Macro to Micro Viewpoint of Climate Change - Linking Karnataka to Global Issue

doi:10.4236/nr.2011.21004

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Natural Resources, 2011, 2, 22-27

doi:10.4236/nr.2011.21004 Published Online March 2011 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/nr)

Macro to Micro Viewpoint of Climate

Change—Linking Karnataka to Global Issue

Sunil Nautiyal

Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India.

Email: [email protected]

Received December 23rd, 2010; revised January 25th, 2011; accepted February 1st, 2011.

ABSTRACT

A numerous studies have been done on climate change at regional, national and global levels. Several climate models

have predicted the global scenarios for climate in different parts of the world. However, the significance and practical

implementation of such models at local level yet to be validated. This is because those national or global models do not

consider micro variables such as such as environmental resources for exa mple ‘land availability, local climatic condi-

tions, socioeconomic factors such as ‘labour and capital’, policy aspects such as ‘subsidies, nature conservation strate-

gies’ and competition for labor and capital in relation of ‘national economy’. India, with a huge diversity in land, to-

pography, climate and socioeconomic conditions, divided into 15 agro-ecological zones. Further, to help develop loca-

tion specific research and development strategies at the micro level, a total of 127 sub-zon es (agro-climatic sub regions)

have been identified in India. Therefore, research on climate change and its impact only at the regional or national

level may not be a sound approach to provide solutions for adaptation to climate change at micro level. Thus the mi-

cro-level research needs to be undertaken that might help us understand climate change impacts on the landscape i.e.

biodiversity, health, natural resource management, land use and land cover development, adaptation and the develop-

ment of socio-ecological systems. The concepts presented in this article should provide the basis for a discussion on

decision-making issues among multidisciplinary experts with regard to climate change and sustainable development

within complex environments.

Keywords: Climate Change, Adaptation and Mitigation, Local Level Case Studies, Agro-Climatic Zones, India

1. Introduction

Observational evidences indicate that high carbon emis-

sions and the associated climate change effects in the 20th

century, already have affected diverse sets of physical

and biological systems [1]. Carbon dioxide in the at-

mosphere has increased by about 30% from a pre-

industrial leve l of about 270 ppm to the level of 380 ppm

and is expected to further reach 600 - 700 ppm range by

2100 [1-2]. Developed nations representing about 20%

of the world population, are responsible for 76% of total

carbon emissions. For example, USA, amounting for just

about 5% of the world population, alone is responsible

for 30% of the total global carbon emission2. In general

the average per capita CO2 emissions by the developing

world stand at about 3.0 tons per year, however, related

figure for the developed/advanced nations is about 13-14

tons [3]. In the Indian context, CO2 emissions form just

about 1.2 ton per person [4]. Hence to cope with climate

change and adapt to its associated hazards, the United

Nations Climate Change Conference was held at the

Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between 7th and

18th December 2009-commonly known as the Copenha-

gen Summit. The general consensus of the conferenec

reached by 192 nations was that the changing climate

pattern was one of the greatest challenges con fronting th e

world today. However, this consensus was no way dif-

ferent from what had been discussed earlier during the

2007 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) conference in Bali and twelve years

ago in Kyoto.

Before summarizing the debates at Copenhagen it is

important to remember here the gist of Kyoto protocol.

At Kyoto, 37 rich countries had pledged to reduce their

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 5.2% at 1990 level;

however, the evidences showed that most of the countries

had in fact increased their emission levels and, as a con-

sequence, the climate change issue became an irreversi-

ble reality which no one could refute. As a result, the

advanced nations called for another summit meeting

Macro to micro Viewpoint of Climate Change—Linking Karnataka to Global Issue 23

which was hel d in Co penhagen.

Although at Copenhagen summit legally binding GHG

emissions cuts could not be imposed on the developing

countries despite the concerted efforts by some of the

developed countries to bring a countries like-China and

India in particularly under legally binding norms, the

general consensus was that if all the countries were in-

terested in avoiding “serious climate change effects”, it

would be necessary to undertake appropriate measures to

keep global warming to below 2˚C, though there was not

consensus on how to go about it. Now the global emis-

sions budget, capped by 2˚C guard rail, requires not only

the industrialized countries, but also the newly-Industri-

alizing and developing countries to adopt strategies to-

wards a low -carbon future [5]. In th e Indian context, this

requires a proper science-policy research for developing

policy responses intended for climate for different agro-

ecological regions and a carbon-dioxide (CO2) budget

approach based upon a systematic and empirical research.

Science-policy research would allow us to articulate and

argue for a proper carbon space for achieving the goal of

development without too many restrictions on the GHG

budget under a futu re treaty on climate change effects.

There are many studies/reports available at the na-

tional and global levels [1,2,5-26] that deal with climate

change and its potential impact on different sectors in a

holistic manner. India, with a huge diversity in land, to-

pography, climate and socioeconomic conditions, is di-

vided into 15 agro-ecological zones. Further, to help de-

velop location specific research and development strate-

gies at the micro level, a total of 127 sub-zones (agro-

climatic sub regions) have been identified in India [27].

In defining zonal boundaries several indicators (such as

water availability, soil types, rainfall and pattern of rain-

fall, edaphic factors, land use and land cover, area under

irrigation and rainfed, cropping pattern etc., were taken

into consideration [28]. Therefore, research on climate

change and its impact only at the national level may not

be a sound approach towards adaptation and mitigation

activities at the micro level. Several climate models have

predicted the global scenarios for climate in different

parts of the world. However, the significance and practi-

cal implementation of such mo d els at lo cal level yet to be

validated. This is because that meso-level models do not

consider region specific variables such as such as envi-

ronmental resources for example ‘land availability, local

climatic conditions, socioeconomic factors such as ‘labor

and capital’, policy aspects such as ‘subsidies, nature

conservation strategies’ and competition for labor and

capital in relation of ‘national economy’.

2. Farmers’ Decision and Complex Land

Use-Environmental System

Farmers act in complex environment and several driving

forces influence him to make his decision on land use [29]

Figure 1. Land use is one of the sectors highly vulner-

able to climate change. Changes in climatic conditions

have lots of adverse impacts on the land use and associ-

ated activities. Climate change influence farmers to de-

cide on land use. Farmers’ decision adjudicates for eco-

nomic success as well as ecological performance of the

chosen management systems. In rural landscape for the

land use management, farmer could choose one or sev-

eral criteria from different goals such as from the eco-

nomic goal and/or ecological goal. The achievement of

profitable economic goal in general found in priority of

farmers decision [30]. The land use is not an independent

sector but closely linked to the other sectors of the land-

scape thus influence the ecological resource flow in the

system. Therefore, meanwhile the impacts of land use

change and related land management practices on climate

(at micro level) have to be evaluated when we study the

impact of climate on the land use. The decision making

behaviour of farmers is centered on maximization of this

income from the existing resources available to his ease

of access. In this endeavor the investigations were made

to judge the attitude of the farmer towards overall sce-

nario changes and development [31,32]. Farmers assess

different conditions at the time - such as policy, demand

for the produce, resource availability etc. Among all the

options, farmer has to choose a few of them at higher

scale while visualizing their potential in way to secure

his livelihood in time to come. Farmers’ options are vary

from region to region, hence need to investigate all the

associated practices/background which directly or indi-

rectly influence the farmers’ behaviour. Farmers’ deci-

sion makes the overall impact on the landscape up to

certain extent [33]. The results of farmers’ decision on

the different branches of the landscape management need

to be evaluated in economic and ecological perspective.

This approach is to develop the general trend in land-

scape development and examine the magnitude to use the

resources such as land resource etc., and ch ange in use of

resource dynamics in time to time (for example collec-

tion of forest resources to sustain the traditional land use

etc.). Therefore, the analyzing tradeoffs of this nature

means that multiple indicators need to be evaluated si-

multaneously for the assessment of management strate-

gies and this is the key requirement to understand the

science behind the micro level case studies [34,35]. Em-

pirical field studies need to be undertaken that might help

us understand climate change impacts on the landscape

i.e. biodiversity, health, natural resource management,

land use and land cover development and the develop-

ment of socio-ecological systems.

