What services lakes and rivers of Kashmir offer and how can they be monetarily evaluated.

1. An Ecosystem Approach towards
Inclusive Growth in Mountains-
Instances of Lake and River
Ecosystem in Kashmir
Dr. M. H. Wani
Prof. Rajiv Gandhi Chair
SKUAST-K, 190025, J&K, Srinagar, Kashmir
Email: rgckashmir@gmail.com

2. Organization of the presentation
Mountains: 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

3. Mountains: A treasure of natural resources
 Mountains are water source for plains
 Mountains are rich in biodiversity and geo-
diversity
 Mountains is a natural system
 Sustenance due to interplay of biotic and abiotic
components

4. Fragile geo-physical setting and distinction in
terms of policy support
 Inaccessibility
 Fragility
 Marginality
 Diversity or heterogeneity
 Natural suitability or niche
 Human adaptation mechanism

5. Degradation and vulnerability
(Slackened growth process and lack of
inclusiveness)

6. 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

7. • 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

8. 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 1.6
Himalayan States 324.6 172.5 10.5
India 493.8 275.8 19.1
State/Country Poverty(%) Per Capita
Income (Rs)
Literacy (%)
J&K 21.63 30421 68.74
Himalayan States 22.60 42578 78.00
India 27.50 54835 74.04

9. Its Sustenance: A possibility if we have ecosystem
approach

10. 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

11. 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

12. A typical view of mountains at a glance

13. ….YET constitutes a fragile ecology characterized by underdevelopment
and vulnerability
Policy Change
Changed
Consumption Pattern Environmental
Change
Mountain
Environment
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
Intervention

14. Inclusiveness of eco-system components and
their valuation

15. Total Economic value framework
Direct use
value
Consumptive
Non-
consumptive
TEV
Categories
COMMONLYUSED
VALUATION
METHODS
Indirect use
value
Option value
Bequest 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)

16. Biodiversity services
Climate Regulation
Biogeochemical cycles
Hydrological functions
Soil Protection
Crop pollination
Pest control
Ecotourism
Many of these services are closely
associated with ecosystem resilience. If
resilience declines many of the services
will also decline
Supporting
 NUTRIENT
CYCLING
 SIOL
FORMATIO
N
 PRIMARY
PRODUCTI
ON
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

17. Ecosystem approach: instances for lessons

18. Economic valuation and sustainability of Dal Lake
Case studies in the context of Kashmir Himalayas

19. Average annual revenue to stakeholders
(per respondent) Revenue in Rs.
Farmers
Cultivated Area (Kanals) 12.51
Gross revenue =157482.00
Net revenue =56772.00
Fishermen
No. of working days 175 (49, 42, 37, 47)
Gross revenue =63759.00
Net revenue =21508.00
Shikara owners
No. of working days 282 (45, 80, 84, 73)
Gross revenue =151336.00
Net revenue =84354.00
Cont…..

20. Hoteliers
Occupancy 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 =80,97,887.00
Net revenue =4738137.00
Houseboat owners
Occupancy rate 31.39 (28.53, 74.47, 97.9, 35.44)
Gross revenue =1673093.00
Net revenue =125577.00
Transporters
Average number of trips 775 (150, 237, 210, 178)
Gross revenue =930209.00
Net revenue =72857.00
Cont…..

21. Tourism sector
Domestic 992043
International 58439
Total 1050482
Item Domestic International
Food 14.15 14.81
Shopping 22.53 21.91
Travel* 11.80 13.02
Accommodation 17.38 16.96
Communication 2.33 4.03
Entry fee 3.09 3.06
Sporting 12.28 9.05
Shikara ride 10.63 9.46
Other 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

22. Visible manifestation of Dal deterioration
Shrinking 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 banks
Growth 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

23.  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

24. 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.

