IDENTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BEGNAS LAKE WATERSHED IN POKHARA LEKHNATH METROPOLITAN CITY

Arpan Gelal

Concept of ecosystem services has been gaining enormous popularity after the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Identification of ecosystem services is crucial to estimate economic values of ecosystems and calculate monetary benefits or loses against its destruction, modification or restoration. Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) scheme for certain ecosystem service is being used as a mechanism to provide incentive to supplers of the services by the beneficiaries. In Nepal, PES like schemes are in practice since a long time; though the discussions on formal PES schemes have recently been started. This study has been carried out at Begnas Lake Watershed (BWS), a Ramsar site, at Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan of Nepal. It aims to identify the principle types of ecosystem services on the categories of ecosystem services provided by MEA i.e. provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services and prioritize them. It also aims to fulfill the knowledge gap on total economic value of Begnas Lake Watershed by estimating it and ouline key components of PES for the watershed. Market Price Method (MPM), Travel Cost Method (TCM), Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and Benefit Transfer Method (BTM) has been used to estimate its economic value. The study identifies variety of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services of BWS. Recreation and ecotourism service has been prioritized most important followed by erosion control, fishing and irrigation, ground water recharge and discharge and habit for worldlife. The total economic value of BWS has been calculated to be US$ 9,744,539 year-1 and potential economic value of US$ 89,586,772. Recreational and aesthetic service is valued highest with annual value of US$ 8,592,863. The key components of PES have been outlined based on perception of upstream and downstream communities. The willingness to pay (WTP) of watershed residents and beneficiary groups suggests the potential of PES in BWS. The study outlines major stakeholders, existing PES mechanism, funding mechanism, SWOT analysis of priorized ES as potential PES scheme and roles of key stakeholders in PES development. The study recommends for development of PES mechanism for conservation and sustainable management of ecosystem resources for which ‘Begnas Watershed PES Advisory and Coordination Committee’ is to be formed to initiate PES mechanism development.

IDENTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BEGNAS LAKE WATERSHED IN POKHARA LEKHNATH METROPOLITAN CITY ARPAN GELAL KU Regd No. A017518-13 PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED TO THE KATHMANDU UNIVERSITY NATIONAL COLLEGE, BALUWATAR, KATHMANDU, NEPAL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES August 2017 IDENTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BEGNAS LAKE WATERSHED IN POKHARA LEKHNATH METROPOLITAN CITY ARPAN GELAL August 2017 Declaration I, hereby, declare that the project work report entitled Identification of Ecosystem Services and Economic Valuation of Begnas Lake Watershed in Pokhara Lekhnath Metropolitan City, submitted to National College, affiliated to Kathmandu University, is my original work done for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor in Development Studies under the supervision of Mr. Ukesh Raj Bhuju. ………………. Arpan Gelal Date: August 13, 2017 Certificate This is to certify that the project work entitled Identification of Ecosystem Services and Economic Valuation of Begnas Lake watershed in Pokhara Lekhnath Metropolitan City submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor in Development Studies (BDevS) under Kathmandu University is a record of original research carried out by Mr. Arpan Gelal and the work has not been submitted for any other degree or diploma of this or any other University under my supervision. ………………………….. Ukesh Raj Bhuju Designation: Supervisor Date: August 13, 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am thankful to the people of Begnas Lake Watershed in Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan who have been highly cooperative during my field study. Without their support and knowledge; it would have been impossible to identify the ecosystem services, estimate economic value and outline key components of PES. I would like to thank Mr. Ukesh Raj Bhuju, my Project Supervisor, for his kind guidance, supervision, encouragement and feedback to conduct my field study and prepare this report. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Deepak Nath Chalise for his generous ‗Santibati Chalise Memorial‘ research grant. This research grant was not only helpful in financial aspects but also important in terms of recognition and encouragement to conduct this study. I sincerely thank Ms. Lakpa Sherpa, Programme Officer at Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara for her guidance to understand the geographical aspects of the watershed and important ecosystem services. I appreciate her help to understand LI-BIRD‘s concept of ‗Begnas Conservation Fund‘, a PES like scheme in Begnas Lake Watershed. I would like to thank Mr. Dhak Nath Kandel, President of Begnas Boat Entrepreneurs‘ Committee; Mr. Jhalak Jalari, President of Begnas Fish Entrepreneurs‘ committee; Mr. Damodar Bhakta Thapa, President of Lekhnath Hotel and Restaurant Association; Ramchandra Poudel, Sisuwa Ilaka Forest Office; Er. Govinda Prasad Bhurtel, Irrigation Development Divison, Kaski; Narayan Jung Khatri, DADO, Kaski and Mr. Nabin Bishwakarma, DFO, Kaski. Discussions with them were very helpful to outline the key components of PES in Begnas Lake Watershed. I would also like to thank Mr. Shankar Jalari, a local youth of Piple villege whose knowledge on local geography was very helpful during data collection. I am thankful to Mr. Indresh Sharma, Research Officer at National College, for his guidance wherever I required during the course of this study. vii I would like to extend my appreciation for my friends Ayush Poudel, Sujana Pokhrel and Sourav Dhungana who helped me in a way or other during field visit and preparation of this report. I am always obliged to entire friends of Section-A and B of BDevS 2013-2017 at National College for their appreciation and encouragement to conduct this academic study. I am always indebted to National College and the entire college faculty and staffs for providing best academic environment to carry out this research. Thank you. Arpan Gelal viii Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................................ VII LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... XI LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ XIV LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... XV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACCRONYMS ........................................................................... XVI ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................... XVIII 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Ecosystem Services ......................................................................................................................1 1.1.2 Economic valuation of Ecosystem Services .................................................................................2 1.1.3 Payment for Ecosystem Services ..................................................................................................4 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...............................................................................................................5 1.3 RATIONALE OF THE RESEARCH ..............................................................................................................7 1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................................8 1.4.1 General objective ...........................................................................................................................8 1.4.2 Specific objectives .........................................................................................................................8 1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH ...........................................................................................9 1.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY SITE ........................................................................................................10 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................................................15 2.1 REVIEW OF THEORETICAL LITERATURE ...............................................................................................15 2.1.1 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................15 2.1.2 Context of valuation of ecosystem services .................................................................................19 2.1.3 Types and methods for valuation .................................................................................................20 2.1.4 Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystem services ..........................................................25 2.1.5 Theoretical background of PES ...................................................................................................26 2.1.6 Policy, legislation and institutional provisions for PES ..............................................................27 2.1.7 Structural and Practical concerns of PES ....................................................................................30 2.2 REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL LITERATURE ...................................................................................................31 2.2.1 Review of empirical literature outside Nepal ..............................................................................31 2.2.2 Review of empirical literature within Nepal................................................................................33 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................35 3.1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDY SITE ........................................................................................35 3.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................36 3.2.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study .......................................................................................36 3.2.2 Analytical framework of the study ..........................................................................................39 3.2.3 Operational framework of the study ........................................................................................41 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN ..............................................................................................................................42 3.4 STUDY DURATION AND LOCATION ......................................................................................................42 3.5 SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE SIZE ..........................................................................................42 3.6 DATA COLLECTION ...........................................................................................................................44 3.6.1 Primary Data Collection ..............................................................................................................44 3.6.2 Secondary Data Collection ..........................................................................................................47 3.7 LEARNING