An Ecosystem Approach towards Inclusive Growth in

Mountains- Instances of Lake and River Ecosystem in

Kashmir

Dr. M. H. WaniProf. Rajiv Gandhi Chair

SKUAST-K, 190025, J&K, Srinagar, KashmirEmail: rgckashmir@gmail.com

Organization of the presentationMountains: A treasure of natural resources

Fragile geo-physical setting and distinction in terms of policy support

Slackened growth process and lack of inclusiveness

Its Sustenance: A possibility if we have ecosystem approach

Inclusiveness of ecosystem components and their valuation

Ecosystem approach: Instances for lessons

Mountains: A treasure of natural resources

Mountains are water source for plainsMountains are rich in biodiversity and geo-diversityMountains is a natural systemSustenance due to interplay of biotic and abiotic

components

Fragile geo-physical setting and distinction in terms of policy support

InaccessibilityFragilityMarginality Diversity or heterogeneity Natural suitability or nicheHuman adaptation mechanism

Degradation and vulnerability(Slackened growth process and lack

of inclusiveness)

State Glaciers Area (Km²) Average size (Km²)

Glacier (%)

Jammu & Kashmir

5262 29163 10.24 61.8

Himachal Pradesh

2735 4516 3.35 8.1

Uttarakhand 968 2857 3.87 18.1

Sikkim 449 706 1.50 8.7

Arunachal Pradesh

162 223 1.40 3.2

(Raina & Srivastava, 2008)

Indian Himalayan glacier system

N u m b e r o f G l a c i e r s - 9 5 7 5 , G l a c i e r e d A r e a -3 7 4 6 6 K m ² , To t a l I c e Vo l u m e - 2 0 0 0 K m ³

• Approximately 443 Gigatonnes (Gt) of glacier ice has been lost (The Hindu, January 9, 2014)

• The rate of glacial loss in the Himalayas has accelerated over the decades: from around 9 Gt/year in 1975-85 to 20 Gt/year in 2000-2010.

• Best estimates of globally averaged surface air warming vary between 1.8° and 4.0°C and “this would have profound effect on the Himalayan glaciers.”

(The Hindu, January 9, 2014)

• Fast depleting resources, unpredictable weather, changing climate, poor marketing facilities, inadequate infrastructure, low productive animals.

• Absence of an effective extension system, migration of youth due to unprofitable agriculture and population growth.

• Poor productivity of crops and untapped potential in horticultural sector

Per -captia availability of food in the Himalayan States

Adaptation variables

States/Country Per captia availability of food grains(gm/day)

Per captia availability of milk(gm/day)

Per captia availability of fish(gm/day)

J&K 109.1 360.0 1.6Himalayan States 324.6 172.5 10.5India 493.8 275.8 19.1

State/Country Poverty(%) Per CapitaIncome (Rs)

Literacy (%)

J&K 21.63 30421 68.74Himalayan States 22.60 42578 78.00India 27.50 54835 74.04

Its Sustenance: A possibility if we have ecosystem approach

Green economy: an option Natural capital

Recognizes its value

Invests in it

Creates employment for all

Livelihood /Food Security

Mitigates Climate Change

Sustains Natural Resources

Human Wellbeing

Reduces Environmental Risks and Scarcity

Typical of mountains

•Hydropower•Wind Energy•Biogas

• Microclimate regulation• Regulates even beyond its geographical boundaries

•Source of major rivers• Sustain agriculture & life

•Rs. 96.78 cr worth forest products generated in J&K•Role in carbon storage

Forests

Water

EnergyClimate

24% of earths’ surface area

Home of 12% of global population & 1/4th of Planet’s biodiversity

A typical view of mountains at a glance

….YET constitutes a fragile ecology characterized by underdevelopment and vulnerability

Policy Change

Changed Consumption Pattern Environmental

Change

Mountain Environm

ent

Food Insecurity

Out Migration

Poor Medical Facilities

Lack of Proper Education

Reduced per capita Cultivable Land

Micro Climate Vulnerability

Water Conflicts

Soil Degradation

Forest

Rangelands

Agriculture

Livestock

Horticulture

Inaccessibility

Fragility Marginality

Niches Adaptive Strategies

Mobility

Off Farm Employment

Lack of Market

Structure

Population Growth

Human Interventi

on

Inclusiveness of eco-system components and their valuation

Total Economic value framework

Direct use value

ConsumptiveNon-

consumptive

TE

V

Cat

egor

ies

CO

MM

ON

LY U

SED

VA

LU

ATIO

N

ME

TH

OD

S

Indirect use value

Option valueBequest value,

quasi-option value

Existence value

Change in productivity, cost-based

approaches, hedonic prices,

travel cost, contingent valuation

Change in productivity, cost-based

approaches, contingent valuation

Change in productivity, cost-based

approaches, contingent valuation

Change in productivity,

USE VALUE NON-USE VALUE

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE(TEV)