3. Climate Change in Karnataka Perspective

In case of Karnataka, national-level projections on cli-

Macro to micro Viewpoint of Climate Change—Linking Karnataka to Global Issue

Environmental

Resources

1.Agriculture (AG)

2. Animal

Husbandry (AN)

3. Horticulture

DECISION MAKE RS

(Farmer)

LANDSCAPE CHANGE AND SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS

Land

Topography

Climate

Conservation

4. Forest

Resour ces (FR)

5. Tourism (T)

Biodiversity

Control /

Management

Activities

Forest resources/ NTFPs

SubsidiesInfrastructure

Population/ Migration

SeasonalPerman ent

Labour

Economic

Growth

Risk Factor

Decision regarding land use

Inv estm en t

Impact

.Tn

Capital

Reso urce s

Policies

Cultur e

Figure 1. Complex rural ecosystem influence farmers’ decisions on land use thus influence the ecological resource flow.

mate change impacts have shown that the state is highly

vulnerable to climate change uncertainties which could

affect millions in rural and urban areas, in addition to

adversely impacting food production, water resources,

fisheries, biodiversity and liveliho ods of the co mmunities

dependent on the natural resources. Hence, there is a

need for a detailed identificatio n and analysis of the eco-

systems, dependent communities and production systems

that are vulnerable to climate change uncertainties. Kar-

nataka is divided into 10 agro-climatic zones viz., 1) North

East Transition. 2) North East Dry. 3) Northern Dry. 4)

Central Dry. 5) Eastern Dry. 6) Southern Dry. 7) Southern

Transition. 8) Western Transition. 9) Hill. 10) Coastal

Karnataka. Therefore, comparative studies ac ross different

agro-climatic zones of Karnataka are considered important

as that could help us draw some major conclusions

concerning climate change impact for developing better

strategies for rural, urban and peri-urban sustainable

landscapes development and conservation of biodiversity.

With regard to climate change research, there is a need to

formulate a research and policy framework including

carbon budgeting for carbon credits particularly to know

carbon ‘income’ and ‘expenditure’. In this process, spe-

cial attention needs to be given to the vulnerable groups

in our society, for example, rural farmers who emit al-

most negligible amount of carbon turn out to be the first

victims of climate change impact. In general, the pro-

jected impacts of climate change will be on both the

natural and socio-economic systems in Karnataka that

include-Food production systems, Water resources;

Fisheries, Forest ecosystems, Biodiversity, Coastal zones,

Health, and Energy sector. For example in case of food

production system Karnataka agriculture is one of the

most essential attributes of Karnataka economy. Agri-

culture in Karnataka has occupied around 19 million

hectares of land, out of which about 10.6 million hectares

of land is bein g cultivated in all the th ree seaso ns in a year

[36]. The main season for agriculture in Karnataka is

monsoon as irrigation is done below 28 percent of the total

cropped area. Thus the agriculture sector is likely to be

more affected by climate change. This poses a challenge to

the state due to its dependence on climate-sensitive eco-

nomic activities and predominantly in practicing rain-

sustained agricultural activities. With in the broader

framework there is a need to understand the interface

between policy and science-addressing climate change

and agriculture in Karnataka to enhance the dialogue

between scientists and policy makers for better policy

formulations. Similar attention need to be given to other

natural and socioeconomic sectors.

As mentioned in the previous section of this article,

globally, many studies are available, but the impact of

climate change at the micro level along with adaptation

and mitigation strategies is yet to be studied in detail

Macro to micro Viewpoint of Climate Change—Linking Karnataka to Global Issue 25

[37-38]. Hence, the issues concerning landscape manage-

ment (land use and cover), human health, human and

ecosystem interactions, livelihood development of the

people, natural resource management and biodiversity

conservation in various parts of Karnataka need to be

prioritized from the perspective of climate change re-

search. The approach needs to be strengthened to gener-

ate a better understanding of all the stakeholders and

provide required information for advanced research and

training in socioecological sciences for improving the

quality of life of the people whose livelihoods are based

on climate sensitive sectors such as agriculture, fisheries,

animal husbandry, forest products etc.

