Assessing Payment for Ecosystem Services in Resunga Forest Hill, Gulmi Nepal Volume 4 - Issue 3

Indra Bahadur Prachhain¹, Bimala Khanal² and Ram Asheshwar Mandal³*

• ¹Department of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal
• ¹²Kathmandu Forestry College, Nepal
• ³School of Environment Science and Management, Nepal

Received: November 22, 2019;   Published: December 16, 2019

Corresponding author: Ram Asheshwar Mandal, School of Environment Science and Management, Nepal

DOI: 10.32474/OAJESS.2019.04.000186

Abstract PDF

Abstract

Payment for Ecosystem Services is always appreciated because of its offer for services receiving from ecosystem. Thus, this research was objectively carried out list of ecosystem services offered by Resunga forest hill and to show their economic analysis. Two Focus group discussion was carried out with the involvement of local people, social worker, and community schoolteacher and from related stakeholder. One focus group discussion with 10 numbers of participants was carried out at Resunga municipality. Total 15 key interviews were conducted to collect the information regarding ecosystem services using structured and semi structured questionnaire, through either formally or informally interview. Field visit was done at morning to ecosystem system services exist in the forests. Secondary data were mainly collected from published and unpublished relevant documents. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive and economic analysis. The list of ecosystem services are water, fodder, forage, pebbles/ boulders, timber and fuel wood. These services were categorized into four main categories into regular, provisional, cultural and supportive. The water was considered as the most significant services in the study area. It was found that total benefit of US$18332.54 and total cost was around US$11132.425. So, the mean benefit and cost is US$3666.508 and US$2226.48 respectively. The benefit cost (B/C) ratio was found to be 1.66 which shows that there is high potentiality of PES schemes in Resunga furthermore NPV value seems to be 1.33 which means PES schemes will have high sustainability in Next five year in Resunga forest.

Keywords: Payment for ecosystem services, Resunga Forest Area, Livelihood, Fund mobilization

Introduction

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is a mechanism to improve the provision for indirect Ecosystem services in which ecosystem services providers receive direct payments from the users of the services. The basic principles of this PES are beneficiaries of Ecosystem services pay for their provision and providers of Ecosystem services get paid to provide them [1-6]. This PES scheme includes five basic components of: well-defined Ecosystem services, at least one buyer, at least one Ecosystem service in the transaction, at least one service provider, and conditionality [7]. The term ‘ecosystem services’ came into widespread use in the ensuing dialogue and, formalizing the term in a 1997 publication, the Ecological Society of America explained that the term ecosystem services “refers to a wide range of conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, help sustain and fulfill human life [8,9]. People, companies, and societies rely on these services for raw material inputs, production processes, and climate stability [8].
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 categorized the overall ecosystem into four broad categories in which provisioning, regulating, cultural and supportive services fall under. Provisioning services includes: Wood, fuel wood, fodder, food, fiber, genetic resources etc. whereas regulating services includes: Climate regulation, Disease regulation, Water regulation, Water purification etc. similarly Supportive services includes on Soil formation, Nutrient cycling, Hydrological cycling, Primary production etc. finally cultural services includes: Aesthetic, Spiritual and Religious, Recreational services (WRI 2009) [10,11] .Resource management practices in upstream areas can have both beneficial and adverse effects on downstream communities Smith & Katoomba et al. [12,13], Summarize that between 1999 and 2001, participating farmers converted nearly 1.2 million hectares of cropland into forest and pasture and afforested nearly 1 million hectares of land. In one of the few examples of a single-country driven PES for global public goods, Mexico in 2004 designed the Payments for Carbon, Biodiversity and Agro-forestry (PSA-CABSA) program. The program was later combined with the much larger Payments for Hydrological Services program, whose funding is predicated on providing public goods whose main beneficiaries are within the territorial boundaries of Mexico.
Nepal is trying to implement schemes on payment for ecosystem services. About a dozen of PES schemes have been successfully implemented in Shivapuri, Kulekhani, Rupa lake, Dhulikhel, Dolakha and Kanchanpur in Nepal [8,14]. To overcome challenges and for smooth implementation, recently Government of Nepal has identified and legalized ecosystem services from amendment of Forest Act 1993. Similarly, through Forest Policy 2015, GoN has emphasizes on the strengthening the PES to leverage funds as a potential viable approach for Nepal [14]. The ecosystem services and income generated from Resunga Community Forest is unknown, thus this study was objectively carried out to list out the ecosystem services and estimate the income generated.

