Indian Journal of Environmental Sciences 19(1&2) 2015, pp. 5-10Green Earth Foundation

ECONOMIC VALUE ASSESSMENT OF BHINDAWAS WETLAND, JHAJJARHARYANA (INDIA)

Sunil Kumar and Rajesh DhankharDepartment ofEnvironmental Sciences, Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak-124001, Haryana*CorrespondingAuthor: Dr. Sunil Kumar, Department ofEnvironmental Sciences, M. D. University, Rohtak-12400 1,Haryana, India.

ABSTRACTValuing the economic benefits ofwetlands can help to setpriorities and allocate spending on conservationinitiatives. The objective ofthe present studywas to find out the value ofgoods and services provided bythe Bhindawas wetland to the surrounding people. Bhindawas wetland spreads over in 1074 acres inJhajjar district ofHaryana state. Arandom survey ofthe houses around the lake was carried out using astandard questionnaire format exclusively designed for this purpose with interviews and direct observa­tion. Market price techniques were used to find out the economic valuation in which the prevailing pricesfor goods and services traded in domestic or international markets are used for quantifying wetland re­sources. The total economic dependency value ofdirect benefits from Bhindawas wetland were calcu­lated Rs. 24167/day.

INTRODUCTION

Wetlands with a share of0.0001% among the global watersources include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areasare an important and vital component of the ecosystem(IUCN 1996). Awide variety ofwetlands exist across thecontinents because of regional and local differences inhydrology, vegetation, water chemistry, soils, topography,climate and other factors.

Wetlands perform avariety offunctions (Groot 1992). First,wetlands perform regulation functions - wetlands regulateecological processes that contribute to ahealthy environmente.g. recycling of nutrients and human waste, watershedprotection and climate regulation. A second function ofwetlands is called carrier function: wetlands provide spacefor activities such as human settlement, cultivation, energyproduction and habitat for animals. Third, wetlands performproduction functions. Wetlands provide resources for peoplesuch as food, water, raw materials for building and clothing.The lastwetland function is information function in the sensethat wetlands contribute to mental health by providingscientific, aesthetic and spiritual information (Prasad et al.2002, Palanisami et al. 2010, Pant and Verma 2010,Kathiresan and Thakur 2008).

Bhindawas bird sanctuary is alow-lying area in district Jhajjar(Haryana). It is located 15km away from Jhajjar districtheadquarter and 80km from Delhi located at 76° 31' East

and 28° 32'West. Mean minimum and maximumtemperatureare 7°C (January) and 40.5 °C (May & June), whereas meanannual rainfall is 444mm in the study area. The wetland andbirds in it are the main attraction ofthe complex. More than30,000 varieties ofmigratory birds belonging to over 250species and resident birds visit the wetland throughout theyear. Some of the migratory birds and resident birds:Whiskered Tern, Greater Flamingo, Graylag Goose, CombDuck, Mallard, Ruddy Shelduck, Great Cormorant, EurasianWigeon, Common Teal, Northern Pintail, Common Pochard,Bar-headed Goose, White-throated Kingfisher, GrayFrancolin, Black Francolin, Spotted Owlet, Spot-billedDuck, Greater Coucal, Little Grebe, Black-rumpedFlameback, Indian Roller, Common Hoopoe, EurasianCollared Dove, BlackDrongo, Plum-headed Parakeet, RockPigeon, Laughing Dove, Jungle Babbler, Oriental Darter andRose-ringed Parakeet. Their number decreases during thesummer and picks up during winter. The sanctuary spreadsover an area of 1074 acres, which makes it considerablylarger. The peripheral embankment is man-made and basicallyconstructed to store the escaped water of the JawaharlalNehru Canal through an escape channel at the time ofpowerfailure in the Pump House made on the canal. Excess waterofthe wetland is siphoned off in the drain No.8 throughoutlet channel. Drain No.8 extending the Nai Nallah drainfrom Gohanato Delhi, discharging into theNqjafgarh drainagesystem at the Bhindawas Lake. Najafgarh drain connects

6 Kumar and Dhankhar

Valuing the economic benefits ofwetlands can help to setpriorities and allocate spending on conservation initiatives.Valuation can also be used to consider the public'svalues ofwetland systems and encourage public participation in certaininitiatives (Table 1). Putting an economic value on theecological services ofa wetland is a difficult idea for mostpeople. More commonly, the open market puts rupees valueson society's goods and services. In the case ofwetlands,there is no direct market for services such as clean water,

calculating economic value ofwetland resources. Total 140questionnaires were filled by villagers ofseven villages (20from eachvillage located in the vicinity ofthe lake). 70 malesand 70 females aged between 20 to 60 years and educationstandard above 10th class were also randomly interviewed.Market price techniques was used to find out the economicvaluation in whichthe prevailingprices for goods and servicestraded in domestic or international markets were used forquantifYing wetland resources.

