evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Hiniduma Bio-Link Project — Plan Vivo Home-Garden Reforestation (Sri Lanka)

Sri Lanka · Hiniduma · See the Sri Lanka profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 47% 47/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Smallholder farmers in Sri Lanka's Galle District earn staged Plan Vivo Certificates for reforesting traditional home gardens with analog forestry, rebuilding a biodiversity corridor between the Sinharaja and Kanneliya rainforests; Phase III covers 17 farmers and 8 hectares.

~23,473 hectares
Wider proposed biodiversity corridor
~11 hectares
Phase I & II area reforested
17
Phase III farmers (from 2013)
8 hectares
Phase III area (from 2013)
152.14 tCO2/ha
Modelled sequestration rate (15-year crediting period)
up to 2,000 hectares
Wider corridor area covered by project design
20%
Risk-buffer deduction applied
Hiniduma Bio-Link Project — Plan Vivo Home-Garden Reforestation (Sri Lanka)

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Carbon Consulting Company (Pvt) Ltd / Hiniduma Bio-Link Society, certified by the Plan Vivo Foundation
Period
2012 design – Phase III from 2013 – ongoing
Keywords
analog forestry, home-garden agroforestry, biodiversity corridor, voluntary carbon credits

Context

The Hiniduma Bio-Link, Asia's first Plan Vivo-certified project, was designed to reconnect two of Sri Lanka's largest remaining rainforest fragments — the Sinharaja and Kanneliya reserves — by reforesting the farmed lowland wet-zone landscape between them, part of a wider proposed biodiversity corridor of roughly 23,473 hectares. The project is run by the Carbon Consulting Company with the Hiniduma Bio-Link Society, representing smallholder farmers in Hiniduma and neighbouring villages in Galle District.

Activities

Rather than establishing new plantations, the project pays farmers in staged instalments, funded by the sale of Plan Vivo Certificates, to reforest their traditional home gardens using the Analog Forestry method, which combines native and commercially useful tree species to mimic natural forest structure. Phases I and II covered around 11 hectares; Phase III, begun in 2013, added 17 farmers managing 8 hectares.

Results

The project design document, covering up to 2,000 hectares of the wider corridor, models sequestration of 152.14 tCO2 per hectare over a 15-year crediting period, after a 20% risk-buffer deduction, with the approach recognised by the UNDP Equator Initiative.

Conclusions

Because the published sequestration and hectare figures come chiefly from the project design document and an academic feasibility case study rather than a recent independent ex-post audit, they should be read as credited/modelled estimates rather than verified outturn, and outcomes are likely to vary farmer-to-farmer in a smallholder home-garden model that is inherently harder to monitor uniformly than a single-block plantation.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Farmers paid in staged instalments funded by Plan Vivo Certificate sales; no aggregate programme budget figure disclosed.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Project designed 2012; Phase III began 2013 and is ongoing; 15-year crediting period modelled in the project design.
Staffing & skills
Carbon Consulting Company (Pvt) Ltd, Hiniduma Bio-Link Society smallholder farmers

Conditions for success

  • Plan Vivo Foundation certification
  • Staged instalment payments tied to Analog Forestry reforestation milestones
  • UNDP Equator Initiative recognition

Common failure modes

  • Sequestration figures are design-stage/modelled estimates, not an independent ex-post verified audit
  • Smallholder home-garden model is inherently harder to monitor uniformly than a single-block plantation, so outcomes likely vary farmer-to-farmer

Where it fits

Governance type
NGO/company-run smallholder payment scheme
Scale
Phase III: 17 farmers, 8 hectares (within a ~23,473 ha proposed corridor)
Income level
lower-middle-income (Sri Lanka)

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful