Indian Journal of Environmental Sciences 19(1&2) 2015, pp. 5-10 Green Earth Foundation ECONOMIC VALUE ASSESSMENT OF BHINDAWAS WETLAND, ()

Sunil Kumar and Rajesh Dhankhar Department ofEnvironmental Sciences, Maharishi Dayanand University, -12400 1, Haryana *CorrespondingAuthor: Dr. Sunil Kumar, Department ofEnvironmental Sciences, M. D. University, Rohtak-12400 1, Haryana, India.

ABSTRACT Valuing the economic benefits ofwetlands can help to set priorities and allocate spending on conservation initiatives. The objective ofthe present study was to find out the value ofgoods and services provided by the Bhindawas wetland to the surrounding people. Bhindawas wetland spreads over in 1074 acres in Jhajjar district ofHaryana state. Arandom survey ofthe houses around the lake was carried out using a standard questionnaire format exclusively designed for this purpose with interviews and direct observa­ tion. Market price techniques were used to find out the economic valuation in which the prevailing prices for goods and services traded in domestic or international markets are used for quantifying wetland re­ sources. The total economic dependency value ofdirect benefits from Bhindawas wetland were calcu­ lated Rs. 24167/day.

INTRODUCTION and 28° 32' West. Mean minimum and maximum temperature are 7°C (January) and 40.5 °C (May & June), whereas mean Wetlands with a share of0.0001 % among the global water annual rainfall is 444mm in the study area. The wetland and sources include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas birds in it are the main attraction ofthe complex. More than are an important and vital component ofthe ecosystem 30,000 varieties ofmigratory birds belonging to over 250 (IUCN 1996). Awide variety ofwetlands exist across the species and resident birds visit the wetland throughout the continents because ofregional and local differences in year. Some of the migratory birds and resident birds: hydrology, vegetation, water chemistry, soils, topography, Whiskered Tern, Greater Flamingo, Graylag Goose, Comb climate and other factors. Duck, Mallard, Ruddy Shelduck, Great Cormorant, Eurasian Wetlands perform avariety offunctions (Groot 1992). First, Wigeon, Common Teal, Northern Pintail, Common Pochard, wetlands perform regulation functions -wetlands regulate Bar-headed Goose, White-throated Kingfisher, Gray ecological processes that contribute to ahealthy environment Francolin, Black Francolin, Spotted Owlet, Spot-billed e.g. recycling ofnutrients and human waste, watershed Duck, Greater Coucal, Little Grebe, Black-rumped protection and climate regulation. A second function of Flameback, Indian Roller, Common Hoopoe, Eurasian wetlands is called carrier function: wetlands provide space Collared Dove, Black Drongo, Plum-headed Parakeet, Rock for activities such as human settlement, cultivation, energy Pigeon, Laughing Dove, Jungle Babbler, Oriental Darter and production and habitat for animals. Third, wetlands perform Rose-ringed Parakeet. Their number decreases during the production functions. Wetlands provide resources for people summer and picks up during winter. The sanctuary spreads such as food, water, raw materials for building and clothing. over an area of1074 acres, which makes it considerably The last wetland function is information function in the sense larger. The peripheral embankment is man-made and basically that wetlands contribute to mental health by providing constructed to store the escaped water ofthe Jawaharlal scientific, aesthetic and spiritual information (Prasad et al. Nehru Canal through an escape channel at the time ofpower 2002, Palanisami et al. 2010, Pant and Verma 2010, failure in the Pump House made on