Market price method

Gross benefit = qx p

Where, q = quantity ofproducts, p = market prices

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Bhindawas Lake and the Yamuna River. Drain No.8 is arecipient ofstorm water as well as sewage, because sometowns have a combined system ofdisposal for sewage andstorm water.

Wetlands also have socio-cultural value though it is stillrelatively unexplored. It is known thatwetlands have religiousand historical values for many local communities (Schuyt andBrander 2004). Aquatic life forms play an important role insupplementing human diet and nutritional balance; besides,they also support the livelihood and income ofaconsiderablesection ofsociety living around them (Jain et al. 2011).The objective ofpresent study was to evaluate economicdependency oflocal community on Bhindawas wetland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven villages selected for socio-economic studies aroundthe wetland were Bhindawas, Sahajapur, Bilochpura,Chadwana, Raduwas, Kanwa and Kungiya. Questionnairewas prepared containing demographic information such asfamily history, domestic water usage, groundwater usage,irrigation, other commercial uses, water uses for livestock,livestock fodder, aesthetic value and recreation, fishing andaquaculture, spiritual value and health effects etc.Questionnaire performas filled in by villager were used for

Table 1. Classification oftotal economic value for wetlands

Direct Use Benefits

-recreation- boating- fauna (birds, etc.)- wildlife- vIewIng- walking- fishingcommercial harvest- fish- fuel wood- transport- nuts- berries- grains- peat/energyforestry-Wildlife harvesting- agriculture

Use ValuelBenefits

Indirect UseBenefits

-nutrient retention-flood control-storm protection-groundwaterrecharge-external ecosystemsupport-micro-climaticstabilisation-shorelinestabilisation, etc-water filtration-erosion control

Option and Quasi­Option Benefits

-potential futureuses (as per directand indirect uses)

-future value ofinformation, e.g.,pharmaceuticals,education

Non-UseValue/Benefits

Existence Benefits

-biodiversity

-culture

-heritage

-bequest

Source: Barbier et al. 1997

ECONOMIC VALUEASSESSMENT OF WETLAND 7

Figure 1. Photographs ofBhindawas wetland (A)Animal grazing (B) Fodder collection bywomen (C) Fuel wood collection(D) Tube well for irrigation

maintenance ofbiodiversity and flood control. There is,however, agrowing recognition that such natural benefits dohave real economic value and that these values need to beincluded in decision-making processes.

The results ofsocio-economic survey in 7villages have beengiven in Table 2 while photograph ofBhindawas wetland inFigure 1.

Irrigation Water: Wetland water was not used directly forirrigation purpose by the surrounded villages, but indirectlyfrom the channel adjacent to wetland in which water comefrom the wetland and inletwater channel from JLN (JawaharLal Nehru) canal to wetland used for the irrigation. Atotal of18 Tube wells were installed on the adjacent channel and103 Tube wells were installed on the inlet channel. The farmeruse water directly from these channels. On the basis ofsurveyit was also observed that market value ofirrigation ofoneacre was Rs. 200 without fuel ofpump engine in surroundingarea, one Tube well irrigated approximate 50 acre area in ayear. Total economic dependency for irrigated water frominlet and adjacent channels to the periphery was calculated

Rs. 493 and Rs. 2822 Iday, respectively. Even in thesurrounding fields, wetland increases the availability ofmoisture and nutrients by which crop farming area hasincreased, considering the fact that wetlands have all yearround reliable moisture for crop growth. Successes in socio­economic development to local communities from use ofwetlands for crop farming have also been reported by Dixonand Wood (2003) in Ethiopia.

Fuel wood: On the basis ofquestionnaires it was notedthat about 75 individuals collect the 10 kg fuel wood perindividual per day especially poor people ofthe surroundedvillage. The market rate offuel wood was Rs 71 kg. So thetotal dependency value offuel wood was Rs. 5250/day.

Animal Fodder: Women ofthe surrounded villages alsoharvested grasses from the wetland to feed their cattle. Onthe basis ofsurvey, it was found that approx. 100 women,on an average of15kg fodder was collected per women perday. The market value ofthe fodder is Rs. 31 Kg. Besideabout 130animal grazed in the wetland area. The economicdependency ofcommunities for animal fodder in Bhindawas

8 Kumar and Dhankhar

wetland areawas around Rs. 6450 /day. Kakuru et al. (2013)reported that wetlands were also valued for provision offodder, especially during the drought periods, whenalternative pastures were not readily available. Pastures fromwetlands not only provided fodder but also enhanced milkproduction, thus contributing to food security. However, mostof the wetlands suffer from overgrazing. Overgrazingdisturbed shore and led soil compaction due to removal ofvegetation (Janson and Robertson 2001).