In response to a suggestion made by the Prime Minis-

ter, Dr. Man Mohan Singh, for State governments to

prepare a state level climate policy plan, Karnataka has a

better opportunity for mitigating climate change effects

through the spread of energy use efficiency and renew-

able energy technologies along with large-scale affore-

station activities so as to facilitate sustainab le use of bio-

diversity and environmental flows. But, in the meantime,

various reports show that communities and habitats in

Western transition, Southern transition, Hill, Low-lying

and Coastal areas, Arid & Semi-arid regions of Karna-

taka may get increasingly exposed to climate change

impacts that are interacting with urbanization, develop-

ment, and pollution in the 21st century and beyond.

Therefore, from an aggregate perspective, following

points need to be addressed for devising a holistic plan

with regard to climate change uncertainty in Karnataka.

To identify climate variables for assessing the impact of

climate change-sensitivity, adaptive capacity, vulnerabil-

ity; to document assumptions, choices and the limits of

scientific knowledge on climate change across different

agroclimatic zones of Karnataka and enhance communi-

cation between researchers, policy makers and stake-

holders; to develop an action plan for climate change

adaptation and mitigation, identification and assessment

of vulnerability towards climate change for different

sectors of Karnataka (agriculture, water bodies, forests,

energy); to synthesize a knowledge base (scientific and

traditional ecological knowledge) on climate change in

support of decision making, communication and imple-

mentation; to quantify the carbon budget of rural, peri-

urban and urban landscap es in Karnataka for encourag ing

low-carbon high growth and carbon credits in the global

carbon market; to develop strategies for predicting the

outcomes of climate changes on land use, forestry, fish-

eries, water & energy sectors, sustainable livelihood de-

velopment of people and biodiversity conservation and

natural resource management.

REFERENCES

[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

Third Assessment Report, Cambridge Report, Cambridge

University Press, UK, 2001.

[2] IPCC, “Climate Change: Climate Change Impacts, Adap-

tation and Vulnerability,” Working Group II Contribution

to the Fourth Assessment Report, WHO and UNEP, Ge-

neva, 2007.

[3] M. Spence, “Climate Change, Mitigation, and Developing

Country Growth, Commission on Growth and Develop-

ment,” Working Paper 64, 2009.

[4] R. C. Agarwal and S. Kumar, “India Official Statistics on

Climate Change-Data Needs and Availability,” In: S.

Nautiyal and B. P. Nayak, Eds., Climate Change: Data

Requirement and Availability, ISEC-CSO, MoSPI, 2009,

pp. 38-51.

[5] Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), Published by the In-

ternational Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD),

Vol. 12, No. 459, 22 December, 2009.

[6] J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken

and K. S. White, “Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation,

and Vulnerability,” Contribution of Working Group II to

the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, 2001.

[7] R. J. T. Klein, R. J. Nicholls and N. Mimura, “Coastal

Adaptation to Climate Change: Can the IPCC Technical

Guidelines be applied?” Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 239-252.

doi:10.1023/A:1009681207419

[8] R. Warren, N. Arnell, R. Nicholls, P. Levy and J. Price,

“Understanding the Regional Impacts of Climate

Change,” Research report prepared for the Stern Review,

Tyndall Centre Working Paper 90, Norwich: Tyndall

Centre, 2006.

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/tw

p90.pdf

[9] N. Stern, “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate

Change, London: Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Cabinet

Office,” 2006.

ht t p:/ / www.h mtr easury . gov.uk/independent _revie ws/ stern_

review_economics_cli mate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

[10] H. Haberl, V. Winiwarter, K. Andersson, R. U. Ay res, C.