Materials and Methodology

Administratively district Gulmi is one of the sixth district of Lumbini Zone, which is situated in Western Development Region and one part of the province no. 5 of Nepal. It is one of the hilly districts and covers a total area of about 1149 km2 (107918.2 ha) and had a population with 280,160 which is 1.2 percent of country’s total [15,16]. The average population density is found to be 243/ km2 and population increase rate with -0.4 percent. According Nepal human development report 2014 this district is ranked with the value 0.464. Location of Downstream users is shown in Figure 1.

Sampling Design and Sample Intensity

For the data collection from the study site, simple random sampling design was chosen to carry out field survey. Out of 1202 household are belonging from four community forests (i.e. Bhalupatal CFUG, Sivasakti CFUG, Resunga CFUG, Nawajiwan CFUG), all total 758 Households are selected for primary data collection on household survey, with the sample intensity of 12% (>10%).

Focus Group Discussion

Two Focus group discussion was carried out with the involvement of local people, social worker, and community schoolteacher and from related stakeholder. One Focus group Discussion with 10 numbers of participants was carried out at Resunga municipality.

Key Informant Interview

Total 15 key interview was conducted to collect the information regarding ecosystem services. Here by some structured and semi structured questionnaire, either formally or informally interviewed to relevant topics expertise. This sort of interview was done to analyse qualitative data analysis with current and ex DFOs, freelancer, working organisational persons and senior researcher.

Field observation

To verify the information obtained from social survey and quantify ecosystem services provided by the Resunga forest hill and to manipulate Upstream and Downstream level beneficiaries. Floral (including Timber and Non timber) and faunal assessment were observed during field visit. This visit was conducted at morning by using appropriate security. A co-helper, who can explain about the situation analysis of forest biodiversity, an observation was carried out.

Secondary data

Secondary data were mainly collected from published and unpublished journal articles, relevant CFs operational plan, District Forest Office-Gulmi, Bird Conservation Nepal, Ruru-Resunga Office, Office of Drinking water and Sanitation Gulmi, DDC Gulmi, KAFCOL Library, related INGOs and NGOs website etc.

Data analysis

Descriptive analysis was done to analyze the collected data regarding ecosystem services. At the same time, benefit or loss, Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit cost ratio was calculated using following formulae given below:

B/C = Benefit/Total management cost
Benefit = Total returns – Total management cost;
Loss = Total management cost – Total returns.
Spatial data were analyzed and outputted by using software Arc GIS 10 was used to prepare map of study area.

Results and Discussion

Potential Ecosystem Services Offered by Resunga Forest Hill

Diversified forest product and services with all types of ecosystem services are classified according to MEA, 2005 [17]. These categorized ecosystem services are presented into following (Table 1). These are: Timber, fuel wood and are the provision services.

Ranking of Ecosystem Services: During my study in Resunga forest hill it was found that there are many ecosystem services. Of which water has got high priority among all ecosystem services. Water has got six votes, firewood has got four vote, tourism has got three vote, timber has got two vote, grasses has got three vote, leaf litter has got one vote and religious importance has got single vote from the respondents during household survey. Resunga is a place which has provide many services and has potential for ecosystem service of which people living around Resunga are being benefitted by services (Table 2).

Potentiality of Payment for Ecosystem in Resunga Forest Hill: From the study it is found that total benefit of Five-year trend incomes seems to be US$ 18332.5 and total cost US$ 11132.425. The mean benefit and cost were US$ 3666.508 and US$ 2226.48. The amount of water used by users of four CFs is; 276800 litre daily and 8304000 Litre monthly and the amount is US$ 174894.69 monthly (1000 litre =US$25.27).The income is exceeding over the expenditure so PES schemes seems to be sustainable in Resunga with high potentiality (Table 3).In same way B/C ratio due to benefit and cost was found to be 1.66 which shows that there is high potentiality of PES schemes in Resunga furthermore NPV value seems to be 1.33 which means PES schemes will have high sustainability in Next five year in Resunga forest.