Fishing: Fishing is not allowed in the wetland though peoplefrom Bilochpur do it illegally in night which is difficult toaccount and not included in this study. DrainNo.8 receivingwater from the wetland outletwas rich in fish and the annualcontract offisheries ofdrain No.8 near the outlet was Rs. 5lacks. Ponds receiving water from the wetland are used forfisheries and annual contract ofthese ponds were Rs. 3lakh20 thousands. Total value offishing from drain No.8 andponds were Rs. 2247/day. Gupta and Kaushik (2012)mentioned there are in all8065ponds in Haryanaoutofwhich90% are fish ponds producing 1,00,000 MT offish worthcrores ofrupees. Anet profit ofRs. 61000 per hectare peryear is obtained.

Labour under various Govt. schemes. People fromsurrounding villages are also employed for labour work inthe wetland under various Govt. schemes like MahatmaGandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act andWeed Cleaning Scheme from the forest department Haryana.Total value oflabour work was Rs. 6905 per day.

Many research studies indicated that wetlands supportmillions ofpeople and provide goods and services bothdirectly and indirectly. The direct benefits ofwetlands are inthe form offish, agriculture, fuel wood, recreation and watersupply etc. and their indirect benefits arise from functionsoccurringwithin the ecosystem such as flood control, groundwater recharge and storm protection. Kakuru et al. (2013)reported that wetlands provide food and non-food productsthat contribute to income and food security in Uganda. Theydetermined the economic value ofwetland resources andtheir contributionto food security in the three agro-ecologicalzones of Uganda. The per capita value of fish wasapproximately US$ 0.49 person per person. Fish spawningwas valued at approximately US$ 363,815 peryear, livestock

pastures at US$ 4.24 million, domestic water use at US$ 34million peryear, and the gross annual value added bywetlandsto milk production at US$ 1.22 million. Flood control wasvalued at approximately US$ 1,702,934,880 per hectareperyear and water regulation and recharge at US$ 7,056,360per hectare per year. While, socio-economic impacts ofwetland cultivation in southwest Ethiopiawas identified byMulatu et al. (2015). They reported that greater number ofhouseholds (65.48%) interviewed were benefited fromwetlands cultivation. About 23.4% of them collectedmedicinal plants from wetland in their lifetime. 91.27% collectwetland grass for thatching, 69.84% ofthem used domesticwater from wetlands springs near wetlands, 91.67% ofthemused water from wetlands for livestock, while 100% ofthemused grasses from wetlands for plasteringwall and for fodder.Similar studies on socio-economic benefits ofwetlands fromdifferent parts ofworld were reported by Mark Drew et al.(2005), Setlhogile et al. (2011) and Jogo and Hassan (2010).

However limited research has been made on socio-economicaspect oflakes and wetlands in India. Ramachandra et al.(2005) discussed valuation ofecosystem considering thedirect, indirect and existence benefits. They conductedeconomic valuation ofAmruthalli and Rachenahalli lakessituated in Bangalore. Higher benefits were obtained fromRachenahalli lake (Rs. 10435/ha/day) but it was aboutRs.20/ha/day forAmruthelli lake. SimilarlyRamachandraet al.(2011) evaluated the socio-economic benefits ofVarthurwetland in India. They observed that Varthur, a sewage fedwetland has avalue ofRs. 118.9/ha/day. The direct benefitsfrom wetland in the present study were Rs. 24167/day (Rs.56/ha/day). The economic dependency of people livingaround Bhindawas wetland was therefore less than thoseliving around Rachenahalli and Varthur lakes.

It is concluded that Bhindawas wetland play importantcontribution to the livelihoods ofthe surrounding communityin terms ofsocio-economic benefits. Such contribution notonly involve animal fodder and fuel wood, but also somespecific goods and services such as increase in cropproduction through irrigation. The dependence ofthe poorcommunityespeciallyfor fuel woodwas higher. The economicdependency of local community on Bhindawas was Rs.24167/day.

ECONOMIC VALUEASSESSMENT OF WETLAND

Table 2. Economic valuation ofBhindawas wetland

9

Wetland

Bhindawas

Direct use

Use

1.Irrigation Water

Value inRupees/day

Indirect value

• Ground watertable varies from

Existence value

• Birds andmigratOlY birds

.From the wetland Nil

From Channeladjacent to wetland

Inlet Channel fromJLN canal towetland

2. Fuel wood

3. Animal Fodder

Grasses hmvestedby women

Animal Grazing

4. Fishing

From the wetland

Drain no.8 nearthe lake outlet

493

2822

5250

4500

1950

Nil

1370

10 (vicinity oflake)- 80ft (at 2-3 kmaway from 1ake).