25. 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 - -
Stakeholders
Hoteliers 6717.12 1403.10 10-15 years
Houseboats 2211.06 1109.33 7-12 years
Shikara 108.71 118.03 5-8 years
Fishermen 32.32 12.04 1 year
Transport 129.19 111.42 2-5 years
Residents 504 137.83 2-5 years
Other sections
NGO’s 1397.02 612.63 5- 10 years
Conscious citizens 907.34 378.29 1- 5 years
Scientists/Intellectuals 2011.03 307.08 4- 8 years

26. Economies of restoration
Particulars GR NR % increase
Total 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 29.82
50 percent restoration 18990 10549 59.65
100 percent restoration 37981 21098 119.30
Estimated income generation through restoration
of encroached Dal area (Lakh rupees)

27. Ways of gains Unit Magnitude
Domestic International
Extra visits Per 5 Years 1.72 1.08
Extra events Per Visit
Visit to Mughal gardens/other sites - 1.51 1.89
Shikara ride - 2.37 3.38
Water sporting - 1.28 2.19
Extra stay Days/visit 1.98 3.09
Invite others (Yes) % respondents 76.54 82.14
Value of gains (rupees)*
Extra visits - -
Extra events of
Visit to Mughal gardens/other sites 83.58 160.84
Shikara ride 451.13 890.83
Water sporting 281.64 552.16
Extra stay
Sub total
1825.64
2641.99
4864.49
6468.33
Invite others 2022.18 5313.09
Total gains per person 4664.16 11781.42
Percent gains per tourist over reference year 160.38 322.98
Potential gains through tourism after Dal restoration

28. Are compensations and additional benefits
comparable?
Existing compensation policy per household
Land area Rs 3.40 lakhs/kanal
Water area Rs 1.80 lakhs/kanal
Cash compensation Rs 1.30 lakhs
Estimated number of households 12903
Estimated area under each household
Land based 3.31 kanals
Water based 4.91 kanals
Total estimated area occupied by dwellers
Land based 42709 kanals
Water based 63354 kanals
Total compensation Rs 2760 crores
Approximate number of years to recover the cost of rehabilitation 13.08 years

29. Economic valuation and sustainability of river Jhelum
Case Studies in the context of Kashmir
Himalayas…Contd.

30. Economic value of river Jhelum
Use value
Crop Irrigated (by Jhelum) (1) Un-irrigated (2)
Productivity
(q/ha)
Gross
income
Rs/ha
Productivity
(q/ha)
Gr. income
(Rs/ha)
Rice 70 91000 - -
Maize 50 51000 35 35700
Fodder crops 650 74750 500 57500
Oilseeds 5.2 2080 - -
Pulses 140 420000 100 300000
Cole crops 395 521400 - -
Root crops 252 243432 206 198996
Other veg*. 330 538000 218 368333
Income 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 scenarios
Agriculture
Includes peas, tomato, potato and onion; **has increased 4.07 times since 1980

31. 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 total
Source: 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 Crores
Lower Jhelum Hydel Project 105.00 377.95 145.89
Upper-Sindh Hydel Project-I 22.60 33.89 13.08
Upper-Sindh Hydel Project-II 105.00 291.83 112.65
Ganerbal 15.00 11.93 4.60
Karnah 2.00 1.59 0.62
Pahalgam 3.00 7.93 3.06
Sub-total (Jhelum basin) 252.60 725.1292 279.90
(33.22) (19.48) (19.48)
Gross total (State) 760.46 3721.8443 1436.63

32. Average annual value of different services by Jhelum (Rs. per
stakeholder)
Other services
Services Total
Fishing 1,02,216
Water Transport 1,07,280
Laundry Services 1,72,140
Sand Extraction 6,54,615
House Boat 8,49,976

33. Economic value of river Jhelum
Non Use value
Willingness to pay for ecosystem preservation
Parameters Mean
Average total expenditure per visit 119.25
Pre- restoration visitation rate per week 4.10
Post- restoration visitation rate per week 5.45
Willingness to pay for transparent water 930.53
Willingness to pay for beautified riverbanks 976.50
Willingness to pay for increased fish population 112.50
House price differential* (per 1000 sq. ft plot) 1171855
(Rs. Per person
*Hedonic price method

34. Determinants of willingness to pay (WTP)
Variable Coefficient S.E
Constant 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 -

35. Degrading Jhelum ecosystem
Public perception
Health of river Response Causes of
degradation
Response
Very poor 35.24 Residential/private 32.25
Poor 60.31 Commercial 8.58
Moderate Good 4.45 Climate change 18.65
Good 0 Institutional 38.47
Very 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

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

37. 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
completely submerged,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 crore
Livestock, Fisheries and Floriculture Rs 500 crore
Other Sectors Rs 40,500 crore
Total Loss: Rs 1 Trillion
Sector-wise Loss
Isn’t this loss
because we
ignored economic
value of the
ecosystem service
provided by
Jhelum?

38. 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
area
LOCATION ACTUAL NORMAL PERCENTAGE
ABOVE NORMAL
Anantnag 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 %

39. Thanks