Biodiversity services

Climate RegulationBiogeochemical cyclesHydrological functions

Soil ProtectionCrop pollination

Pest controlEcotourism

Many of these services are closely associated with ecosystem resilience. If

resilience declines many of the services will also decline

Supporting NUTRIENT

CYCLING SIOL

FORMATION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

PROVISIONING FOOD FRESH WATER WOOD AND

FIBRE FUEL

REGULATING CLIMATE

REGULATION FLOOD

REGULATION DISESE

REGULATION WATER

PURIFICATION

CULTURAL AESTHETIC SPRITUAL PRIMARY

PEDUCATION RECREATIONAL

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Ecosystem approach: instances for lessons

Economic valuation and sustainability of Dal Lake

Case studies in the context of Kashmir Himalayas

Average annual revenue to stakeholders (per respondent) Revenue in Rs.

FarmersCultivated Area (Kanals) 12.51Gross revenue =157482.00Net revenue =56772.00

FishermenNo. of working days 175 (49, 42, 37, 47)Gross revenue =63759.00Net revenue =21508.00

Shikara ownersNo. of working days 282 (45, 80, 84, 73)Gross revenue =151336.00Net revenue =84354.00

Cont…..

HoteliersOccupancy rate

Suits 31.39 (4.19, 38.6, 65.58, 17.21)

Deluxe 50.18 (28.38, 65.96, 70.21, 36.17)Gross revenue =80,97,887.00Net revenue =4738137.00

Houseboat ownersOccupancy rate 31.39 (28.53, 74.47, 97.9, 35.44)Gross revenue =1673093.00Net revenue =125577.00

TransportersAverage number of trips 775 (150, 237, 210, 178)Gross revenue =930209.00Net revenue =72857.00

Cont…..

Tourism sectorDomestic 992043International 58439Total 1050482

Item Domestic InternationalFood 14.15 14.81Shopping 22.53 21.91Travel* 11.80 13.02Accommodation 17.38 16.96Communication 2.33 4.03Entry fee 3.09 3.06Sporting 12.28 9.05Shikara ride 10.63 9.46Other expenses 5.82 7.70

Total (Rs) (1791.29)100.00

(2785.31)100.00

Expenditure pattern incurred by visitor (%)

Figures in the parentheses indicate absolute value in rupees/visitor /day)*These are the travel charges exclusively within the Dal premises

Visible manifestation of Dal deteriorationShrinking area

• 75 km2: In 1200 AD• 25 km2: In 1980 (67 percent decrease in 7 to 8

centuries @ 0.064 km2 /year)• 11.4 km2: Now (54 percent decrease in 21/2 decades @

5.44 km2 /year)

Greenish appearance of Dal surface due to algal/weed growth

Sedimentation at Dal banksGrowth of houseboats and their movement towards

boulevard line

CAUSES: Encroachment; Expanding agricultural activities; Influx of sewage from within and outside Dal; Increasing population of Dal dwellers; Faulty developmental programs for tourism

The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests launched a Rs 500 crores ‘Save Dal’ Project in the year 1997.

The state government under various projects shifted 666 families from 1978 to 1999.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of J&K pursued restoration of Dal under various directions given to the concerned authorities for its restoration since 2000 till date.

The central government approved a project costing Rs. 237.7 crores to conserve the lake in 2005.

Dal restoration: government interventions

Contd. In 2007, the state government transferred 376 hectares of land

to the Lakes And Waterways Development Agencies (LAWDA) and Srinagar Development Authority for its conservation and rehabilitation of displaced families.

Since 2009 the state Govt. is developing 14,000 plots at Rakh-Arth in central Kashmir for a population of 80,000 Dal dwellers, affected due to drive launched to restore the pristine glory of the Lake.

In 2009, the Prime Minister of India sanctioned a new grant of Rs. 356 crore for rehabilitation of Dal dwellers.

