Type: Reflective Essays
Sample donated: Debbie Bishop
Last updated: July 11, 2019
Although,Himalayan communities are the strength of this entity, vibrant culture,traditional knowledge and practices, unanswered beliefs and myth are the assetsof the Himalaya but then again human species, are pushing the earth’s systemand biosphere beyond several planetary boundaries, undermining the long termconditions 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.
Howeversocio-economic background of the Himalaya can influence through climate changeand number of aspects will be responsible either it may be economy (e.g.,agriculture, livestock, forestry, tourism, fishery, etc.) or human health (Negiet al., 2012). Detailed information/data on human wellbeing in the Himalaya is partial, but it is clear that theeffects 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 trademarkof hills and mountainous landscapes furthermore for their inhabitants, predominantlyin the Hindu Kush Himalaya since long past the mountainous ecosystem’sexistence and diversity of biological resources are vulnerable by variousfactors of change and anthropogenic pressure is the responsible cause for that(Sharma et al.
, 2008). Kailash Sacred landscape (KSL) isone of the sufferer as the region and it’s people are highly vulnerable toclimate change and environmental degradation, as well as threats associatedwith ongoing globalization processes and accelerating development (Zomer et al., 2011). Thus,scientific world, governments, andInternational organization, etc. have recognized that, Himalaya isextremely 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 decreasinginterest 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). KSLhas been identified as a high priority ‘trans-boundary landscape’ area bycollaboration between partner institutions of three countries viz. China, India, and Nepal withfacilitation and support from the International Centre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (ICIMOD),Nepal, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and DeutscheGesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) to promote the trans-boundary biodiversityand cultural conservation, ecosystem management, sustainable development, andclimate change adaptation in this biologically and culturally rich, unique, andextremely vulnerable region with ecosystem management approach (Zomer et al.
, 2011) . Therefore,International organizations, government bodies and NGOs are playing importantrole to quantifying the approximately cost of natural resources forbroadcasting the significance of these assets for day to day life and futuregeneration too. Human welfare depend on managedecosystem, which are particular to a given humanrequirement or activity (Banzhaf and Boyd,2005 ; Haines-Young andPotschin (2010),since its valuable services are essential for life, apparently look intangiblebut these are real benefits. Promising attempts for defining and categorizingecosystem services have been undertaken for example by TEEB (2010), MA (2005)or CICES6 also delineated ecosystem services into four broad categories: Provisioning,Regulating, Supportingand Cultural. Itis often suggested that as long as ecosystem is vigorous, our existence on thisearth is resilient, so valuation and documentationof the ecosystem services indicate their conveying importance, which can be indifferent aspects like ecological, cultural, economic and self-interest fordiverse stakeholders too. A perception related to valuationalso measures efficacy of various ecosystem situation, which directlyaffect the lifethathas gained assurance around the world, it’s aims to provide a summary of key interactions between nature andhumans also, thereby simplifying the issues by focusing on those interactionsmost important (Ash et al.
, 2010). 1.2Valuation of Ecosystem servicesValuationof ‘Ecosystem services’ although has been a debate issue for ecologists,conservationist and economist also from few decadessuch as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA,2005) in the early 2000s was a popularized concept. Valuation ofecosystem services (both quantitative and qualitative) and their integrationinto policy and decision making practices has been a matter of debate eversince 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 ofthe nature cannot be expressed readily through monetary valuation techniques(Farber et al., 2002) thenqualitative assessment may be required to expose the importance of thesebenefits and to understand the values of biodiversity, landscape beauty,cultural heritages and regulatory services of water and air, we need a robust non-monetaryvaluation method which can address exact situations at local level. Qualitative valuation evaluate the changes in resource’s potentialinduced within socio-ecological systems through change of specific drivers forexamples are i.
e. the SwedishEnvironmental Protection Agency (2008) in the Baltic Sea, and several otherresearch projects (e.g. Vihervaara etal., 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 effectestimation 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 Assessmentand Scoping Report”, which comprising the outcomes of scoping studiescommissioned under the initiative (Parikh etal., 2012). Later on the Ministry of Environment, Forests and ClimateChange (MoEF), India and GIZ (2014) has launched “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity– India Initiative (TII)” with the aim of highlighting the economicconsequences of loss of the biodiversity and associated deterioration inecosystem services.
So far in Uttarakhand few initial studies has been done bySingh et. al. (1992); Singh, (2002);Singh et al., (2003); and Negi (2006). Although, Chipkomovement was associated with forest (Tree) conservation in Uttarakhand and ithelped as a catalyst to change the national and international opinion on the roleof forests in sustainable development and hence developing conservationpolicies (Shiva and Bandyopadhyay, 1986; Guha 1989), thus environment relatededucation, skill, awareness, laws and policies and skill can be used as a toolfor ecosystems services’ valuation to foster good environmental governance.