Using spatial analysis to explore potential for multiple benefits from REDD+ in Mongolia
This report is the result of a collaboration between the Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IRIMHE), the UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP‐WCMC), as part of Mongolia’s National UN‐REDD Programme. The UN‐REDD Programme is the United Nations Collaborative Initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries. The Programme was launched in 2008 and builds on the convening role and technical expertise of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UN‐REDD Programme supports nationally‐led REDD+ processes and promotes the informed and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and other forest‐dependent communities, in national and international REDD+ implementation. The UN‐REDD Programme provided technical support for this workshop from the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP‐WCMC). UNEP‐WCMC is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice. Copyright 2016 United Nations Environment Programme This publication may be reproduced for educational or non‐profit purposes without special permission, provided acknowledgement to the source is made. Reuse of any figures is subject to permission from the original rights holders. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose without permission in writing from UNEP. Applications for permission, with a statement of purpose and extent of reproduction, should be sent to the Director, UNEP‐WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP, the contributing organizations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations of material in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or the contributing organizations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or the designation of its name, frontiers or boundaries. The mention of a commercial entity or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP or the contributing organizations. Should readers wish to comment on this document, they are encouraged to get in touch via: Zagdaa Narangerel, IRIMHE: [email protected] Xavier de Lamo, UNEP‐WCMC: [email protected]‐wcmc.org Suggested citation: Narangerel, Z., Nandin‐Erdene, G., de Lamo, X., Simonson, W., Guth, M. and Hicks, C. (2016) Using spatial analysis to explore potential for multiple benefits from REDD+ in Mongolia. Joint report of the Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IRIMHE), UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Mongolia National UN‐REDD Programme, Ulaanbaatar. Acknowledgements: With thanks for inputs and assistance from the working session participants: M. Bayasgalan, N. Lkhamsuren, G. Batkhishig, N. Gandoljin, B. Nyamsuren, G. Nandin‐Erdene, Z. Narangerel, B. Khishigsuren, R. Otgonchimeg, Byambatseren, Kh. Khadbaatar, T. Altantsetseg, E. Munkhjargal, G. Oyunkhuu, M. Undraa, N. Baljinniyam, N. Elbegjargal, B. Undrakh, B. Amanjol, A. Batchimeg, B. Khongorzul, B. Khosbayar, E. Erdenekhuu, Ts. Khongor, Sanaa Enkhtaivan, B. Khishigjargal and R. Metcalfe. Thanks also to the reviewers of this report: Neil Burgess, Mark Wright and Lera Miles (UNEP‐WCMC); Richard Metcalfe and ….(UN‐REDD Mongolia PMU); Thomas Enters (UNEP UN‐REDD); and ,,,,,,,, for their review of this report. UNEP promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities. Printing on ii paper from environmentally sustainable forests and recycled fibre is encouraged.
Using spatial analysis to explore potential for multiple benefits from REDD+ in Mongolia Joint report of the Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IRIMHE), UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Mongolia National UN‐REDD Programme. 2016 Report and maps prepared by: Z. Narangerel (IRIMHE), G. Nandin‐Erdene (IRIMHE), Xavier de Lamo (UNEP‐WCMC), Will Simonson (UNEP‐WCMC), Miriam Guth (UNEP‐WCMC), and Charlotte Hicks (UNEP‐WCMC). Report edited by: …………… iii
Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 REDD+ ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 REDD+ multiple benefits and risks ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 REDD+ in Mongolia ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 This work .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Spatial analysis and decision support tools (DST) ........................................................................... 5 1.6 Forest and environmental datasets for spatial analysis to support REDD+ planning ................... 5 1.7 Structure of this report .................................................................................................................... 6 2. Mongolia’s forests .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Mongolia’s forest resources and their protection .......................................................................... 7 2.2 Biodiversity and ecosystem services in Mongolia’s forests .......................................................... 10 2.3 Key trends and pressures on forest resources .............................................................................. 16 3. Supporting planning for REDD+ in Mongolia at the aimag level .................................. 26 3.1 Benefits of forests in Khovsgol and Tov ........................................................................................ 26 3.2 Forest areas with potential to provide REDD+ multiple benefits: Khovsgol and Tov compared 40 4. Mapping potential for forest restoration through REDD+ ............................................... 42 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 42 4.2 Mapping of forest restoration opportunities ................................................................................ 42 5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 45 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 47 ANNEX 1: A selection of software tools useful for analysis of potential benefits from REDD+ ........ 51 iv
List of Figures Figure 1.1. REDD+ activities agreed under UNFCCC…………………………………………………..……………………….1 Figure 2.1. Forest cover in Mongolia’s boreal forest region……………………………………………….………..…….8 Figure 2.2. Forest types in Mongolia’s boreal forest region...………………………………………..………….……….9 Figure 2.3. Estimated distribution of aboveground biomass carbon in Mongolia’s boreal forests (tonnes per hectare)……………………..……………………………………………………………………………………12 Figure 2.4. Distribution of boreal forest cover inside and outside protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas………..….………………………………………………………………………….……………………..14 Figure 2.5. Estimated distribution of threatened species richness……………………………………..……………15 Figure 2.6. Boreal forest areas affected by tree cover loss……………………………………………………………….17 Figure 2.7. Distribution of areas of tree cover loss in relation to Protected Area……………………………..18 Figure 2.8. Pressure on boreal forests from fire……………………………………………………………………………….22 Figure 2.9. Pressure on boreal forests from livestock grazing……………………………………………….………….22 Figure 2.10. Livestock numbers by soum…………………………………………………………………………………….…..23 Figure 2.11. Pressure on boreal forests from pests………………………………………………………………………….24 Figure 2.12. Mining areas and boreal forest cover in Mongolia……………………………………………………….25 Figure 3.1. Location of Khovsgol and Tov aimags in northern Mongolia…………………………………………..26 Figure 3.2. Condition of forests in Tov and Khovsgol aimag…………………………………………...................29 Figure 3.3. Distribution of forest water provision in Tov and Khovsgol aimags………………………….…..31 Figure 3.4. Distribution of selected nature‐based tourism and recreation sites in relation to forests in Tov and Khovsgol aimags………………………………………………………………………………………………..33 Figure 3.5. Forests providing fuelwood in Tov and Khovsgol aimag…………………………………………….....35 Figure 3.6. Forests providing timber in Khovsgol aimag…………………….……………………………………..…….36 Figure 3.7. Forests providing selected non‐timber forest products in Khovsgol aimag……………….....37 Figure 3.8. Areas considered important for wildlife habitat in Tov aimag……....................................39 Figure 3.9. Distribution of potential multiple benefits in relation to forests in Tov and Khovsgol aimags………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….41 Figure 4.1. Composite layers for analysis of potential areas for forest restoration………………………..43 Figure 4.2. Potential areas for carrying out forest restoration activities in Tov aimag…………………..44 v
Acronyms and abbreviations AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use sector ALAGAC Administration of Land Affairs, Geodesy, and Cartography CO2 Carbon dioxide DEM Digital Elevation Model DST Decision support tool EIC Environment Information Center FAO Forest and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FRDC Forest Resources Development Centre GHG Greenhouse gas GIS Geographic Information System GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit IBA Important Bird Area IPCC International Panel on Climate Change IRIMHE Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KBA Key Biodiversity Area MEGD Ministry of Environment and Green Development MEGDT Ministry of Environment, Green Development and Tourism Mha Million hectares MNET Ministry of Nature, Environment and Tourism MNFI Multipurpose National Forest Inventory MNT Mongolian Tugrik MRTT Ministry of Roads, Transport and Tourism NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NTFPs Non‐timber forest products REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; ‘plus’ Conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of RSD forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks Spp Relative stock density UNDP Species UNEP‐WCMC United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation UNFCCC Monitoring Centre UN‐REDD Programme United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United Nations Collaborative Initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries vi
Executive Summary Deforestation and forest degradation play a crucial role in climate change by making a significant contribution to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are beginning to address this issue through REDD+, with the aim to significantly reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and increase removals of CO2 from the atmosphere by forests, while promoting sustainable development. REDD+ has the potential to deliver multiple benefits, including a wide range of social and environmental benefits in addition to climate change mitigation. Mongolia, a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, has committed to a green development pathway. REDD+ has the potential to contribute to green development by protecting forest carbon stocks and biodiversity, helping to prevent and reverse land degradation, promoting the improvement of rural livelihoods and aiding adaptation to climate change. Mongolia became a partner country of the United Nations collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries (UN‐REDD Programme) in 2011, and is the first country with significant boreal forest cover to do so. This report presents the outcomes of a collaboration that took place under the auspices of the Mongolia UN‐REDD Programme during 2015‐2016, involving the Mongolian Ministry of Nature, Environment and Tourism (MNET), the Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IRIMHE) and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP‐WCMC), with support from the UN‐REDD Programme. The partners worked together to develop in‐country capacity to use spatial decision‐support tools (DST) to inform REDD+ planning in Mongolia that enhances benefits and reduces risks. Identifying areas where specific REDD+ actions may yield significant multiple benefits can help to inform decision‐making on land use and to increase the overall positive impact of the REDD+ programme. Generated through a series of consultations and technical working sessions, the maps presented in this report can serve as a DST to aid land‐use planners, policy‐makers and stakeholders in Mongolia to identify priority areas for REDD+ implementation. The analyses have been undertaken at both a national (or boreal forest region) and aimag level, focusing on the two aimags of Khovsgol and Tov. Analyses at this more local scale highlight the environmental conditions of the different aimags, and through consultation workshops, reflects how these environmental factors are perceived, valued and prioritized by local stakeholders. Based on the aimag consultations, this study has focused on a selected group of values that forests hold, and which represent the potential benefits of future REDD+ actions. As well as carbon stocks, the maps explore hydrological services of forests, the timber, fuelwood and non‐timber forest products (NTFPs) they provide, nature‐based recreation and tourism, and areas important for biodiversity conservation. An analysis of potential for forest restoration as well as combined maps of the different benefits also indicate how areas can be prioritized based on the number of potential benefits that can be achieved through future interventions. vii
1. Introduction 1.1 REDD+ Deforestation and forest degradation play a crucial role in climate change by making a significant contribution to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Together with peatland emissions, these processes are estimated to provide a net contribution of around 15 % of global emissions (van der Werf et al. 2009). Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are beginning to address this issue through REDD+, with the aim to significantly reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and increase removals of CO2 from the atmosphere by forests, while promoting sustainable development. REDD+ is expected to provide incentives for developing countries to implement actions relating to five main activities (Figure 1.1). REDD+ = Reducing emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation + Conservation of forest carbon stocks Sustainable management of forests Enhancement of forest carbon stocks Figure 1.1: REDD+ activities agreed under UNFCCC 1.2 REDD+ multiple benefits and risks REDD+ has the potential to deliver multiple benefits, including a wide range of social and environmental benefits in addition to climate change mitigation. Multiple benefits are also sometimes referred to as ‘non‐carbon benefits’ (e.g. in the 2015 Paris Agreement of the UNFCCC). Social benefits from REDD+ implementation can include improved forest governance and increased participation in local decision‐making on land use, and in some cases financial improvements to livelihoods. Environmental benefits from securing the many ecological functions of forests can include biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services that people depend on (Box 1). Well‐planned REDD+ implementation should secure or enhance forest ecosystem services, while reducing risks. By reducing deforestation and forest degradation, REDD+ can ensure that ecosystem services are retained which may otherwise have been lost. Through reforestation and forest restoration, REDD+ can restore ecosystem services that have previously been lost or degraded. As the importance of forest for providing different ecosystem services varies across the landscape, decisions about how and where REDD+ is implemented will influence the resulting benefits to people. 1
Depending on how REDD+ is implemented, it also carries potential risks, such as pressures on forests being displaced from one area to another, or local communities’ access rights to forests being reduced. The UNFCCC requests developing countries to promote and support the Cancun safeguards and to provide information on how they are being addressed and respected throughout implementation of REDD+ activities. The safeguards were specifically developed to encourage benefits and address potential risks of REDD+. A REDD+ programme that delivers multiple benefits and avoids social and environmental risks can contribute to a range of policy goals beyond climate change mitigation. Box 1: Ecosystem services Ecosystem services are usually classified into the following main groups: provisioning services, regulating and supporting services, and cultural services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). While provisioning goods are tangible and easily quantified, other ecosystem services (e.g. climate regulation, soil protection, nutrient cycling, pollination) are less easy to value but are of crucial importance for human well‐being. Provisioning services These services are often tangible with clear monetary value. Forest goods include timber, which is still the most highly valued economic product from most forests of the world, fuelwood (a significant part of the world’s energy comes from biomass) and non‐timber forest products such as food, fibre and medicinal plants. For example, a study by Vedeld et al. (2007) of 51 case studies from 17 developing countries found that forest environmental income on average makes up 22% of total household income in rural communities (in Hicks et al. 2014). Regulating and supporting services These services arise from the natural function of healthy ecosystems, and include climate regulation, soil and water services, and carbon storage. Forest regulate water quality and quantity, and they are a moisture source for downwind/downstream ecosystems. Forests serve as a carbon sink: as much as 45% of the carbon stored on land is found in the world’s forests (NASA, 2012). Forests also give shade and shelter, and help to preserve soils and permafrost. Cultural services Forests have non‐material cultural, spiritual, religious and recreational values, which can be described as cultural services. Some forests are sacred sites, and others have recreation and amenity values. Living near to forests can improve people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Forests support nature tourism, camping, hiking and horse‐trekking. For example, Nielsen et al. (2007) cite a number of studies from across Europe showing that forests are the most popular environments for outdoor recreation. 