Boone, A. Castillo, G. Cunfer, M. Fischer-Kowalski, W.

R. Freudenburg, E. Furman, R. Kaufmann, F. Krausmann,

E. Langthaler, H. Lotze-Campen, M. Mirtl, C. L. Redman,

A. Reenberg, A. Wardell, B. Warr and H. Zechmeister,

“From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the Socioeco-

nomic Dimension of Long-Term Socioecological Re-

search, Ecolog y a n d Soci et y, Vol. 11, 2006.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art13/

[11] X. He, J. Zhou, X. Zhang and K. Tang, “Soil Erosion

Response to Climate Change and Human Activity during

the Quaternary on the Loess Plateau, China,” Regional

Environmental C h an g e, Vol. 6, 2006, pp. 62-70.

doi:10.1007/s10113-005-0004-7

[12] H. M. Fuessel, “Vulnerability: A Generally Applicable

Conceptual Framework for Climate Change Research,”

Global Environmental Change, Vol. 17, 2007, pp.

Macro to micro Viewpoint of Climate Change—Linking Karnataka to Global Issue

155-167. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002

[13] K. Halsnæs and J. Verhagen, “Development Based Cli-

mate Change Adaptation and Mitigation-Conceptual Is-

sues and Lessons Learned in Studies in Developing

Countries,” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for

Global Change, Vol 12, 2007, pp. 665-684.

doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9093-6

[14] U. Hellden, “A Coupled Human-Environment Model for

Desertification Simulation and Impact Studies,” Global

and Planetary Change, Vol. 64, 2008, pp. 158-168.

doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.09.004

[15] Y. Li, D. Chen, F. Barker-Reid and R. Eckard, “Simula-

tion of N2O Emissions from Rain-Fed Wheat and the Im-

pact of Climate Variation in Southeastern Australia,”

Plant and Soil, Vol. 309, 2008, pp. 239-251.

doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9672-7

[16] S. Bauer and I. Scholz, “Adaptation to Climate Change in

Southern Africa: New Boundaries for Sustainable Devel-

opment?” Climate and Development, Vol. 2, 2010, pp.

83-93. doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0040

[17] C. Arndt, K. Strzepeck, F. Tarp, J. Thurlow, C. Fant and

L. Wright, “Adapting to Climate Change: An Integrated

Biophysical and Economic Assessment for Mozam-

bique,” Sustainability Science, 2010.

doi:10.1007/s11625-010-0118-9 (online firs t).

[18] S. Vavrus, W. F. Ruddiman and J. E. Kutzbach, “Climate

Model Tests of the Anthropogenic Influence on Green-

house-Induced Climate Change: the role of Early Human

Agriculture, Industrialization, and Vegetation Feed-

backs,” Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 27, 2008, pp.

1410-1425. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.04.011

[19] E. Archer, E. Mukhala, S. Walker, M. Dilley and K. Ma-

samvu, “Sustaining Agricultural Production and Food Se-

curity in Southern Africa: An Improved Role for Climate

Prediction?” Climate Change, Vol. 8 3 , 2 007 , p p. 287-300.

doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9192-5

[20] S. Torresan, A. Critto, M. D. Valle, N. Harvey and A.

Marcomini, “Assessing Coastal Vulnerability to Climate

Change: Comparing Segmentation at Global and Re-

gional Scales,” Sustainability Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2008,

pp. 45-65.

[21] P. Olsson, C. Folke and F. Berkes, “Adaptive Coman-

agement for Building Resilience in Socio-Ecological

Systems, Environmental Management, Vol. 34, No. 1,

2004, pp. 75-90. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7

[22] J. K. Willis, D. P. Chambers and R. S. Nerem, “Assessing

the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal to

Interannual Timescales,” Journal of Geophysical Re-

search, Vol. 113, No. C6, 2008, C06015.

doi:10.1029/2007JC004517

[23] W. Easterling, “Adapting North American Agriculture to

Climate Change in Review,” Agricultural and Forest

Meteorology, Vol. 80, No. 1, 1996, pp. 1-54.

doi:10.1016/0168-1923(95)02315-1

[24] B. Smit and J. Smithers, “Sustainable Agriculture: Inter-

pretations, Analyses and Prospects,” Canadian Journal of

Regional Science, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1994, pp. 499-524.

