This document discusses the challenges of adopting a landscape management approach (LSM) for implementing India's Greening India Mission (GIM). It outlines some key challenges, including limited guidance in the GIM guidelines on achieving multiple objectives and managing trade-offs. There are also methodological challenges in selecting appropriate scales, integrating diverse data, addressing complexity and uncertainty, and defining and measuring landscape indicators. Integrating economic analysis and linking projects to decision-making are also challenges. Overall, while LSM is seen as important for GIM, there remain significant challenges to adopting this approach that need to be addressed.

1. “Greening India Mission; Landscape
Management Approach -
Methodological Challenges”
Prof. N.H. Ravindranath
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore, India

2. Outline
1. Challenges facing Land and landscapes in Developing
countries
2. Why Landscape approach
3. Greening India Mission and Landscape Management
Approach
4. Methods and approaches – Limitations of GIM
5. Methodological, Data and modeling Challenges in
Adopting LSM approach
2

3. Challenges Facing Land or Landscape Management
in Developing countries
1. Land Degradation / Land fragmentation / Desertification - continues
2. Land scarcity and multiple demands for land – large dependence of rural
communities on land for agriculture and livelihoods
3. Water scarcity – especially Ground Water – critical for Agric.
4. High climate variability – abnormal monsoon - Climate change
5. Sustaining food production to meet growing demand – in the face of
Land degradation + Water scarcity + Climate change
6. Biodiversity is under threat, ecosystem services are declining (e.g.
pollination)
7. Land for Bioenergy could threaten food production and biodiversity
8. Managing land & water are critical for sustaining Food production,
Water supply, livelihoods and biodiversity.
3

4. Features of Forest Sector in India
1. Forest account for nearly 22% of land area and Govt. has a
plan to increase it to 33%
2. Low or marginal rates of deforestation – Forest area
stabilized or increasing - despite large forest dependence
3. Large afforestation / reforestation
4. Forest sector programs - Focus only on Forest resources &
afforestation of Degraded public lands
 NO integrated management of land
4

5. INDC and Green India Mission
To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to
3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through
additional forest and tree cover by 2030.
India is committed to implementation of
Greening India Mission under INDC
Budget = US$ 8 billion
5

6. National Mission for a “Green India” (GIM)
GIM envisages a holistic view of greening & focuses on
multiple ecosystem services;
 biodiversity, water, biomass (including food),
preserving mangroves, wetlands, critical habitats etc.
& Carbon seq. as a co-benefit.
GIM has adopted an integrated cross-sectoral
approach at a landscape level & will be implemented on
 both public as well as private lands with a
key role for local communities in planning, decision
making, implementation and monitoring
6

7. Specific Objectives of GIM
1. Increased forest/tree cover to the extent of 5 Mha and improved
quality of forest/tree cover of another 5 Mha of forest/non-forest
lands
2. Improved/enhanced eco-system services like carbon sequestration
and storage (in forests and other ecosystems), hydrological services
and biodiversity; along with provisioning services like fuel, fodder,
and timber and non-timber forest produces (NTFPs)
3. Increased resilience of rural communities and improve livelihoods
4. Adoption of “Decentralized – Landscape based approach”
5. Agriculture sector to be addressed using other ongoing programs.
7

8. Why landscape management approach
1. A landscape consists not only of interacting biological and geophysical
elements but also of people, land uses, infrastructure, social
organizations, institutional arrangements, and cultural, spiritual, and
utility values
2. Landscapes are also the primary level at which the actions of individual
households intersect those of others resources and users.
3. A greening strategy at a landscape level offers an opportunity to
address multiple objectives aimed at achieving multiple
interlinked benefits
4. Improves inter-sectoral coordination and cost-effectiveness at multiple
levels
5. Empowers communities through multi-stakeholder processes and
inclusive governance
6. Enhances transboundary and regional cooperation
8

9. Why adopting Landscape Approach
7. Spatial ecological linkages among land components:
 The landscape components such as forestland, grassland and cropland are
spatially and functionally linked through flow of biomass, energy, water and
nutrients
8. Possible to Addressing Biodiversity & Provision of Ecosystem services:
 Natural ecosystems provide humankind a multitude of resources and
processes and these ecologically as well as socially beneficial services are
collectively known as ecosystem services
9. Feasibility of Integrated approach:
 Landscape approach enables an integrated approach, lacking in current programmes,
addressing all the elements such as cropland, grassland, water bodies and livestock.
10. Addressing Climate Change:
 Climate Change will impact all the land use components of a landscape which are inter-
linked.