Ground waterquali ty improvednear wetland

Wetland receivedflooded water fromsurround area andstore the excesswater of drain no.8 in rainy seasonand reduce theload on drain andprotect the drainfrom damage.

Aprox. 2000 touristand 1000 studentwere vi sit forrecreational andeducation purposeIII a year.

• Culture andheritage value.

6905

Result

Chadwana villagePond adjacent 877to wetland

5. Labour undervarious Govt.scheme

Total value is Rs. 24l67/day Ground waterrecharge and floodprotection mainlyreceived water fromdrainno.8

Functional aspects,biodiversity, cultural andrecreational aspectsindicate importance ofwetland eco system.

10 Kumar and Dhankhar

REFERENCES

Barbier, E.B., N. Acreman and D. Knowler. 1997.Economic Valuation ofWetlands: A Guide for PolicyMakers and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau,Gland, Switzerland.

Dixon,A.B. andA. PWood. 2003. Wetland cultivation andhydrological management in easternMrica: matchingcommunity and hydrological needs through sustainablewetland use. Natural Resources Forum 27(2): 117-129.

Groot, R. S. de. 1992. Functions ofNature: Evaluation ofNature in Environmental Planning, Management andDecision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, TheNetherlands.

Gupta, R.C. and T K. Kaushik. 2012. Traditional ruralwetlands in Haryana state of India are currentlyconfronting multi cornered threats leading to extinctionsooner than later. The Journal ofTropical Life Sciences2(2): 32-36.

IUCN. 1996. The 1996 IUCN Red list for threatenedAnimals. IUCN, Gland Switzerland.

Jain, A., M. Sundriyal, S. Roshnibala, R. Kotoky, P B.Kanjilal, H.B. Singh and R.C. Sundriyal. 2011. Dietaryuse and conservation concern ofedible wetland plantsat Indo-Burma hotspot: a case study from northeastIndia. Journal ofEthnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7 :29. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-7-29.

Jansen,A. andA. I. Robertson. 2001. Relationship betweenlivestock management and the ecological condition ofriparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river.Journal ofApplied Ecology 38(1): 63-75.

Jogo, W. and R. Hassan. 2010. Balancing the use ofwetlandsfor economic well-being and ecological security: The caseofthe Limpopo wetland in southernMrica. EcologicalEconomics 69: 1569-1579.

Kathiresan, K. and S. Thakur. 2008. Mangroves for theFuture: National Strategy andAction Plan, India. MinistryofEnvironment and Forests, New Delhi [Revised Draft].

Kakuru, W., N. Turyahabwe andJ. Mugisha. 2013. TotalEconomic Value ofWetlands Products and Services in

Uganda. The Scientific World JournalArtic1e ID 192656,13 pages. http://dx.doi.orgjl 0.1155/2013/192656

Mark Drew, W., C. Katherine, Ewel, L. Rosamond, Naylorand Asher Sigrah. 2005. Atropical freshwater wetland:III. Direct use values and other goods and services.Wetlands Ecology and Management 13 :685-693.

Mulatu, K., D Hunde andE. Kissi. 2015. Socio-economicimpacts ofwetland cultivation in South-Bench, SouthwestEthiopia. African Journal ofAgricultural Research 10(8):840-848.

Palanisami, K., R. Meinzen-Dick and M. Giordano. 2010.Climate change and water supplies: options for sustainingtank irrigation potential in India. Economic and PoliticalWeekly 45 (26-27): 183-190.

Pant, N. and R.K. Verma. 2010. Tanks in Eastern India: AStudy in Exploration. International Water ManagementInstitute-TATA Water Policy Research Program andCentre for Development Studies, Hyderabad andLucknow, India.

Prasad, S.N., TV. Ramachandra, N. Ahalya, T, A.Sengupta,A. Kumar,A.K. Tiwari, VS.VijayanandL.Vijayan. 2002. Conservation ofwetlands ofIndia- areview. Tropical Ecology 43 (1): 173-186.

Ramachandra, T.V, B. Alakananda,A. Rani and M.A. Khan.2011. Ecological and socio-economic assessment ofVarthur wetland, Bengaluru (India). Journal ofEnvironmental Science and Engineering 53(1): 101-108.

Ramachandra, TV, R. Rajinikanth and VG Ranjini. 2005.Economicvaluationofwetlands. Journal ofEnvironmentalBiology 26(2) 439-447.

Schuyt, K. and L. Brander. 2004. The Economic values ofthe world's wetlands. World Wildlife Fund (WWF).Switzerland.

Setlhogile, T, J. Arntzen, C. Mabiza and R. Mano. 2011.Economic valuation ofselected direct and indirect usevalues ofthe Makgadikgadi wetland system, Botswana.Physics and Chemistry ofthe Earth 36: 1071-1077.