the canal. Excess water Kathiresan and Thakur 2008). ofthe wetland is siphoned offin the drain No.8 through Bhindawas bird sanctuary is alow-lying area in district Jhajjar outlet channel. Drain No.8 extending the Nai Nallah drain (Haryana). It is located 15km away from Jhajjar district from Gohanato , discharging into the Nqjafgarh drainage headquarter and 80km from Delhi located at 76° 31' East system at the Bhindawas Lake. connects 6 Kumar and Dhankhar Bhindawas Lake and the River. Drain No.8 is a calculating economic value ofwetland resources. Total 140 recipient ofstorm water as well as sewage, because some questionnaires were filled by villagers ofseven villages (20 towns have a combined system ofdisposal for sewage and from each village located in the vicinity ofthe lake). 70 males storm water. and 70 females aged between 20 to 60 years and education th Wetlands also have socio-cultural value though it is still standard above 10 class were also randomly interviewed. relatively unexplored. Itis known thatwetlands have religious Market price techniques was used to find out the economic and historical values for many local communities (Schuyt and valuation in which the prevailing prices for goods and services Brander 2004). Aquatic life forms play an important role in traded in domestic or international markets were used for supplementing human diet and nutritional balance; besides, quantifYing wetland resources. they also support the livelihood and income ofaconsiderable Market price method section ofsociety living around them (Jain et al. 2011). Gross benefit = qx p The objective ofpresent study was to evaluate economic Where, q = quantity ofproducts, p = market prices dependency oflocal community on Bhindawas wetland. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION MATERIALSAND METHODS Valuing the economic benefits ofwetlands can help to set Seven villages selected for socio-economic studies around priorities and allocate spending on conservation initiatives. the wetland were Bhindawas, Sahajapur, Bilochpura, Valuation can also be used to consider the public'svalues of Chadwana, Raduwas, Kanwa and Kungiya. Questionnaire wetland systems and encourage public participation in certain was prepared containing demographic information such as initiatives (Table 1). Putting an economic value on the family history, domestic water usage, groundwater usage, ecological services ofa wetland is a difficult idea for most irrigation, other commercial uses, water uses for livestock, people. More commonly, the open market puts rupees values livestock fodder, aesthetic value and recreation, fishing and on society's goods and services. In the case ofwetlands, aquaculture, spiritual value and health effects etc. there is no direct market for services such as clean water, Questionnaire performas filled in by villager were used for Table 1. Classification oftotal economic value for wetlands Use ValuelBenefits Non-Use Value/Benefits Direct Use Benefits Indirect Use Option and Quasi­ Existence Benefits Benefits Option Benefits -recreation -nutrient retention -potential future -biodiversity - boating -flood control uses (as per direct - fauna (birds, etc.) -storm protection and indirect uses) -culture - wildlife -groundwater - vIewIng recharge -future value of -heritage - walking -external ecosystem information, e.g., - fishing support pharmaceuticals, -bequest commercial harvest -micro-climatic education - fish stabilisation - fuel wood -shoreline - transport stabilisation, etc - nuts -water filtration - berries -erosion control - grains - peat/energy forestry -Wildlife harvesting - agriculture Source: Barbier et al. 1997 ECONOMIC VALUEASSESSMENT OF WETLAND 7