1.3 REDD+ in Mongolia Mongolia is a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, in 1992) the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2016). The Government of Mongolia has also committed itself to a green development pathway to help navigate the environmental challenges of rapid economic growth and expansion of the mining sector, with associated threats to forests and other ecosystems. REDD+ has the potential to contribute to green development by protecting forest 2
carbon stocks and biodiversity, helping to prevent and reverse land degradation, promoting the improvement of rural livelihoods and aiding adaptation to climate change. For this reason, in June 2011, Mongolia became a partner country of the United Nations Collaborative Initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN‐REDD Programme)1. It is the first country with significant boreal forest cover to do so; Mongolia has more than 18 million hectares of forests, covering 11–12% of the national territory (FAO 2014). These fall into two broad forest types: the northern boreal forests; and the southern saxaul forests. Mongolia has since taken steps towards developing REDD+. A National REDD+ Readiness Roadmap produced in 2014 sets out its planned ‘readiness activities’ (Ministry of Environment and Green Development, 2014). The Roadmap has four main outcomes: 1. National REDD+ management arrangements established while ensuring improved stakeholder awareness and effective stakeholder engagement; 2. National REDD+ strategy prepared; 3. Forest reference emissions levels and forest reference levels developed; and 4. National forest monitoring system and safeguards information system developed. A National Programme Document (NPD; MEGDT & UN‐REDD Programme, 2015) describes how the UN‐REDD Mongolia National Programme will contribute to achieving the objectives of Mongolia’s Roadmap. The main goal of the National Programme is to support the Government of Mongolia in the design and implementation of its national REDD+ strategy and in meeting the UNFCCC Warsaw Framework requirements for results‐based payments. It also helps to implement the country’s renewed policy on forest resources until 2030, approved by the Government of Mongolia in May 2015 and with ambitious plans to increase the country’s forest cover and sustainable use and protection of forest resources (MEGDT, 2015; UN‐REDD Programme, 2011). The UN‐REDD National Programme will: Support the preparation of Mongolia’s National REDD+ Strategy (Outcome Two of the country’s REDD+ Roadmap); Identify specific policies and measures to address key drivers of deforestation and forest degradation; Support Mongolia in establishing suitable institutional arrangements for implementing REDD+ Undertake institutional capacity development in order to implement the Strategy Support the establishment of REDD+ fund management and benefit distribution mechanisms together with a social and environmental safeguards policy framework and procedures. The National Programme results framework includes outcomes, outputs and activities. Output 18 on safeguards anticipates that a full list of the potential social, environmental and other benefits and risks [of REDD+ policies and measures] will be developed, and that a number of these will be prioritized for monitoring. In addition, the country’s 2014 Readiness Roadmap sets out priority multiple benefits of 1 The UN‐REDD Programme is the United Nations Collaborative Initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) in Developing Countries. The Programme was launched in 2008 and builds on the convening role and technical expertise of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2082&Itemid=515 3
REDD+ for Mongolia, which include improved watershed functions, forest biodiversity, forest governance and rural livelihoods (MEGD, 2014). 1.4 This work This current report presents the outcomes of a collaboration that took place under the auspices of the Mongolia UN‐REDD Programme during 2015–2016, involving the Mongolian Ministry of Nature, Environment and Tourism (MNET), the Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IRIMHE) and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP‐WCMC), with support from the UN‐REDD Programme. The partners worked together to develop in‐country capacity to use spatial decision‐support tools to inform REDD+ planning in Mongolia. (Please see Box 2 for more information on the capacity building component of the work). This work had two main objectives: I. To support Mongolia to develop spatial decision support tools for REDD+ planning, in order to help deliver multiple benefits and reduce potential risks. The resulting spatial analyses will contribute to the planning of REDD+ activities, and the harmonization of REDD+ policies with other national development policies and plans, and environmental and social priorities. II. To build capacity together with Mongolian partners on spatial information to support REDD+ planning, including the introduction of QGIS and other free software tools to create maps relevant for REDD+ planning. As already noted, REDD+ has the potential to deliver benefits beyond carbon. Identifying areas where specific REDD+ actions might be most likely to yield high levels of these benefits can help to inform decision‐making on land use and to increase the overall positive impact of REDD+ implementation. The analyses in this report were carried out at a national and aimag level, as planning of REDD+ activities needs to take into account national‐level priorities and opportunities, as well as consider how environmental, social and economic characteristics vary across the country, between aimags, districts and communities. Box 2: Capacity building in spatial analysis for Two aimags (or provinces) were chosen for the REDD+ planning analysis of potential benefits from REDD+ at the subnational level: Khovsgol aimag in The project that resulted in this report included a northern Mongolia and Tov aimag in central substantial capacity building component for Mongolia. They were chosen by the project Mongolian organisations and staff involved in team in Mongolia for two main reasons: while spatial planning. This involved the introduction of both are relatively well‐forested, particularly free, open source software tools, including QGIS, Khovsgol, they represent different socio‐and two joint working sessions. These sessions economic circumstances, with Tov close to the brought together a range of participants from the more densely populated, urban area of national and aimag level, as well as UNEP‐WCMC Ulaanbaatar, and Khovsgol less densely staff, to work together on the spatial analyses and populated and more remote. During 2015–practice new techniques and tools. The tutorials 2016, two working sessions took place in and other materials developed for these sessions Ulaanbaatar, and consultations on priority are available in Mongolian and English online at: benefits from forests were held in Khovsgol http://bit.ly/mbs‐redd and Tov. The working sessions introduced 4