AGENDA AND DETAILS OF FIELD METHODS ........................................................................48 ix 3.8 DATA ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................50 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................52 4.1 SOCIO-ECONOMY OF RESPONDENTS ....................................................................................................52 4.1.1 Sample distribution by gender .....................................................................................................52 4.1.2 Sample distribution by age ..........................................................................................................53 4.1.3 Sample distribution by education ................................................................................................53 4.1.4 Sample distribution by ethnicity/social groups............................................................................54 4.1.5 Sample distribution by occupation ..............................................................................................55 4.1.6 Sample distribution by monthly income ......................................................................................55 4.1.7 Sample distribution by family head and family size....................................................................56 4.1.8 Sample distribution by land holding status ..................................................................................57 4.1.9 Sample distribution by residential status .....................................................................................58 4.1.10 Sample distribution by size of land holding ..............................................................................58 4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF ECOWWSYSTEM SERVICES OF BWS .....................................................................59 4.2.1 Provisioning Services ..................................................................................................................59 4.2.2 Regulating services ......................................................................................................................68 4.2.3 Supporting Services .....................................................................................................................74 4.2.4 Cultural Services .........................................................................................................................77 4.2.5 Prioritization of Ecosystem Services of BWS .............................................................................80 4.3 ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ES.............................................................................................................82 4.3.1 Consumptive use value ................................................................................................................82 4.3.3 Boating service ............................................................................................................................94 4.3.4 Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................95 4.3.5 Hydropower .................................................................................................................................97 4.3.6 Carbon sequestration ...................................................................................................................98 4.3.7 Recreational and aesthetic value ..................................................................................................99 4.3.8 Willingness to pay for sustainable management and conservation (CVM) ............................... 111 4.3.9 Total economic value of BWS................................................................................................... 113 4.4 KEY COMPONENTS OF PES ................................................................................................................ 115 4.4.1 Prioritization of ES for PES....................................................................................................... 115 4.4.2 Respondent‘s perception on PES ............................................................................................... 115 4.4.3 Key PES actors .......................................................................................................................... 120 4.4.4 Existing PES mechanism in BWS ............................................................................................. 124 4.4.5 Payment mechanism for ES of BWS ......................................................................................... 125 4.4.6 Roles of key stakeholders in PES .............................................................................................. 126 4.4.7 Institutional structure for PES implementation ......................................................................... 127 4.4.8 SWOT Analysis of prioritized ES as potential PES scheme ..................................................... 129 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................. 132 5.1 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 132 5.1.1 Identification of ES in BWS ...................................................................................................... 132 5.1.2 Economic value of BWS ........................................................................................................... 134 5.1.3 Key PES components for BWS ................................................................................................. 136 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 138 5.3 AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH ......................................................................................................... 139 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 140 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. 