Management of carbon sequestration in soil, pp1-10 CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA.
Lal, R. (2002) Soil Carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Environ pollution 116:353-362.
LRMP (1987) Land resources mapping project, His Majesty Government of Nepal, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Maharjan, M. (2010) Soil carbon and nutrient status of rangeland in upper Mustang. Thesis
Report (M.Sc.) Institute of Forestry, Trivhuwan University.
Singh, B.R. and Lal, R. (2001) The potential of Norwegian soils to sequester carbon through
land use conversion and improved management practices. Ohio States University,
USA.

20. End of the slides for presentation

21. THANK YOU