QGIS, a free, open‐source software package, as well as approaches for using QGIS and other tools, in order to create maps relevant to REDD+ planning, with a focus on exploring the potential benefits of REDD+. In June 2016, preliminary results were shared with stakeholders from the national and aimag levels, in order to gain feedback and refine the maps. In addition to building capacity in the use of spatial decision‐support tools, key outcomes of the work include an improved understanding of the availability and applicability of spatial datasets in Mongolia relevant to REDD+ planning, and an initial list of potential benefits of REDD+ relevant to the country, based on the consultations with stakeholders in Khovsgol and Tov aimags. 1.5 Spatial analysis and decision support tools (DST) Spatial analysis can play an important role in REDD+ decision‐making in Mongolia, as well as in planning specific REDD+ actions. Decisions on where and how to implement REDD+ actions can involve reconciling different demands for land, addressing trade‐offs, prioritizing among different potential benefits that could be achieved through REDD+ implementation, and planning to avoid or minimize risks. Map‐based approaches can be used to identify areas with a high potential for reducing emissions or sequestering carbon, based on information about current and potential carbon stocks, forest cover and future land‐use demands, and degradation and deforestation risk. Information on the latter can also help to refine the understanding of the likely impact of REDD+ actions, compared to a business‐as‐usual scenario. Evaluation of the potential benefits and risks from these actions then requires analysis of further information on factors such as environmental conditions (e.g. climate, soils and topography), biodiversity and socio‐economic context. The maps presented in the following sections of the report are intended as spatial decision‐support tools for Mongolia’s REDD+ planning. They can be used by land‐use planners, policy‐makers and their advisors when identifying areas for REDD+ implementation. They can inform decisions on the: Types of actions that could be supported (e.g. forest restoration, measures to reduce fire hazards, introduction of reduced‐impact logging); Prioritization of locations where these actions could be carried out (incorporating potential multiple benefits of REDD+); and Setting of targets for the implementation of each type of action (e.g. size of the area to be covered, percentage of the population to be involved, etc.). Freely available software tools were used to undertake the spatial analysis, with QGIS (http://www.qgis.org/), an open‐source GIS software programme, being the main platform used. WaterWorld, a web‐based system, was used to evaluate the importance of forests for water provisioning and limiting water‐driven soil erosion (Van Soesbergen et al. 2016). During the working sessions, workflows were developed to define the steps to be undertaken to develop each map and initial analysis was undertaken, with map finalization following afterwards. Annex 1 provides an overview of a range of relevant tools and approaches that can be used to provide decision support for REDD+ planning, with a focus on spatial tools. 1.6 Forest and environmental datasets for spatial analysis to support REDD+ planning A range of Mongolian and international datasets are useful for the spatial analysis described in this report. Useful data sources for national REDD+ planning work can include forest inventories, 5
reforestation maps (showing coordinates of tree planting sites), maps showing areas affected by desertification, fire and other drivers of degradation and deforestation, maps showing official mining and other types of concessions, maps showing biodiversity and ecosystem services values, and data on grazing lands and carrying capacities. Spatial land‐use plans are developed every year at soum level, and every five years at aimag, municipality and national levels. They show land suitability for agriculture, development and other uses. The Multipurpose National Forest Inventory (MNFI) (MNET, FRDC and GIZ, 2014‐2016), based on a sampling network of 4,322 sites, provides data on tree species, information needed for the estimation of biomass and carbon densities, and forest condition. The Forest Taxation Inventory held by FRDC collects information on forest type, area, volume, age, impacts, and timber quality, among a range of parameters2. There is ongoing work in Mongolia to develop estimates of carbon stocks within the country, such as through the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, (including agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU) sector), the MNFI, the UN‐REDD Mongolia National Programme and the National Institute of Botany. In Mongolia, a number of sources of information help to illustrate species and areas considered important for biodiversity conservation. These include: data from the global IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org) and the Mongolia Red Book; vegetation zones and maps; data on the country’s network of Special Protected Areas3; maps of Mongolia’s six Ramsar sites, illustrating wetlands of importance; and some data on specific species or groups of species, such as ungulates. Many of the datasets described in this section are freely accessible through the Environment Information Center (EIC) of Mongolia, a division of IRIMHE (see www.eic.mn). 1.7 Structure of this report The rest of the report is made up of three main sections. Section 2 presents a series of maps and additional information related to REDD+ planning elements at the national and boreal forest region. These maps explore the country’s forest cover, pressures on forests, and biodiversity conservation. Section 3 describes an exercise to identify priority values of forests (and potential multiple benefits of REDD+) in the two aimags of Khovsgol and Tov, and subsequent spatial analysis of these benefits in relation to forest cover and condition. Section 4 presents two more maps, based on multi‐criteria analysis and overlays, in order to explore areas in the aimags that are providing multiple benefits, and to highlight areas with potential for forest restoration in Tov aimag. The report closes with a summary of its conclusions. 2 This inventory is carried out at the sub‐compartment level, and then data is compiled for various levels; for the purposes of this report, we refer to the National Forest Taxation Inventory for the national compilation, and Forest Taxation Inventories for Tov and Khovsgol Aimags, for the aimag‐level compilations. 3 Parliament approves Special Protected Areas; these can be classified as strictly protected areas, national parks, nature reserves and monuments. 6
2. Mongolia’s forests 2.1 Mongolia’s forest resources and their protection As noted above, forests in Mongolia cover over 18 million hectares (Mha), representing 11–12% of the national territory, and including natural and planted forests (FAO 2014). They can be broadly divided into two different types, the northern boreal forests and the southern saxaul forests. The northern forest type comprises deciduous and coniferous forests growing in the forest steppe, boreal forest and montane zones, which form an ecological transition between the Siberian Taiga and the Central Asian Steppes (World Bank 2004). Despite being fragmented, northern forests cover over 13 Mha (Figure 2.1). They mostly contain coniferous species such as Siberian larch (Larix siberica), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), and Siberian pine or cedar (Pinus siberica). The broad‐leafed trees found here are mainly birch (Betula platyphylla), aspen (Populus tremula) or poplar (Populus diversifolia) (Figure 2.2). Some of the aimags with most forest are Khentii and Khovsgol. The southern saxaul forests (ca. 4.5 Mha; World Bank, 2004) grow in the southern desert and desert steppe regions, and their trees rarely attain 4 m in height. They consist mainly of saxaul (Haloxylon ammodendron) and of secondary species such as poplar (Populus sp.), tamarix (Tamarix spp.) and Caragana (World Bank 2004). Saxaul forests are important in stabilizing active sand dunes and reducing the effects of sand storms. They also provide fuelwood to local people. Birch (Betula spp.) and willow (Salix spp.) are pioneer tree species that grow at lower altitudes, where taiga forest meets the steppe. They are often first to colonize previously disrupted or damaged ecosystems, for example after fire disturbance. 7
This map shows the distribution of boreal forest cover in Mongolia. Forest cover is derived from theinventories carried out at lower administrative levels, meaning that although the national data was coboreal forest region highlighted in the map is based on the ecological boundary of boreal forests in t(MNET, FRDC and GIZ, 2014‐2016). This ecological boundary has been used for all boreal forest region Figure 2.1: Forest cover in Mo 8
