Ecosystem Approach to lakes and rivers of Kashmir
-
Upload
india-water-portal -
Category
Environment
-
view
28 -
download
0
Transcript of Ecosystem Approach to lakes and rivers of Kashmir
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: [email protected]
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