Discussion

Resuga Forest Hill can be considered as a full package with the verity of ecosystem services. Growing human population and changing life standard has created more threats on the natural existence of environmental services. Similarly, a crude ecosystem services and goods are transformed and counted into monetary transaction. A monetary transaction of ecosystem services will only possible if there is a proper accounting the volume of ecosystem services. This research concludes the data base of such ecosystem into major groups of Provisioning services with Timber from broadleaved and coniferous woody species, Resin from major Pinus species, firewood from cultural operation at forest areas consists of twinges and branches, and grasses like surface grasses and fodder grass. Similarly, regulating services like water demand will be cured by Water purification by different water sources (mul) such as Bhagerikhola, Oknexera, Seti, Maghim, Charikhola, Toonikhola are the main watershed which connect upstream and downstream dwellers for living and non-living beings’ natural existence. Additionally, air purification and carbon sequestration will ensure for biodiversity conservation and healthy ecosystem. Cultural services include with religious importance temple with famous Resunga temple and nearby holy ponds, different god and goddness statue, Tourism and recreation services for youth and traveler. Again, Supportive services such as soil carbon sequestration, Soil formation, nutrient cycling water purification hill enhance living existence at natural environmental services.
Main pair wise ranking on ecosystem services shows that the high dependency on water services, followed by, firewood, tourism respectively. This shows that main substance includes pure water for living beings at urban areas. Again, a research by Rai et al. [18]., shows that Sundarkhola sub watershed is similarly important for a water providence services to Dharan Municipality of eastern Nepal. The further importance service of Resunga hills on firewood implies that there is still importance and use of firewood as a major fuel wood. A fuel wood occupies more than 70 percentage of cooking fuel towards Nepalese household. Similarly, a pair wise ranking on tourism shows that its importance towards recreational purposes. Tourism is considered as one of major sector of contributing on National GDP. Almost Government of Nepal is collecting a 5 percentage of GDP contribution from forest areas of Nepal.
Finance is one of the key pillars of sustainability. It includes income, expenditure and monitory saving, which are also the market mobilizing parts of money. Similarly, income and expenditure trend of 4 CFs support in average shows that it has a 360 US$ of saving annually by per CF. The highest most income was obtained by Resunga Community Forest whose Profit index; Benefit Cost Ratio was 0.43 and 2.04 respectively. BCR =1.66, NPV=1.33 was obtained from Resunga, Nawajiwan, Shivashakti and Bhalupatal CF. The potentiality of payment of water utilized from Resunga was found to be 174894.69 US $. This estimation was according to use of water by respondents and amount was calculated by considering tanker costs (1200l= US$ 25.27). The similar research by Rai et al. [18] shows that there will 118,000 US $ of flow of financial water contribution of Sardukhola watershed of Dharan Municipality of eastern Nepal [19-24]. Again, PES scheme conducted at Shivapuri Nagarjun site enhance the possible PES institutional setup for the Sundarijal catchment area [25-29]. Environmental benefits are also needed toe identified and valued properly to convince the decision makers about importance of managing upper catchments as a part of water supply infrastructure [30-35]. The successful implementation of PES largely relies on the participation of state and/or community [36,37].

Conclusion and Recommendation

A package of ecosystem services such as provisioning services by providing Timber, Resin, firewood, grasses etc., regulating services by offering Water purification, carbon sequestration and air purification for ecological balance, Cultural services by Religious importance, Tourism and Recreation facility, Supportive services by Soil formation etc. These package services show towards beneficial on downstream people main preferred service was water, firewood, grasses by these people. The financial analysis of different CFs shows the value of B/C, NPV and PI has highest from Resunga CF with 2.04, 0.59 and 0.43 respectively. Again, a trend of income and expenditure of Resunga CF was found to be highest. Ecosystem potentiality is also needed to be identified and valued properly to attract the both conservator who receive the payments for conservation and polluters who pay for the utilization of ecosystem services.