e FRDC National Forest Taxation Inventory data. This map is based on a compilation of the taxation ompiled in 2014, the individual taxation inventories at the soum level were produced 2010–2014. The the country, identified through the Multipurpose National Forest Inventory, covering boreal forests n maps in this study. ongolia’s boreal forest region 8
This map shows the distribution of the main types of forests in Mongolia’s boreal forest region, aforest land. These include birch, larch, pine and other forest types. The boreal forest region highligthrough the Multipurpose National Forest Inventory (MNET, FRDC and GIZ, 2014‐2016). Figure 2.2: Forest types in Mo 9
as indicated in the FRDC National Forest Taxation Inventory (compilation year 2014) for stocked ghted in the map is based on the ecological boundary of boreal forests in the country, identified ongolia’s boreal forest region 9
Administratively, Mongolia’s forests are divided into three categories: Strict, Protected and Utilization Zones. The Strict Zone (47% of total) includes sub‐alpine forests, special protected areas, national parks, nature reserves and cultural monuments, and allows only limited exploitation for fuelwood and non‐timber forest products (NTFPs). Protected Zone forests (46%) include forest in Buffer zones, natural forest and woody plant reserves in the green sub‐zones, all saxaul forests, forest in oases and on mountain slopes steeper than 30 degrees (Nyamjav et al. 2007), and have controlled commercial logging and harvesting for subsistence needs. In the Utilization Zone (< 10%), which includes all other forest, commercial logging is permitted under strict Government control. 2.2 Biodiversity and ecosystem services in Mongolia’s forests Forests provide different ecosystem services and support biodiversity (Section 1.2), but this can be compromised by fragmentation, other forms of degradation, and loss. Some of the key drivers associated with such changes in Mongolia are described below (Section 2.3). Here, we focus on forest products and resources, carbon and biodiversity as three types of ecosystem service provided by forests at the national level, illustrated by maps prepared by the working sessions and follow‐up spatial analysis (Narangarel et al. 2016b). Timber, fuelwood, non‐timber forest products and grazing resources There are about 150 small‐ and medium‐scale forest and wood production enterprises in Mongolia, employing around 4,000 people (UN‐REDD Programme, 2011; FAO, 2010). Estimates of wood consumption range from approximately 1 million m3 (Emerton and Enkhtsetseg, 2013) to as much as 5.5 million m3 (UN‐REDD Programme, 2011). The large variation in this estimate results from uncertainty over fuelwood consumption, which is estimated to account for between 33 to 79 % of the total annual wood consumption. Based on official licensed harvesting volumes and projections of wood demand, Emerton and Enkhtsetseg (2013) estimate that at 2013 harvesting levels, timber and fuelwood may have an annual sale value of almost MNT 200 billion (US$ 142 million), and generate MNT 66 billion (US$ 48 million) in profits to producers (noting that more than half of this value is estimated to come from unlicensed removals). The country’s most valuable non‐timber forest products (NTFPs) include pine nuts, berries and medicinal plants. Approximately 500 forest and pastureland user groups or communities are given limited use rights under the Law on Forest to sustainably collect wood and NTFPs (UN‐REDD Programme, 2011). NTFP collection has an estimated total value of approximately MNT 16.5 billion (US$ 12.18 million) a year, shared among half of the rural population in soums that have boreal forest. As with timber and fuelwood, it is suggested that more than 90% of this value comes from unlicensed removals, and three quarters comprises home‐consumed products (Emerton and Enkhtsetseg, 2013). Forests are also widely used for grazing (sometimes seasonal), with approximately 35–40 % of livestock population grazing in and near forest areas (Tsogtbaatar, 2013). Emerton and Enkhtsetseg (2013) estimate that the role of forests in supporting grazing is worth more than MNT 34.5 billion (US$ 24.70 million) a year, making up to 5 % of the value of livestock production in soums with boreal forests. Grazing can interact with other pressures on forests to contribute to forest degradation and deforestation. For example, overgrazing results in trampling young trees and saplings, and can particularly damage forest regeneration (Tsogtbaatar, 2004; Ykhanbai, 2010). The Multipurpose National Forest Inventory (2014–2016) found that 14.7 % and 32 % of forests experienced moderate 10
grazing pressure in the Altai and Khangai regions, respectively, and 20.4 % and 2.3 % of forests suffered from intensive grazing pressure. Pressure was less intense in Khentii and Khovsgol aimags according to a draft preliminary analysis of drivers for deforestation and forest degradation (UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, 2016). Carbon sequestration and storage Boreal forest can store as much carbon in the soil and vegetation combined as tropical forest (UNEP, 2009). The aboveground carbon stock density in the interior of Mongolia’s boreal forests is estimated to be in the upper range of values reported from boreal forest (Dulamsuren et al. 2015). Boreal forest areas with the highest estimated aboveground biomass carbon densities are in Khovsgol, Bulgan, Khentii and Tov aimags (Figure 2.3). Belowground biomass and soil carbon can also represent a significant fraction of total forest carbon. Over thousands of years, boreal forests have accumulated a large amount of soil carbon due to the cold climate and therefore low rates of decomposition of organic matter. Unlike the aboveground stocks, belowground carbon density is at the lower end of the reported range. More northerly boreal forests in other countries have lower soil temperatures and a thicker permafrost layer, which is thought to result in higher belowground carbon stocks (Dulamsuren et al. 2015). 11
This map shows estimated aboveground forest biomass carbon in tons per hectare. It has be Density Map. This is based on Growing Stock Volume (GSV) derived from Envisat ASAR data estimated from GSV using information on wood density, biomass allometric relationships and is given. Non‐forest pixels have been masked out using GLC2000; the GLC2000 land‐cover clas Figure 2.3: Estimated distribution of aboveground biomass 12
een derived from a global dataset (Thurner et al. 2013) for a Northern‐hemispheric Carbon applying the BIOMASAR algorithm (Santoro et al. 2011, 2013, in prep.). Carbon density was GLC2000 land cover information (GLC2000; JRC, 2003). Additionally, an uncertainty estimate sses 1–10 were considered to be forest by Thurner et al. (2013). s carbon in Mongolia’s boreal forests (tonnes per hectare) 2
Biodiversity Mongolia’s forests provide habitat for a diversity of animals, plants and microorganisms (FAO, 2014). Important areas for biodiversity conservation in Mongolia include the national network of Special Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) (Figure 2.4). Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are sites deemed to be of global significance for biodiversity conservation, and are defined according to internationally agreed criteria (Langhammer et al. 2007, and most recently IUCN, 2016). KBAs in Mongolia comprise only Important Bird Areas (IBAs, Birdlife International 2016)4. Mongolia’s most recent National Biodiversity Program notes that the area of the country under protection has increased steadily in recent years, with 27.2 million hectares in 99 protected areas, or 17.4% of the total area, as of 2014 (MEGDT, 2015). The potential richness of threatened species across the country is derived from the estimated ranges of the 181 forest‐dependent mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians that are classified as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (E), Vulnerable (V) and Near Threatened (NT) in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2015) (Figure 2.5). Birds are the best documented of the taxonomic groups. The regional Red List for birds (Gombobaatar et al. 2011) classified 10% of the 476 assessed species (forest and non‐forest) as falling into one of the threatened categories, and many of these are found in the north of the country. The main threats to birds correspond to the pressures on forests (Section 2.4), being habitat loss and degradation (including in important breeding and migratory stop‐over sites), human settlement, and fire (Gombobaatar et al. 2011). Hunting is an additional pressure on birds. The higher densities of threatened species in the north of the country reflect a general pattern of increasing species richness from the desert and desert steppe in the south through the transition zone to the mountainous boreal forests and river valleys in the north. Hotspots of threatened species richness are located in the western and eastern extremes of the north of the country (Figure 2.5). Some areas estimated to have high numbers of threatened species fall outside the existing protected area network (comparing Figures 2.4 and 2.5). 4 KBAs include “Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) identified by BirdLife International (2014), plus Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites (Ricketts et al. 2005), B‐ranked sites (TNC 2001), Important Fungus Areas (Evans et al. 2001), Important Plant Areas (IPAs; Plantlife International 2004), Prime Butterfly Areas (van Swaay and Warren 2006) and KBAs covering multiple taxonomic groups in freshwater (Holland et al. 2012), marine (Edgar et al. 2008) and terrestrial systems (Eken et al. 2004, Langhammer et al. 2007) under previously published criteria” (IUCN, 2016). 13