Figure 1. Photographs ofBhindawas wetland (A) Animal grazing (B) Fodder collection by women (C) Fuel wood collection (D) Tube well for irrigation maintenance ofbiodiversity and flood control. There is, Rs. 493 and Rs. 2822 Iday, respectively. Even in the however, agrowing recognition that such natural benefits do surrounding fields, wetland increases the availability of have real economic value and that these values need to be moisture and nutrients by which crop farming area has included in decision-making processes. increased, considering the fact that wetlands have all year The results ofsocio-economic survey in 7villages have been round reliable moisture for crop growth. Successes in socio­ given in Table 2 while photograph ofBhindawas wetland in economic development to local communities from use of Figure 1. wetlands for crop farming have also been reported by Dixon Irrigation Water: Wetland water was not used directly for and Wood (2003) in Ethiopia. irrigation purpose by the surrounded villages, but indirectly Fuel wood: On the basis ofquestionnaires it was noted from the channel adjacent to wetland in which water come that about 75 individuals collect the 10 kg fuel wood per from the wetland and inlet water channel from JLN (Jawahar individual per day especially poor people ofthe surrounded Lal Nehru) canal to wetland used for the irrigation. Atotal of village. The market rate offuel wood was Rs 71 kg. So the 18 Tube wells were installed on the adjacent channel and total dependency value offuel wood was Rs. 5250/day. 103 Tube wells were installed on the inlet channel. The farmer Animal Fodder: Women ofthe surrounded villages also use water directly from these channels. On the basis ofsurvey harvested grasses from the wetland to feed their cattle. On it was also observed that market value ofirrigation ofone the basis ofsurvey, it was found that approx. 100 women, acre was Rs. 200 without fuel ofpump engine in surrounding on an average of15kg fodder was collected per women per area, one Tube well irrigated approximate 50 acre area in a day. The market value ofthe fodder is Rs. 31 Kg. Beside year. Total economic dependency for irrigated water from about 130animal grazed in the wetland area. The economic inlet and adjacent channels to the periphery was calculated dependency ofcommunities for animal fodder in Bhindawas 8 Kumar and Dhankhar wetland area was around Rs. 6450 /day. Kakuru et al. (2013) pastures at US$ 4.24 million, domestic water use at US$ 34 reported that wetlands were also valued for provision of million per year, and the gross annual value added by wetlands fodder, especially during the drought periods, when to milk production at US$ 1.22 million. Flood control was alternative pastures were not readily available. Pastures from valued at approximately US$ 1,702,934,880 per hectare wetlands not only provided fodder but also enhanced milk per year and water regulation and recharge at US$ 7,056,360 production, thus contributing to food security. However, most per hectare per year. While, socio-economic impacts of of the wetlands suffer from overgrazing. Overgrazing wetland cultivation in southwest Ethiopia was identified by disturbed shore and led soil compaction due to removal of Mulatu et al. (2015). They reported that greater number of vegetation (Janson and Robertson 2001). households (65.48%) interviewed were benefited from Fishing: Fishing is not allowed in the wetland though people wetlands cultivation. About 23.4% of them collected from Bilochpur do it illegally in night which is difficult to medicinal plants from wetland in their lifetime. 91.27% collect account and not included in this study. Drain No.8 receiving wetland grass for thatching, 69.84% ofthem used domestic water from the wetland outlet was rich in fish and the annual water from wetlands springs near wetlands, 91.67% ofthem contract offisheries ofdrain No.8 near the outlet was Rs. 5 used water from wetlands for livestock, while 100% ofthem lacks. Ponds receiving water from the wetland are used for used grasses from wetlands for plastering wall and for fodder. fisheries and annual contract ofthese ponds were Rs. 3lakh Similar studies on socio-economic benefits ofwetlands from 20 thousands. Total value offishing from drain No.8 and different parts ofworld were reported by Mark Drew et al. ponds were Rs. 2247/day. Gupta and Kaushik (2012) (2005), Setlhogile et al. (2011) and Jogo and Hassan (2010). mentioned there are in all8065ponds in Haryana out ofwhich However limited research has been made on socio-economic 90% are fish ponds producing 1,00,000 MT offish worth aspect oflakes and wetlands in India. Ramachandra et al. crores ofrupees. Anet profit ofRs. 61000 per hectare per (2005) discussed valuation ofecosystem considering the year is obtained. direct, indirect and existence benefits. They conducted Labour under various Govt. schemes. People from economic valuation ofAmruthalli and Rachenahalli lakes surrounding villages are also employed for labour work in situated in Bangalore. Higher benefits were obtained from the wetland under various Govt. schemes like Mahatma Rachenahalli lake (Rs. 10435/ha/day) but it was aboutRs. Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and 20/ha/day for Amruthelli lake. Similarly Ramachandra et al. Weed Cleaning Scheme from the forest department Haryana. (2011) evaluated the socio-economic benefits ofVarthur Total value oflabour work was Rs. 6905 per day. wetland in India. They observed that Varthur, a sewage fed wetland has avalue ofRs. 118.9/ha/day. The direct benefits Many research studies indicated that wetlands support from wetland in the present study were Rs. 24167/day (Rs. millions ofpeople and provide goods and services both 56/ha/day). The economic dependency ofpeople living directly and indirectly. The direct benefits ofwetlands are in around Bhindawas wetland was therefore less than those the form offish, agriculture, fuel wood, recreation and water living around Rachenahalli and Varthur lakes. supply etc. and their indirect benefits arise from functions occurring within the ecosystem such as flood control, ground It is concluded that Bhindawas wetland play important water recharge and storm protection. Kakuru et al. (2013) contribution to the livelihoods ofthe surrounding community reported that wetlands provide food and non-food products in terms ofsocio-economic benefits. Such contribution not that contribute to income and food security in Uganda. They only involve animal fodder and fuel wood, but also some determined the economic value ofwetland resources and specific goods and services such as increase in crop their contribution to food security in the three agro-ecological production through irrigation. The dependence ofthe poor zones of Uganda. The per capita value of fish was community especially for fuel wood was higher. The economic approximately US$ 0.49 person per person. Fish spawning dependency oflocal community on Bhindawas was Rs. was valued at approximately US$ 363,815 per year, livestock 24167/day. ECONOMIC VALUE ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND 9