References

1. PantML, Lekhikoinen A, Uusitalo L,Venesjarvi R (2015) How to value biodiversity in environmental management? Ecological Indicators 55: 1-11.
2. Kremen C (2005)Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know abouttheir ecology? EcolLett 8(5): 468-479.
3. Worm B,BarbierEB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE,FolkeC,et al.(2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314(5800): 787-790.
4. Duffy JE, Cardinale BJ, FranceKE, McIntyrePB, Thébault E, et al.(2007)The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: incorporating trophic com-plexity. EcolLett 10 (6): 522-538.
5. Hector A, Bagchi R (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature448(7150): 188-190.
6. Pinto R, de Jonge VN, Marques JC (2014) Linking biodiversity indicators, ecosys-tem functioning, provision of services and human well-being in estuarinesystems: application of a conceptual framework Ecol Indic 36: 644-655.
7. Wunder S (2005) Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper no 42.
8. BhattaLD, Pandit Anju(2015) Payment for Ecosystem Services: Possible Policy Instrument for Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Nepal. A Proceeding for Ecosystem Services: Opportunities and Challenges in Nepal, International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, India, p.11-13.
9. GEF (2009) Assessing Innovative Financing Mechanisms in the Land Degradation Portfolio of the GEF during the 4^th Report prepared by ReedE, supervised by A. Kutterp .56.
10. Shrestha HL, DhitalKR, Bajracharya RM, Sitaula BK (2016) Mapping Carbon Benefits and Richness in Community Forestry in Nepal. A proceedings of a national workshop Mainstreaming Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services into Community Forestry in Nepal, Bird Conservation Nepal(BCN), Kathmandu Nepal, India, pp. 105-116.
11. FAO (2007) The Global Environment Facility and Payment for Ecosystem Services. A review of current initiatives and recommendation for future PES support by GEF and FAO programs.
12. Smith S, Rowcroft P, Everard M, Couldrick L, Reed M, et al. (2013) Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide. Defra, London, UK.
13. Katoomba (2008) Payments for ecosystem services: getting started: a primer. The Katoomba Group, UNEP and Forest Trends, Nairobi, Kenya.
14. Rai MR (2016)Local level implementing Mechanism of Payment for Watershed Services: A case of Arunkhola watershed of Dhading district, Nepal. A proceedings of a national workshop Mainstreaming Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services into Community Forestry in Nepal, Bird Conservation Nepal(BCN), Kathmandu Nepal, India, pp. 95-103.
15. DDC (2014) District Climate and Energy Plan (DCEP) Gulmi District, India, pp. 103.
16. CBS (2011) National Population and Housing Census. Government of Nepal, Natioanl Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics.
17. MEA (2005) Ecosystem and Human Wellbeing: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resource Institute, WashingtonDC, USA
18. RaiRK, ShyamsundarP, Bhatta LD, Nepal M (2016) Designing a Payment for ecosystem services for the Sardhukhola Watershed in Nepal. South Asian Network for Development and Enviromental Economics (SANDEE), Working paper no, Kathmandu, Nepal, India,pp. 108-116.
19. AcharyaR (2012) Ethnobotanical study of Medicinal plnats of Resunga hill uned by magar community of badagaun V.D.C, Gulmi District, Nepal, India, Scientific world10(10): 54-65.
20. Angelsen A. Con Brockhaus M, KanninenM, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, et al.(2010) La implementación de REDD+: estrategianacional y opciones de polí CIFOR Bogor Indonesia.
21. CIFOR (2002) Making Forest Carbon Markets Work for Low-income Producers, CIFOR Info-brief Oct. 2002, No. 2. Indonesia.
22. District Profile (2007) District Profile of GulmiDistrrictNepal.India.
23. Farley J, Costanja R (2010) Payment for ecosystem service: from local to global. Ecological economics 69(2010):2060-2068.
24. GoN (2008)Samudayik Bann upobhoktasamuharukoaanugamantathaniricehhanprativedan. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Department of Forestry, District Forest Office Gulmi, India, p. 87.
25. GoN(2014) Nepal Human Development Report 2014.
26. GoN/MoFSC(2014) A biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014-2020. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal, India.
27. Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: Mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecological Indicators 21:39-53.
28. Karna(2008)TheInitation, 2008, SUFFREC, Kathmandu, Nepal, India.
29. Khatri DB,Karki R, Pant KP, JoshiL,Paudel NS (2011) Scoping of Payment for Ecosystem Services in Sundarijal Watershed (unpublished). ForestAction Nepal and International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
30. Kochhar, Rakesh (2008) Latin labor report 2008: construction reverses job loss forLatinos. Pew Hispanic Center,Washington, DC, USA.
31. Maharjan, Maksha R (2004) Payment for Environmental Services in Community Forestry. In 25 years of community forestry: Contributing to Millennium Development Goals, proceedings of the fourth National workshop on community forestry,Kanel K(Eds.), India.
32. MoFSC(2015)Forest Policy, Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal, India.
33. Ning Wu,Rawat GS, Joshi S, Ismail M, Sharma E (2013) High-altitude rangelands and their interfaces in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. ICIMOD, Kathmandu, India.
34. P (1984)Resungasambandhichinari. District Forest Office Gulmip .95 (Text Nepali).
35. Pirard, R, BilleR,Sembres T(2010) Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) - Responding to challenges of large-scale implementation, IDDRI Paris.
36. Wunder S( 2007) The efficiency of payment for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21(1): 48-58.
37. Rai RK, Nepal M, Shyamsundar P, Bhatta LD (2015) Linking Upstream and Downstream Households through payment for ecosystem services: a choice experiment study in Sardukhola Sub Watershed in Nepal. A Proceeding for Ecosystem Services: Opportunities and Challenges in Nepal, International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal, India, p. 17-20.