10. Criteria for identification and delineation of landscapes
in the GIM
1. Potential for biodiversity conservation and
enhancing ecosystem services:
2. Vulnerability to climate change: Potential for
enhancing carbon mitigation-adaptation
benefits:.
3. Potential of enhancing socio-economic or
livelihoods benefits:

11. Guidelines and methodology for
planning and implementing GIM11

12. Integrated cross-sectoral approach to implementation
The Mission will foster an integrated approach that treats
forests and non-forest public lands
private lands (including crop lands) simultaneously,
in project units/ sub-landscapes/ sub-watersheds.
Livelihood dependencies diversification will be addressed to
enhance resilience using
inter-sectoral convergence (e.g., animal husbandry, forest,
agriculture, rural development and energy).
Mission aims at convergence with other developmental
programs on
Agriculture, Watershed development, Rural development, etc
12

13. Landscape approach to GIM:
 The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Govt. of India has
developed guidelines for designing, implementing and monitoring of GIM.
 The main guidelines for implementing GIM is based on “Landscape”
approach.
 Criteria for identification of Landscapes
1. Based on biophysical and socio-economic parameters; with an operational unit
(about 5000-10,000 ha) often co-terminus with micro/mini watersheds.
2. As a contiguous area, the operational units within larger landscapes to address
ecological as well as socio-economic objectives
3. Projected vulnerability to climate change
4. Status of forest cover,
5. Significance of biodiversity and other ecosystem values, critical habitats and
corridors
6. Potential of area as a carbon sink
7. Overlays of socio economic criteria like poverty and ethnicity (tribal /non-tribal)
to further help prioritization of project areas within the candidate landscapes.
13

14. Classification of landscape levels in GIM
Level-1: Large contiguous areas of forest and non
forests lands in a given landform / catchment
Level-2: Operational units, usually Mili Watershed
of approximately - 5,000 to 10,000 ha
Level-3: Working units, usually micro watersheds
and villages within L2 landscape for actual
implementation of the Mission Activities
14

15. Data/information inputs for perspective planning
 Bio-physical Information –
 Land use
 Area of forest/non-forest
 Vegetation & fauna
 Biodiversity
 Watershed classification and catchment area
 Types of forests & regeneration status
 NTFP resources
 Surface water and ground water resources
 Biomass and Carbon stock
 Degraded forest and waste lands
 Areas needing special attention
 Fire/erosion prone areas/incidences
15
 Socio – economic information -
 Administrative (ii) Population (iii) Landholding
 pattern (iv) Cropping pattern (v) Livestock (vi)
Drinking water (vii) Domestic
 Energy (viii) Occupation (ix) Infrastructure (x)
Sources of income (xi) Forestbased
 livelihood enterprises (xii) Recreation/eco-tourism

16. Criteria for identification of Landscape Levels
16

17. The datasets in addition to the ones identified above are likely to include the following indicators…
Sr.no Layer Data type Criteria Source
1 High resolution
imagery
Raster To develop hi-resolution landuse/land cover map as a baseline
2 Topography
- contours
V/ Image Will help correlate topography with forest cover and identify forests
that are under-represented in topographic terms. If available in vector
format, could also be used to create 3-D DEMs
SOI
3 Village, forest
boundaries
Vector All forest and village/hamlet boundaries should be digitized on a
priority basis
Revenue
/Forest.
Dept
4 Wetlands /
tanks
Vector Location or Boundary of water bodies State
5 Drinking
water supply
intake points
Points Shows points of intake for drinking water schemes - from springs,
streams, rivers, wells, handpumps etc. Areas upstream of these will
be drinking water catchments (if available)
Water
supply
depts.
6 Forest cover change
map over the last
5/10 Years
Raster This will show recent trajectory of change for forest cover and help
identify areas under threat, establish the previous rate of
deforestation and help estimate future threats of Deforestation
FSI
7 Urban / peri-urban
areas
Vector Boundary of urban areas, to help identify urban/peri-urban forest
patches – current and potential
State
8 Areas already treated Vector Help identify extent of investments made in the past (1/5 year )
9 Community
Conserved areas
Vector A cross-cutting intervention in the GIM
17

18. The institutional structure for approval of GIM plan
18

19. Institutional Arrangements
Principles and Approaches
Strengthening of Decentralized forest Governance
Convergence of Mission activities with other developmental
programs and activities
Adoption of existing Institutions, rather than creation of new
institutions
Aim is to Strengthen Institutions for Decentralized
Governance
At Village level
At Landscape level
19

20. Inadequate Guidelines & Limited Experience of
implementing Green India Mission
 Implementation of GIM has just begun
 The Mission implementation is totally committed to adoption of
Landscape approach
 The Guidelines several limitations
1. But it is weak on many aspects of Landscape Management approach
2. Limited guidance on how to achieve multi-objectives or promote
synergies
3. Methodology or approach on “How to avoid tradeoffs”
4. How to manage “Agriculture dominated Landscapes”
5. Limited methodological guidance on planning process
6. Limited modeling guidance except Climate change vulnerability
profiling
20

21. Broad Challenges in landscape management by
Projects
1. Integrated landscape management is a long-term endeavour
requiring constant support and inputs (e.g., human, monetary,
technological, and infrastructural) and thus is hard to sustain
2. Poor integration, inconsistency or conflicting laws or policies
as a major challenge to meeting Landscape objectives
3. Lack of practical methods for “Natural Ecosystem and
Agriculture dominated landscapes”
4. Stakeholder participation and funding problems
5. Insufficient and sustained support from government Depts.
21

22. Methodological Challenges in LSM
1. Selection of unit or scale for land use planning – Landscape, Watershed, village,
etc – what is the optimal scale & Scientific criteria
2. Defining / quantifying the multiple demands on land and Multiple objectives
3. Multiple land ownership – private / farmer / community / Govt / Forest Dept.
4. Models for Optimizing or maximizing Agricultural production sustainably in
Agricultural dominated landscapes –
 Along with biodiversity and ecosystem services objectives
5. How to mainstream Adaptation to climate change – Short and long term –
Incremental & Transformational Adaptation
6. How to synergistically integrate Mitigation with Adaptation & other Goals
7. Methods for addressing trade-offs among competing objectives
8. How to integrate livelihood improvement in optimal land management
22

23. Challenges in LSM
1. Integration of information/policy/data
 Integrating diverse data representing economic, social and biophysical systems in a way
that it could be included in the scenario development and lead to recommendations for
the policy process seems to be a considerable challenge encountered.
2. Managing complexity and the interdisciplinary nature of the projects
- The complexity inherent in an LSM systems is challenging and lack of tools that
sufficiently capture the richness of human and ecosystem processes.
4. Uncertainty and risk analysis
- uncertainties into developed models, scenarios, recommended policies, and consequently
into the decisions-making processes
5. Data gathering and management challenges:
 Lack of data (or at least non-accessibility in the reasonable timeframe) for certain
indicators, Data on inappropriate temporal and spatial scale for modelling.
 Diverse frequency of collected data within and in between social, economic and
environmental domains, Data requiring significant financial inputs
23

24. Challenges.. Contd..
6. Defining and measuring landscape indicators
- across scales and linking them to global or regional indicators of
other phenomena can assist in avoiding methodological problem
7. Incorporating Economic or cost : benefit analysis in to Bio-
physical Landscape management methods / models
8. Monitoring actual changes on the landscape through the use of
monitoring indicators and reporting,
 Adapting or modifying plans and actions to ensure desired future
conditions are attained.
9. Linking the case study project and its results to decision-making
processes at macro-level
24

25. There are still many challenges in
Adopting LSM Approach……..!!!
THANK YOU
25

26. 26

27. Challenges and Lessons Learned from Integrated
Landscape Management Projects
 1. Assessing past and current conditions and trends of the systems
including landscapes, to create a baseline scenario (often based on past
data) for strategic planning.
 2. Envisioning or forecasting potential future pathways and desired
conditions for the analyzed landscape.
 3. Establishing plans and objectives to attain these desired conditions in a
collaborative inter-jurisdictional context.

28. 28

29. 29

30. Internal structure of the INGRID landscape mode
30

31. Mainstreaming Mitigation and Adaptation to climate
change into LSM31
Locatell et al. 2015

32. Global Experience in Designing and Implementing
LSM Approaches
 Integrated landscape management has been implemented and tested in
a wide range of environments and cultures across the globe, providing
practical examples of place-based implementation.
 A recent continental review by the Landscape for People, Food and
Nature Initiative identified
365 programs in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South and
Southeast Asia that are utilizing methods and practices that characterize
them as integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs).
 Results from the continental reviews show that simultaneous
improvements in conservation, agriculture, livelihoods, and
institutional capacity and coordination can be achieved using an ILM
approach
32