This map shows the distribution of Special Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas in theinternational importance for biodiversity conservation. In the case of Mongolia, these includeInternational and Conservation International. This dataset was downloaded under license from shown here is based on data from the Administrative Department for Special Protected Areas, these can be classified as strictly protected areas, national parks, nature reserves and monumen Figure 2.4: Distribution of boreal forest cover inside an 14
e boreal forest region of Mongolia. Key biodiversity areas are places considered to be of e Important Bird Areas, compiled by the international conservation organisations Birdlife the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool in 2016. The Special Protected Areas network MNET (2008, last update 2015). Mongolia’s parliament approves Special Protected Areas; nts. This map does not include aimag and soum level protected areas.nd outside protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas. 4
This map highlights areas where the distributional ranges of threatened species overlap. These ranover‐estimate of species ranges (Rocchini et al, 2011), however they nonetheless remain an imp(Hurlbert and Jetz, 2007). The threatened species included here are forest‐dependent mammals, bi“Near Threatened” by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2015), version 2015.1 (downloadimproved in recent years (Jenkins et al, 2013) and we consider their use is here is justified. The diProtected Areas network and potential species richness. Figure 2.5: Estimated distributio 15
nges are based on species Extent of Occurrence (EOO). Range maps based on EOOs are usually an portant source of biodiversity data especially when analyzing species richness across large areas irds, reptiles and amphibians classified as “Critically Endangered”, “Endangered”, “Vulnerable” and ded in October 2015) (www.iucnredlist.org). The quality of the IUCN and Birdlife range maps have istribution of Special Protected Areas has been overlaid to consider the relationship between the on of threatened species richness 5
2.3 Key trends and pressures on forest resources 2.3.1 Tree cover loss Mongolia’s forests are under pressure. The country is believed to have lost about 1.6 million ha of forest from the 1950s to the 1980s, and a further 660,000 ha from 1990 to 2000 (Crisp et al. 2003). Given the harsh continental climate of the region, the forests have low growth rates and productivity, making them vulnerable to various disturbances. An indication of areas affected by tree cover loss from 2000 to 2014 in Mongolia, based on the methodology of Hansen et al. (2013), shows that the most affected areas are mainly in the Khentii Mountains, the northern part of Tov, and Khovsgol (Figure 2.6). Some of the loss of tree cover occurs in Mongolia’s Special Protected Areas network (Figure 2.75), with Khan Khentii National Park seemingly most affected. Other areas experiencing loss are Tarvagatai Nuruu and some of the protected areas of Khovsgol. 2.3.2 Drivers of change in Mongolia’s forests The main drivers of forest loss and degradation in Mongolia are forest fires, selective logging and clear felling, and grazing (Tsogtbaatar, 2004). Other pressures on forests, as discussed by working session participants, included pests, the expansion of agriculture (though limited by land suitability) and livelihoods that are dependent on forest exploitation, and mining (Narangarel et al. 2016b). The relative importance of the different drivers of forests loss and degradation varies from place to place. For example, human migration to cities (‘urban drift’) has placed increased pressure on forest resources adjacent to urban areas to meet growing demands for fuelwood for heating and cooking and timber for construction (UN‐REDD Programme, 2011). Underlying all these primary causes of forest loss and degradation is a need to improve forest governance from a national through to aimag and soum (local) level (UNREDD‐Programme, 2011). Inherent problems identified by a draft, preliminary analysis of drivers for deforestation and forest degradation (UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, 2016) include lack of long‐term strategy, weak policy framework, unclear legal and regulatory framework, weak capacity and shortage of resources, corruption and lack of transparency, institutional overlaps and limited knowledge on sustainable forest management. One existing effort to combat these drivers of forest loss and degradation is an ongoing government tree planting programme (UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, 2016). Encouraged by a political interest in forest protection and restoration, specialized private forest entities carry out the planting of saplings or assist natural regeneration of disturbed forests. The Mongolia Law on Forest (2007) requires that “citizens, partnerships, economic entities and organizations shall plant 10 or more seedlings in place of every tree felled” (Article 27, Government of Mongolia, 2007). While tree planting during 2004‐2014 amounts to some 6000‐8000 ha annually, not all plantations are successful in the long‐term. Factors affecting success include lack of technical capacity, grazing pressures and often unfavourable climatic conditions (UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, 2016). 5 Figure 2.7 is not fully reflective of the current protected areas network, as it does not show aimag and soum level protected areas, but only national designations (Special Protected Areas approved by Parliament). 16
This map shows boreal forest areas that have been most affected by tree cover loss according or complete removal of tree cover canopy (from any level of tree cover to zero tree cover). T into another land use. Loss pixels were resampled to 1000 m resolution using a majority filt National Forest Taxation Inventory (compilation year 2014). Figure 2.6 Boreal forest area 17
g to Hansen et al. (2013) from 2000 to 2014. Tree cover loss is defined here as the disturbance Tree cover loss is distinct from deforestation, which is defined as the conversion of forest land ter, in order to reflect areas of major tree loss. Boreal forest cover is derived from the FRDC as affected by tree cover loss 7
This map show the distribution of tree cover loss in Mongolia’s boreal forests in relation to information on the location of Special Protected Areas from the Environment Information Cen the national‐level designations of strictly protected areas, national parks, nature reserves and Figure 2.7: Distribution of areas of tree c 18
Protected Areas. This has been obtained by overlaying the Hansen tree cover loss data with ntre of Mongolia (2008; last update 2015). Mongolia’s Special Protected Areas network includes monuments. cover loss in relation to Protected Areas 8