During 2011, high level committee appointed by the High Court for monitoring the Dal conservation cleared 65 rehabilitation cases paving way for acquisition of the 290 kanals of land and its conversion into water.

Strength in the form of willingness to pay of stakeholders for Dal

Lake restoration

(Rs. / respondent)Respondent Lump sum Routine contribution  Amount Monthly Duration

Visitors 483.73 - -StakeholdersHoteliers 6717.12 1403.10 10-15 yearsHouseboats 2211.06 1109.33 7-12 yearsShikara 108.71 118.03 5-8 yearsFishermen 32.32 12.04 1 yearTransport 129.19 111.42 2-5 yearsResidents 504 137.83 2-5 years

Other sectionsNGO’s 1397.02 612.63 5- 10 yearsConscious citizens

907.34 378.29 1- 5 years

Scientists/Intellectuals

2011.03 307.08 4- 8 years

Economies of restoration

Particulars GR NR % increaseTotal revenue generated by Dal at existing area (11.4 km2) 31837 17685 -

Average revenue attributable to 1 sq. km of existing Dal 2793 1551 -

Additional revenue expected through restoration of encroached area (13.6 km2)

25 percent restoration 9495 5274 29.8250 percent restoration 18990 10549 59.65100 percent restoration 37981 21098 119.30

Estimated income generation through restoration of encroached

Dal area (Lakh rupees)

Ways of gains Unit MagnitudeDomestic Internati

onalExtra visits Per 5 Years 1.72 1.08Extra events Per VisitVisit to Mughal gardens/other sites

- 1.51 1.89

Shikara ride - 2.37 3.38Water sporting - 1.28 2.19

Extra stay Days/visit 1.98 3.09Invite others (Yes) %

respondents76.54 82.14

Value of gains (rupees)*Extra visits - -Extra events of

Visit to Mughal gardens/other sites 83.58 160.84Shikara ride 451.13 890.83Water sporting 281.64 552.16

Extra staySub total

1825.642641.99

4864.496468.33

Invite others 2022.18 5313.09Total gains per person 4664.16 11781.42Percent gains per tourist over reference year 160.38 322.98

Potential gains through tourism after Dal restoration

Are compensations and additional benefits comparable?

Existing compensation policy per householdLand area Rs 3.40 lakhs/kanalWater area Rs 1.80 lakhs/kanalCash compensation Rs 1.30 lakhsEstimated number of households 12903Estimated area under each householdLand based 3.31 kanalsWater based 4.91 kanalsTotal estimated area occupied by dwellersLand based 42709 kanalsWater based 63354 kanalsTotal compensation Rs 2760 croresApproximate number of years to recover the cost of rehabilitation 13.08 years

Economic valuation and sustainability of river Jhelum

Case Studies in the context of Kashmir Himalayas…Contd.

Economic value of river JhelumUse value

Crop Irrigated (by Jhelum) (1) Un-irrigated (2)

  Productivity(q/ha)

Gross incomeRs/ha

Productivity

(q/ha)

Gr. income(Rs/ha)

Rice 70 91000 - -Maize 50 51000 35 35700Fodder crops 650 74750 500 57500Oilseeds 5.2 2080 - -Pulses 140 420000 100 300000Cole crops 395 521400 - -Root crops 252 243432 206 198996Other veg*. 330 538000 218 368333Income differential per hectare (1-2)

80785

Area irrigated by Jhelum (ha) 83105**Total income differential (Rs. in Millions) 6714

Productivity difference in various crops under different irrigation scenariosAgriculture

Includes peas, tomato, potato and onion; **has increased 4.07 times since 1980

Installed capacity and hydel power generated on Jhelum river basin

Hydropower

*For 2008-09; ** For 2010-11; + Rs. in Crores; Figures in parentheses represent percentage of totalSource: Economic survey (2011-12); Directorate of Economics and Statistics, J&K

Name of power house Installed capacity*

Energy generated*

*

Revenue generated

+

Unit Mega Watts Million Units Rs. in

CroresLower Jhelum Hydel Project 105.00 377.95 145.89Upper-Sindh Hydel Project-I 22.60 33.89 13.08Upper-Sindh Hydel Project-II 105.00 291.83 112.65Ganerbal 15.00 11.93 4.60Karnah 2.00 1.59 0.62Pahalgam 3.00 7.93 3.06Sub-total (Jhelum basin) 252.60 725.1292 279.90

