Although, three countries viz. China, India, and Nepal

Although,
Himalayan communities are the strength of this entity, vibrant culture,
traditional knowledge and practices, unanswered beliefs and myth are the assets
of the Himalaya but then again human species, are pushing the earth’s system
and biosphere beyond several planetary boundaries, undermining the long term
conditions for own survival (Rockströmet.
al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015),
even so, the Himalayan communities have preserved their cultural individuality,
ecological diversity and also kept food security in their own way. However
socio-economic background of the Himalaya can influence through climate change
and number of aspects will be responsible either it may be economy (e.g.,
agriculture, livestock, forestry, tourism, fishery, etc.) or human health (Negi
et al., 2012). Detailed information/
data on human wellbeing in the Himalaya is partial, but it is clear that the
effects of changed climate will be felt by people in their livelihoods, health,
and natural resource security, among other things (Sharma et al., 2009).

 

Consequently adaptation, mitigation,
and resilience  have become the trademark
of hills and mountainous landscapes furthermore for their inhabitants, predominantly
in the Hindu Kush Himalaya since long past the mountainous ecosystem’s
existence and diversity of biological resources are vulnerable by various
factors of change and anthropogenic pressure is the responsible cause for that
(Sharma et al., 2008).

 

Kailash Sacred landscape (KSL) is
one of the sufferer as the region and it’s people are highly vulnerable to
climate change and environmental degradation, as well as threats associated
with ongoing globalization processes and accelerating development (Zomer et al., 2011).

 

Thus,
scientific world, governments, and
International organization, etc. have recognized that, Himalaya is
extremely intricate to global warming and it has reflective effect on climate.
Increased population, migration, less livelihood options, poor management,
unsustainable use of natural resources and young generation’s decreasing
interest towards traditional practices etc. are the threats and challenges,
which are looking for solutions, as mountains are early indicators of climate change
(Singh et al., 2010).

 

KSL
has been identified as a high priority ‘trans-boundary landscape’ area by
collaboration between partner institutions of three countries viz. China, India, and Nepal with
facilitation and support from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD),Nepal, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Deutsche
Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) to promote the trans-boundary biodiversity
and cultural conservation, ecosystem management, sustainable development, and
climate change adaptation in this biologically and culturally rich, unique, and
extremely vulnerable region with ecosystem management approach (Zomer et al., 2011) .

 

Therefore,
International organizations, government bodies and NGOs are playing important
role to quantifying the approximately cost of natural resources for
broadcasting the significance of these assets for day to day life and future
generation too.

 

Human welfare depend on managed
ecosystem, which are particular to a given human
requirement or activity (Banzhaf and Boyd,
2005 ; Haines-Young and
Potschin (2010),
since its valuable services are essential for life, apparently look intangible
but these are real benefits. Promising attempts for defining and categorizing
ecosystem services have been undertaken for example by TEEB (2010), MA (2005)
or CICES6 also delineated ecosystem services into four broad categories: Provisioning,
Regulating, Supporting
and Cultural.

 

It
is often suggested that as long as ecosystem is vigorous, our existence on this
earth is resilient, so valuation and documentation
of the ecosystem services indicate their conveying importance, which can be in
different aspects like ecological, cultural, economic and self-interest for
diverse stakeholders too. A perception related to valuation
also measures efficacy of various ecosystem situation, which directly
affect the lifethat
has gained assurance around the world, 
it’s aims to provide a summary of key interactions between nature and
humans also, thereby simplifying the issues by focusing on those interactions
most important (Ash et al., 2010).

 

1.2
Valuation of Ecosystem services

Valuation
of ‘Ecosystem services’ although has been a debate issue for ecologists,
conservationist and economist also from few decades
such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA,
2005) in the early 2000s was a popularized concept.  Valuation of
ecosystem services (both quantitative and qualitative) and their integration
into policy and decision making practices has been a matter of debate ever
since the concept first emerged in the early 1990s (Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; Brauman  2007; Daily et al.,2009; de Groot et al.,
2010; Guerry et al., 2015).

 

Whereas, the indirect benefits of
the nature cannot be expressed readily through monetary valuation techniques
(Farber et al., 2002) then
qualitative assessment may be required to expose the importance of these
benefits and to understand the values of biodiversity, landscape beauty,
cultural heritages and regulatory services of water and air, we need a robust non-monetary
valuation method which can address exact situations at local level.

 

Qualitative valuation evaluate the changes in resource’s potential
induced within socio-ecological systems through change of specific drivers for
examples are i.e. the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency (2008) in the Baltic Sea, and several other
research projects (e.g. Vihervaara et
al., 2009).

 

Beside in India, valuation of ecosystem services’
has become a modern phrase for natural resource management and relatively novel approach to invent the cost effect
estimation of ecosystem services. In October, 2012 India hosted the
“11th Conference of Parties (CoP) to the Convention on Biological diversity
(CBD)” and released the first working document –”TEEB-India: Initial Assessment
and Scoping Report”, which comprising the outcomes of scoping studies
commissioned under the initiative (Parikh et
al., 2012). Later on the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change (MoEF), India and GIZ (2014) has launched “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
– India Initiative (TII)” with the aim of highlighting the economic
consequences of loss of the biodiversity and associated deterioration in
ecosystem services. So far in Uttarakhand few initial studies has been done by
Singh et. al. (1992); Singh, (2002);
Singh et al., (2003); and Negi &
Agarwal (2006). Although, Chipko
movement was associated with forest (Tree) conservation in Uttarakhand and it
helped as a catalyst to change the national and international opinion on the role
of forests in sustainable development and hence developing conservation
policies (Shiva and Bandyopadhyay, 1986; Guha 1989), thus environment related
education, skill, awareness, laws and policies and skill can be used as a tool
for ecosystems services’ valuation to foster good environmental governance.

 

BACK TO TOP