Fire Forest fires occur naturally in the northern boreal forests, but many are now of anthropogenic origin. An indication of fire impact on forests can be derived based on the density of areas affected by fire, estimated by calculating the density of MNFI plots where clear visual evidence of recent fire damage to trees and shrubs (in the last three years) had been recorded (Figure 2.8). Included in Figure 2.8 are insets showing how the fire impact data correspond to areas affected areas of tree cover loss according to Hansen et al. (2013) from 2000 to 2014. While natural regeneration is commonplace after forest fire, a burned forest is more susceptible to pests and logging, and the opening of the crowns allows the growth of herbaceous vegetation, which attracts grazing animals, bringing with it further disturbance. Comparing the maps of tree cover loss (Figure 2.6) and fire impact (Figure 2.8) suggests that fire is the most important disturbance factor for Mongolian forests. Logging Unsustainable logging can result in forest loss and degradation, and the neglect of best practice in selective logging, fire and pest control can also lead to degradation and the compromising of regenerative capacity. In Mongolia, illegal logging is often small‐scale to meet fuelwood and other subsistence needs at the local level, but is most damaging when carried out by large‐scale operations (UN‐REDD Programme 2011). Unsustainable logging and subsequent forest degradation covered 34,000 ha/year in 2004‐2014 on average according to a preliminary analysis of drivers of forest loss and degradation (UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, 2016). A lack of technical capacity for sustainable forest management, and increasing demand for wood products in a political environment that emphasizes forest conservation, contributes to illegal forest use. Grazing Mongolia has a long tradition of raising livestock and pastoral nomadism is the prevailing form of land use in the country. The forests are widely used for livestock grazing, and together with other factors this contributes to degradation (Ykhanbai, 2010). High impacts on boreal forests from grazing can be seen in the far west of the country (Figure 2.9); these forests are relatively sparse and found at high altitude, where in fact livestock numbers (by soum in 2015) are usually lower than in other parts of the country (Figure 2.10). However, as grazing affects the forest edge and sparse forest more significantly, and forest area is smaller in this region, more plots in the west were assessed as impacted by grazing. The two maps show some alignment, for example, between impact areas and high livestock numbers in the north and north‐west. The maps do not however consider the mobility of livestock in Mongolia, which may be grazing in areas beyond soum boundaries. Pests Recent years have seen major outbreaks of insect pests, sometimes exacerbated by drought conditions in which forests are more susceptible to attack. In the face of such outbreaks, pest control measures are often ineffectual The impact of pests on boreal forest can be derived from data from the Multipurpose National Forest Inventory (2014–2016), and compared with forests assessed as pest‐affected from the FRDC Forest Taxation Inventory (Figure 2.11). In the case of the highlighted areas in 19
Tov aimag, although not all pest‐affected areas appear in the high impact areas identified by the MNFI, this map highlights that areas more affected by pests tend to be situated on the forest edge. Forest insect biodiversity in Mongolia comprises 315 species from 56 families, and those eating/boring leaves, needles, stems and bark are causing increasing levels of damage in Mongolian forests (Ykhanbai, 2010). Some of the most damaging are moth species such as Siberian silk moth (Dendrolimus superans sibiricus) and Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar). According to the preliminary drivers analysis of the UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme (2016), pest control measures covered 110,000 ha every year in the last decade, and included the rehabilitation of pest affected areas, which led to the enhancement of carbon stocks. Mining Mining activities are also localized, as shown in Figure 2.12. Mongolia has significant reserves of coal, copper, molybdenum, gold, silver, zinc, uranium, nickel and other minerals, and large‐scale mining operations are set to continue to grow. While many existing mining operations are located away from forested areas, there is considerable coincidence of forest and mines in some areas (Figure 2.12) and mining impacts on forests are likely to amplify in the future if exploratory concessions are further developed. 20
This map shows the impact on boreal forests by fires, assessed through the density of areas recenNational Forest Inventory (2014‐2016), where there was clear visual evidence of recent damageforest plot. The map shows density according to the number of plots per square kilometre, so tIn order to allow an easy identification of “hotspots” (or clusters of points) of fire impact, a poicreate a density raster showing number of plots per square kilometre using the SAGA Kernel Delocation, with larger numbers of clustered points resulting in larger values. The values were weigthe fire impact data correspond to areas affected areas of tree cover loss according to Hansen e Figure 2.8: Pressure on 21
ntly affected by fire. This was estimated by calculating the density of plots from the Multipurpose e (in the last three years) to trees and shrubs from fire, in the three subplots that comprise each that a larger number of clustered points of fire‐affected plots, the greater the density of impact. int vector layer containing the spatial location of fire‐affected plots from the MNFI was used to ensity Estimation tool within QGIS to create a density raster based on the number of points in a ghted according to the fire intensity values 1‐3 in the plot data. Included are insets showing how et al. (2013) from 2000 to 2014. boreal forests from fire 1
This map shows the impact of livestock grazing on boreal forests, assessed through the density of National Forest Inventory (2014‐2016). Medium to highly affected plots are taken as those with plots, the higher the estimated impact. Similar to the other impact maps, a kernel density map wa density raster showing number of plots per square kilometre. In areas where the forest areaforest completely. Figure 2.9: Pressure on boreal 22
areas that have been recorded as affected by grazing (from medium to high) in the Multipurpose grazing impact rated from 12 to 27 (out of an index of 0‐27). The greater the density of affected was created from the point vector layer containing the location of these plots in order to create a is small and the density of pest‐affected plots is high, the yellow dots may actually cover the forests from livestock grazing 2
This map shows total recorded livestock numbers (including sheep, goats, horses, ca Figure 2.10: Livestoc 23
attle, camels) per soum, provided by EIC from the National Statistics Office (2015). ck numbers by soum. 3
This map shows the impact of pests on boreal forests. Similar to the other impact maps in this sby pests in the Multipurpose National Forest Inventory (2014‐2016). Plots with 30% of their totathe density of affected plots, the higher the estimated impact. In order to allow an easy identifspatial location of pest‐affected plots from the MNFI was used to create a density raster showiQGIS. The inset here shows an overlay of the areas affected by pests from the MNFI with forests In areas where the forest area is small and the density of pest‐affected plots is high, the pink do Figure 2.11: Pressure on b 24
study, pest‐affected forests are assessed here using the density of plots as recorded as affected al plot basal area or higher affected by pests were recorded as such in the inventory. The greater fication of “hotspots” (or clusters of points) of pest impact, a point vector layer containing the ing number of plots per square kilometre using the SAGA Kernel Density Estimation tool within assessed as pest‐affected in Tov aimag (from the FRDC Forest Taxation Inventory for Tov, 2013). ots may actually cover the forest completely. boreal forests from pests 4
This map shows the spatial distribution of areas of tree cover loss in Mongolia’s boreal forests intree cover loss data (see Fig. 3.6) with information on the location of mining concessions, both a Figure 2.12: Mining areas and b 25
n relation to mining concession in 2010–2013. This has been obtained by overlaying the Hansen active and exploration areas, from the Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia. boreal forest cover in Mongolia 5
