Making ecosystem services approach operational: Experiences from Dhauladhar Range, Western Himalaya
- PDF / 2,161,976 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 89 Downloads / 157 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Making ecosystem services approach operational: Experiences from Dhauladhar Range, Western Himalaya Anjali Uniyal, Sanjay Kr. Uniyal, Gopal S. Rawat
Received: 12 February 2019 / Revised: 3 March 2020 / Accepted: 20 March 2020
Abstract Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has emerged as a promising tool to participatory natural resource management and sharing of benefits among the stakeholders. However, very few successful models of PES are available for replication. This study deals with an analysis of a PES model currently operational in the Dhauladhar Range, Western Himalaya, where upstream villagers are paid for maintaining the spring-shed that supplies drinking water to the downstream township. To understand the flow of various ecosystem services (ES), institutional mechanism, and governance, we conducted an in-depth analysis of this project. The study identified lack of monitoring and weak governance as factors affecting smooth operation of PES. To revamp the PES model more effectively at the present and new sites in future stakeholder integration, valuation of ES and inputs in terms of capacity building of primary and secondary stakeholders would be critical. Keywords Governance Himalaya Management Participatory approaches PES Water
INTRODUCTION Natural resource management (NRM) has seen a paradigm shift in the recent decades with ecosystem services (ES) taking the center stage in integrated development planning (Moore et al. 2017). The ES came into limelight after their values were estimated in economic terms (De Groot 1992; Costanza et al. 1997). Globally, efforts are underway to Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01332-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
develop efficient frameworks for identification, mapping, and valuation of ES (MEA 2005; Fisher and Turner 2008; TEEB 2008; Dı´az et al. 2015; Potschin and Haines-Young 2016a, b). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) was the first major effort that emphasized relationship between ES and human well-being. Lack of economic perspective on biodiversity and ecosystem degradation in MA framework led to upcoming of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). TEEB highlights ecological and economic linkages of ES (TEEB 2008). However, its integration into policy-making has been slow because of scarcity of local data. To ensure sustainable use of biodiversity for humanity, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was formed (Dı´az et al. 2015). However, IPBES lacks inclusion of non-living components and valuation of ES at local scale. Therefore, recent focus is on developing site-specific frameworks (Rasul et al. 2011; Damastuti and De Groot 2019). In brief, the concept of ES is based on the premise that (i) reduction in the flow of ES negatively affects peoples’ livelihoods and sustainable development; (ii) ecological processes and functions give rise to ES i
Data Loading...