Table 2. Economic valuation ofBhindawas wetland Wetland Direct use Indirect value Existence value

Use Value in Rupees/day Bhindawas 1.Irrigation Water • Ground water • Birds and table varies from migratOlY birds .From the wetland Nil 10 (vicinity oflake) • Culture and From Channel - 80ft (at 2-3 km heritage value. adjacent to wetland 493 away from 1ake).

Inlet Channel from Ground water JLN canal to 2822 quality improved wetland near wetland

Wetland received 2. Fuel wood 5250 flooded water from 3. Animal Fodder surround area and store the excess water ofdrain no. Grasses hmvested 4500 8 in rainy season by women and reduce the load on drain and 1950 Animal Grazing protect the drain from damage. 4. Fishing Aprox. 2000 tourist From the wetland Nil and 1000 student were vi sit for Drain no.8 near recreational and the lake outlet 1370 education purpose III a year. Chadwana village Pond adjacent 877 to wetland

5. Labour under 6905 various Govt. scheme Result Total value is Rs. 24l67/day Ground water Functional aspects, recharge and flood biodiversity, cultural and protection mainly recreational aspects received water from indicate importance of drainno.8 wetland eco system. Kumar and Dhankhar 10

REFERENCES Uganda. The Scientific World JournalArtic1e ID 192656, Barbier, E.B., N. Acreman and D. Knowler. 1997. 13 pages. http://dx.doi.orgjl0.1155/2013/192656 Economic Valuation ofWetlands: A Guide for Policy Mark Drew, W., C. Katherine, Ewel, L. Rosamond, Naylor Makers and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, andAsher Sigrah. 2005. Atropical freshwater wetland: Gland, Switzerland. III. Direct use values and other goods and services. Dixon,A.B. andA. PWood. 2003. Wetland cultivation and Wetlands Ecology and Management 13 :685-693. hydrological management in easternMrica: matching Mulatu, K., D Hunde andE. Kissi. 2015. Socio-economic community and hydrological needs through sustainable impacts ofwetland cultivation in South-Bench, Southwest wetland use. Natural Resources Forum 27(2): 117-129. Ethiopia. African Journal ofAgricultural Research 10(8): Groot, R. S. de. 1992. Functions ofNature: Evaluation of 840-848. Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Palanisami, K., R. Meinzen-Dick and M. Giordano. 2010. Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, The Climate change andwater supplies: options for sustaining Netherlands. tank irrigation potential in India. Economic and Political Gupta, R.C. and T K. Kaushik. 2012. Traditional rural Weekly 45 (26-27): 183-190. wetlands in Haryana state of India are currently Pant, N. and R.K. Verma. 2010. Tanks in Eastern India: A confronting multi cornered threats leading to extinction Study in Exploration. International Water Management soonerthan later. The Journal ofTropical Life Sciences Institute-TATA Water Policy Research Program and 2(2): 32-36. Centre for Development Studies, Hyderabad and IUCN. 1996. The 1996 IUCN Red list for threatened Lucknow, India. Animals. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Prasad, S.N., TV. Ramachandra, N. Ahalya, T, A. Jain, A., M. Sundriyal, S. Roshnibala, R. Kotoky, P B. Sengupta,A. Kumar,A.K. Tiwari, VS.VijayanandL. Kanjilal, H.B. Singh and R.C. Sundriyal. 2011. Dietary Vijayan. 2002. Conservation ofwetlands ofIndia- a use and conservation concern ofedible wetland plants review. Tropical Ecology 43 (1): 173-186. at Indo-Burma hotspot: a case study from northeast Ramachandra, T.V, B. Alakananda,A. Rani andM.A. Khan. India. Journal ofEthnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7 : 2011. Ecological and socio-economic assessment of 29. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-7-29. Varthur wetland, Bengaluru (India). Journal of Jansen,A. andA. I. Robertson. 2001. Relationship between Environmental Science andEngineering 53(1): 101-108. livestock management and the ecological condition of Ramachandra, TV, R. Rajinikanth and VG Ranjini. 2005. riparian habitats along anAustralian floodplain river. Economicvaluation ofwetlands. Journal ofEnvironmental Journal ofApplied Ecology 38(1): 63-75. Biology 26(2) 439-447. Jogo, W. andR. Hassan. 2010. Balancingthe use ofwetlands Schuyt, K. and L. Brander. 2004. The Economic values of for economic well-being and ecological security: The case the world's wetlands. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). ofthe Limpopo wetland in southernMrica. Ecological Switzerland. Economics 69: 1569-1579. Setlhogile, T, J. Arntzen, C. Mabiza and R. Mano. 2011. Kathiresan, K. and S. Thakur. 2008. Mangroves for the Economic valuation ofselected direct and indirect use Future: National Strategy andAction Plan, India. Ministry values ofthe Makgadikgadi wetland system, Botswana. ofEnvironment and Forests, NewDelhi [Revised Draft]. Physics and Chemistryofthe Earth 36: 1071-1077. Kakuru, W., N. Turyahabwe andJ. Mugisha. 2013. Total Economic Value ofWetlands Products and Services in