3. Supporting planning for REDD+ in Mongolia at the aimag level 3.1 Benefits of forests in Khovsgol and Tov Two aimags (or provinces) were chosen for the analysis of the values of forests, and potential benefits from REDD+, at the subnational level: Khovsgol aimag in northern Mongolia and Tov aimag in central Mongolia. Khovsgol is the northernmost of Mongolia’s 21 aimags. It covers an area of just over 100,000 km2 and according to the National Statistical Office of Mongolia had a population of 128,159 in 2015 (http://en.ubseg.gov.mn/, accessed: 09/06/2016). Lying to the east, Tov is the smaller of the two aimags in both area (74,000 km2) and population (90,421 in 2015), and encircles the national capital of Ulaanbaatar (administered as an independent municipality) (Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1: Location of Khovsgol and Tov aimags in northern Mongolia. During the collaboration, consultation workshops (held in Murun, capital of Khovsgol, and Zuunmod, capital of Tov aimag, on 3 and 6 of November 2015, respectively). The consultations brought together stakeholders from different sectors to list and prioritize benefits derived from forests. The forest types and areas important for providing these benefits began to be examined through a participatory mapping approach. The key benefits identified in Khovsgol and Tov are listed in the Consultations Report (Narangarel et al. 2016a) and their ranking by participants is shown in Table 3.1 below. Note that these rankings are based on the small sample of workshop participants, and do not reflect a wider body of opinion. They nevertheless represent an informed view to build our further analyses. 26
Table 3.1: Prioritization of benefits derived from forests in Khovsgol and Tov by participants at the consultation workshops Khovsgol Benefit Priority Carbon storage and oxygen supply 1 Water regulation/supply 2 Timber 3 Fuelwood 4 Springs/rest areas 4 Non‐timber forest products (berries, nuts, mushrooms, medicinal plants, etc) 5 Seeds and seedlings 6 Historical/archaeological sites 7 Tourism 7 Woodchip/bark 8 Wildlife 8 Desertification control, permafrost protection 9 Tov Benefit Priority Natural regeneration 1 Overall natural balance/functioning 2 Fuelwood 3 Water regulation/supply 4 Clean air 5 Wildlife habitat 5 Tourism 5 Oxygen supply 6 Seeds and cones, pine nuts 6 Soil services ‐ desertification control, permafrost protection, soil erosion control 7 Aesthetic value, leaves/forage/fodder 8 Timber, medicinal plants, plant diversity, disease control, springs/rest areas 9 The aimags demonstrate some similarities as well as differences (Narangarel et al. 2016a). For example, both aimags rated hydrological services (such as water supply and quality), fuelwood provision and tourism or recreational aspects in their top five. However, though timber supply is considered important in Khovsgol aimag (particularly for use in construction), in Tov aimag it was rated lowest, due to the fact that there is little production forest there, either natural or plantation. Technical working session held in Ulaanbaatar in March 2016 focused on undertaking spatial analyses of the prioritized forest benefits, as well as further building capacity for this work in key institutions in the country (Narangarel et al. 2016b). The maps that were generated in this session and subsequent analyses are described in the following paragraphs. Further details of the methodologies used to undertake the spatial analyses can be found in Annex 1. Forest resources and their condition in the aimags The cover and type of forest in the two aimags varies considerably (Table 3.1). The mapping, based on the FRDC Forest Taxation Inventories for Tov (2013) and Khovsgol (2012) shows a total forest cover in 27
Khovsgol of 3,074,403 ha (30 % of the aimag) and while distributed across the aimag, it is most concentrated in the north‐east. The forests are mostly dominated by larch (Larix sibirica), with much smaller areas of pine (mostly Pinus sibirica), birch (Betula platyphylla) and other trees. Tov is much less forested with only 1,059,900 ha (13 % of the aimag). The forest is concentrated in the north‐east of the aimag and is minimally present or absent elsewhere in the area. Much of the forest is dominated by larch or pine (Pinus sibirica, P. sylvestris), with smaller areas of birch and other forest types. Table 3.1: Areas and percentages of main forest types in the aimags of Khovsgol and Tov. Forest type Khovsgol: area (ha) (and percentage) Tov: area (ha) (and percentage)Larch 2,904,134 (94.5%) 554,986 (52.4%) Siberian pine 81,729 (2.7%) 285,240 (26.9%) Other pine ‐ 85,515 (8.1%) Birch 71,017 (2.3%) 11,480 (10.9%) Other 17,523 (0.6%) 18,775 (1.8%) Total 3,074,403 (100%) 1,059,996 (100%) Source: FRDC Forest Taxation Inventories for Tov (2013) and Khovsgol (2012) The FRDC Forest Taxation Inventories for Tov (2013) and Khovsgol (2012) record areas of forest as being disturbed by different factors, or as undisturbed (Figure 3.2). The inventories compile soum‐level data on tree and shrub species and densities, together with disturbance factors, and are used to generate national taxation inventories and statistics. Fire is the most significant of the disturbance factors recorded (Table 3.2) followed by pest outbreaks and logging. Table 3.2: Areas of forest indicated as being in different categories of condition in Khovsgol and Tov aimags (percentage of total forest area) Disturbance Khovsgol TovFire 353,942 ha (9.36 %) 123,894 ha (9.76 %) Pest outbreaks 29,464 ha (0.78 %) 11,320 ha (0.89 %) Logging 9,720 ha (0.25 %) 9,306 ha (0.73 %)Open forest areas 156,231 ha (4.13 %) 40,089 ha (3.15 %) Reforestation areas 172 ha (0.004 %) 1,759 ha (0.13 %)To be forest 5,316 ha (0.14 %) 7,663 ha (0.60 %) Source: FRDC Forest Taxation Inventories for Tov (2013) and Khovsgol (2012) The disturbed areas are unevenly distributed in both aimags. Fire hotspots exist in the north‐east and south in Khovsgol (in the north‐east mostly due to a single fire event in 2011), while pest impact has been prevalent only along the south‐east aimag boundary. In Tov, there is no clear pattern to fire disturbance, and pests have only affected the southern rim of the forested area. In the national context, forest fires annually damage a significant area. Estimations of the forest area affected by fire differ, including around 500,000 ha per year (Ykhanbai, 2010) and 139,000 per year (UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, 2016). Fires mainly occur as a result of human activities (about 95 % according to Chuluunbaatar 2001, 2012, cited in UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, 2016) and fire prevalence is increasing due to reduced precipitation (Ykhanbai, 2010). 28
These maps show the extent and state, or condition, of forests in Tov and Khovsgol aimags. ThKhovsgol (2012). These inventories record numerous parameters related to forest land (stockedforest cover, along with areas affected by fire, pests, and logging, as well areas designated for rethat fire is a key driver of forest loss and/or degradation in both aimags. Figure 3.2. Condition of forest 29
his is derived from data recorded in the FRDC Forest Taxation Inventories for Tov (2013) and d and unstocked) by sub‐compartment, compartment, soum and aimag. The maps shows the eforestation, and for natural regeneration (known as ‘to be forest’ areas). These maps suggest ts in Tov and Khovsgol aimags 9
Hydrological services Results from the aimag consultation workshops held in November 2015 indicated that freshwater provision is one of the most valued services provided by forests. Forests play an important role in the local landscape in terms of controlling water balance and run‐off, as well as reducing soil erosion, which can be exacerbated by the removal of forest cover. In the working sessions, an open‐access online tool called WaterWorld (www.policysupport.org/waterworld; Mulligan, 2013) was used to map these hydrological ecosystem services in Khovsgol and Tov. The model draws on datasets for many meteorological variables (e.g. precipitation, relative humidity, air temperature, wind direction, cloud frequency, ice) on a monthly basis, as well as topography and land cover layers. The estimated annual forest water yield per square kilometer for the two aimags in some areas (e.g. the soums of Tsagaan Uur and Erenebulgan in Khovsgol and Erdene and Mongonmorit in Tov) reaches values of over 75 mm/km2/year, and this is largely driven by high levels of fog capture by trees (Figure 3.3). Although there were some negative pixel values apparent (i.e. a negative effect of forest on water yield) the number of these pixels was low; so the overall forest water yield at the river basin level was still positive. It should be noted that the benefits of freshwater provision are experienced downstream of the forests yielding the water, and therefore the benefits to people from each forest area depend on both yield and the downstream uses. 30
Search