[25] J. Ikerd, “Understanding and Managing the Multi-Dimen-

sions of Sustainable Agriculture,” Southern Regional

Sustainable agriculture professional development pro-

gram, SARE Regional Training Consortium, Gainesville,

FL, January, 1997.

[26] FAO, “World Agriculture towards 2015/2030: An FAO

Perspective,” Food and Agriculture Organisation of the

United Nations, Rome, 2003.

[27] National Agricultural Research Project (NARP), “De-

lineation of Agroclimatic Zones of India,” 2009.

http://imdagrimet.org/a170.htm, Viewed on 23 December

[28] A. Sharma, “Enabling Agriculture,” eAgriculture India,

Vol. 1-2, 2007, pp. 17-24.

[29] S. Nautiyal and H. Kaechele, “Conservation of Crop Di-

versity for Sustainable Landscape Development in the

Mountains of the Indian Himalayan Region,” Manage-

ment of Environmental Quality, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2007, pp.

514-530. doi:10.1108/14777830710778283

[30] S. Nautiyal, K. S. Rao, H. Kaechele and P. Zander,

“Conceptual Model Development for Landscape Man-

agement in the Mountains of the Indian Himalayan Re-

gion: An Approach for Sustainable Socio-Ecological De-

velopment,” Landscape Online, Vol. 18, 2010, pp. 1-19.

[31] F. Pischke and M. Cashmore, “Decision-Oriented Envi-

ronmental Assessment: An Empirical Study of Its Theory

and Methods,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review,

Vol. 26, No. 7, 2006, pp. 643-662.

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2006.06.004

[32] S. Nautiyal, R. K. Maikhuri, K. S. Rao and K. G. Saxena,

“Ecosystem Function of Cold Desert Villages of the In-

dian Central Himalaya, India,” Environmental Conserva-

tion for Sustainable Livelihoods in the Cold Desert Re-

gion of Asia, 2010, (in press).

[33] S. Nautiyal and H. Kaechele, “Natural Resource Man-

agement in a Protected Area of Indian Himalaya: A Mod-

eling Approach for Anthropogenic Interactions on Eco-

systems,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,

Vol. 153, No. 1-4, 2009, pp. 253-271.

doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0353-z

[34] P. Tittonell, M. T. van Wijk, M. C. Rufino, J. A. Vrugt

and K. E. Giller, “Analysing Trade-offs in Resource and

Labour Allocation by Smallholder Farmers Using Inverse

Modelling Techniques: A Case-Study from Kakamega

district, Western Kenya,” Agricultural Systems, Vol. 95,

No. 1-3, 2007, pp. 76-95.

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2007.04.002

[35] S. Nautiyal, H. Kaechele, K. S. Rao, R. K. Maikhuri and

K. G. Saxena, “Energy Use and Economic Analysis of

Traditional VS Introduced Crops Cultivation in Moun-

tains of Indian Himalaya: A Case Study,” Energy, Vol. 32,

No. 12, 2007, pp. 2321-2335.

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.07.011

[36] Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Govern-

ment of Karnataka, 2010.

http://des.kar.nic.in/indexie.html, Viewed on 12 March

[37] S. Nautiyal, “Changing Climate and Impacts at Micro

Level: Data Requirements and Gaps,” In: S. Nautiyal and

Macro to micro Viewpoint of Climate Change—Linking Karnataka to Global Issue

B. P. Nayak, Eds., Climate Change: Data Requirement

and Availability, ISEC & MoSPI Publication, 2009, pp.

150-161.

[38] S. Nautiyal and B. P. Nayak, Climate Change: Data Re-

quirement and Availability”. ISEC and MoSPI publica-

tion. 2009, p. 188.