(33.22) (19.48) (19.48)Gross total (State) 760.46 3721.8443 1436.63

Average annual value of different services by Jhelum (Rs. per stakeholder)

Other services

Services TotalFishing 1,02,216

Water Transport 1,07,280

Laundry Services 1,72,140

Sand Extraction 6,54,615

House Boat 8,49,976

Economic value of river JhelumNon Use value

Willingness to pay for ecosystem preservation

 Parameters MeanAverage total expenditure per visit 119.25Pre- restoration visitation rate per week 4.10Post- restoration visitation rate per week 5.45Willingness to pay for transparent water 930.53Willingness to pay for beautified riverbanks 976.50Willingness to pay for increased fish population 112.50House price differential* (per 1000 sq. ft plot) 1171855

(Rs. Per person

*Hedonic price method

Determinants of willingness to pay (WTP)

Variable Coefficient S.EConstant 2.28 -

Family income (FMI) 0.08* 0.007

Scenery concerns (SC) 1.24* 0.18

Family size of stakeholders (FMS) -0.06 1.12

Restoration concerns (RC) 0.19* 0.09

Distance from residence (DIS) 0.08* 0.02

Adjusted R2 0.8213 -

Degrading Jhelum ecosystem

Public perception

Health of river

Response Causes of degradation

Response

Very poor35.24 Residential/

private32.25

Poor 60.31 Commercial 8.58Moderate Good 4.45

Climate change

18.65

Good 0 Institutional 38.47Very good 0 Others 2.05

…has virtually turned the river in a dump of sewage discharge from the towns

• increased concentrations of BOD, COD• drastic reductions in dissolved oxygen levels• decline in fish diversity and yield • records of seven globally threatened/ near threatened

water-bird and wetland bird species in the basin• loss of water holding capacity of the river and its

associated wetlands

Changing hydrological regime

  1980-90 1991-00 2001-09January 3.3 3.7 3.3February 4.8 4.9 3.9March 7.9 7.7 10.1April 13.5 12 13.5May 19.5 13.8 18.6June 12.5 12.7 10.1July 9.5 13.8 10August 9.3 11.4 9.1September 5.7 8.3 12.4October 5.7 4.8 3.6November 3.7 3.8 2.5December 4.5 3.1 2.9

Expanding peak flow periods (Percent of monthly flow)

Peak flow period expands to 7 months from 3 months during 3 decades time

Kashmir Floods Sep-2014 Sep. 2, 2014 Heavy monsoons lead to massive flooding Sep. 2, 2014 Flood alert sounded by the government Sep. 6, 2014 Worst flood in 100 years (150 dead) Sep. 6, 2014 Prime Minister declares National

emergency

Approx. 400

people dead, 2500

villages impacted,

450 completel

y submerge

d,50 bridges , 2.53 lakh houses,2.62 lakh

structures,3.27

and 3.96 lakh ha of agri

and hort land and tourism sector

suffered heavy

damages and over 600,000 people

remained stranded

in Kashmir valley.One

trillion loss was

estimated for

Kashmir division alone.

3 Lakh Houses (Rs 30,000 crore)Business loss 1 Lakh shops and Commercial establishments (Rs 25 ,000 crore) Agriculture Rs 2,000 croreLivestock, Fisheries and Floriculture Rs 500 croreOther Sectors Rs 40,500 crore

Total Loss: Rs 1 Trillion

Sector-wise LossIsn’t this loss because we ignored economic value of the ecosystem service provided by Jhelum?

Long term: Disturbance in ecology Ill planned development Choking and encroachment of the flood channels.Reduced carrying capacity of Jhelum owing to siltation and

encroachment on banks

Causes

Immediate: Heavy rains• The monsoon in the year 2014 was deficit in Punjab (-

63%), Himachal Pradesh (-48%) over normal and J&K received 55% excess rainfall over normal.

• The rainfall data collected from Indian Metrological department (IMD) from 28th August to 10th September 2014 for South Kashmir areaLOCATION ACTUAL NORMAL PERCENTAGE

ABOVE NORMALAnantnag 402.3 mm 32.9 mm 1222 %Kulgam 540.5 mm 42.9 mm 1259 %Shopain 406.0 mm 29.2 mm 1390 %Pulwama 292.7 mm 19.9 mm 1470 %

Thanks