151 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Land use pattern in Begnas basin 14 Table 2.1 Types of ecosystem services 17 Table 2.2 Policies and legislation relating to PES in Nepal 28 Table 3.1 Organizations consulted for the study 44 Table 4.1 Sample distribution by gender 52 Table 4.2 Sample distribution by age group 53 Table 4.3 Sample distribution by educational level 54 Table 4.4 Sample distribution by ethnicity/social group 54 Table 4.5 Sample distribution by occupation 55 Table 4.6 Sample distribution by monthly income 56 Table 4.7 Sample distribution by family head 56 Table 4.8 Sample distribution by family size 57 Table 4.9 Sample distribution by land holding status 57 Table 4.10 Sample distribution by residential status 58 Table 4.11 Sample distribution by size of land holding 58 Table 4.12 Major food crops cultivated in BWS 60 Table 4.13 Some native species of vegetables in BWS 60 Table 4.14 Canal system of BIS 65 Table 4.15 Life form in Begnas Rupa Watershed 67 Table 4.16 Water Quality Parameters of Begnas Lake 70 Table 4.17 Prioritization of ES of BWS 80 Table 4.18 Market price of different fish species 82 Table 4.19 Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk harvesting pattern 83 Table 4.20 Annual gross income from Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk 83 Table 4.21 Harvest and consumption pattern of Sahar & Katle 84 Table 4.22 Annual gross income from Sahar & Katle 84 Table 4.23 Harvest and consumption pattern of Sano Bhitta 85 Table 4.24 Annual gross income from Sano Bhitta 85 Table 4.25 Harvest and consumption pattern of Bam 86 Table 4.26 Annual gross income from Bam 86 Table 4.27 Harvest and consumption pattern of Rahu, Naini, Common carp and Grass carp 87 xi Tavle 4.28 Annual income from Rahu, Naini, Common carp and Grass carp 87 Table 4.29 Harvest and consumption pattern of Bhyakur 88 Table 4.30 Annual gross income from Bhyakur 88 Table 4.31 Harvest and consumption pattern of Silver carp and Bighead carp 89 Table 4.32 Annual gross income from Silver carp and Bighead carp 89 Table 4.33 Harvest and consumption pattern of other fish species 90 Table 4.34 Annual gross income from other fish species 90 Table 4.35 Gross annual income from fishery 91 Table 4.36 Niuro harvesting pattern of respondents 92 Table 4.37 Market price of Niuro harvested annually 92 Table 4.38 Harvest pattern of fuel wood 93 Table 4.39 Total annual income from fuel wood harvest 93 Table 4.40 Daily income from boating service 94 Table 4.41 Total annual income from boating 95 Table 4.42 Irrigation affecting productivity of land 96 Table 4.43 Nutritional benefit from irrigation 96 Table 4.44 Potential annual gross income from hydroelectricity 97 Table 4.45 Potential net income from hydroelectricity 98 Table 4.46 Value of carbon sequestration 99 Table 4.47 Surveyed visitors by gender 100 Table 4.48 Age of the surveyed visitors 101 Table 4.49 Occupation of the visitors 101 Table 4.50 Nationality of the visitors 102 Table 4.51 Visitors' mode of transport 102 Table 4.52 Visitors' motive to visit lake 103 Table 4.53 Things visitor like most in Begnas Lake 104 Table 4.54 Frequency of visitors 104 Table 4.55 Monthly income of visitors 105 Table 4.56 Travel duration of visitors to reach Begnas Lake 106 Table 4.57 Travel cost to reach Begnas Lake 107 Table 4.58 Stay duration of visitors in Begnas lake area 107 Table 4.59 Food and accomodation expense of visitors 108 Table 4.60 Willingness to pay entry fee 109 Table 4.61 Annual recreational and aesthetic value of Begnas Lake 111 xii Table 4.62 Maximum WTP of respondents 112 Table 4.63 Total maximum WTP for sustainable management and conservation 113 Table 4.64 Actual total economic value of BWS 113 Table 4.65 Respondents' perception on activities of upstream people on flow of ES 115 Table 4.66 Perception on paying and receiving compensation 116 Table 4.67 Role of PES on conservation and sustainable management 117 Table 4.68 Respondents' perception on type of payment scheme 117 Table 4.69 Respondents' perception on payment approach 118 Table 4.70 Respondents' perception on mode of payment 119 Table 4.71 Respondents' perception on who should pay 119 Table 4.72 Downstream respondents' perception on condition for payment 120 Table 4.73 Key PES actors in BWS 123 Table 4.74 Payment mechanism for major ES 125 Table 4.75 Strengths and opportunities of ES as potential PES scheme 130 Table 4.76 Weakness and threats of ES as potential PES scheme 131 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Geographical location of the study area 11 Figure 3.1 TEV framework for BWS 38 Figure 3.2 Analytical framework of the study 40 Figure 3.3 Operational framework of the study 41 Figure 4.1 Institutional mechanism for PES implementation xiv 128 LIST OF APPENDICES Annex I: Survey questionnaire for identification of ES 151 Annex II: Survey questionnaire for economic valuation of ES 156 Annex III: Survey questionnaire for PES 159 Annex IV: Visitors questionnaire 161 Annex V: Observation sheet 163 Annex VI: KII/FGD checklist 164 Annex VII: People and organizations consulted 166 Annex VIII: List of community forest in BWS 168 Annex IX: Enumeration of plants of Begnas-Rupa Watershed 170 Annex X: Common tree species of Begnas-Rupa watershed 182 Annex XI: Herbaceous plants and shrubs of Begnas-Rupa watershed 185 Annex XII: Religious plants and trees of Begnas-Rupa watershed 188 Annex XIII: Fodder trees and shrubs of Begnas-Rupa Lake watershed 190 Annex XIV: Edible wild fruits of Begnas-Rupa Lake watershed 191 Annex XV: Amphibians recorded in the Begnas-Rupa lake watershed 192 Annex XVI: Reptiles recorded in the Begnas-Rupa lake watershed 192 Annex XVII: Mammals recorded in begnas-Rupa watershed 193 Annex XVIII: Birds recorded in Begnas-Rupa watershed 194 Annex XIX: Some varieties of rice found in Begnas Lake watershed 197 Annex XX: Medicinal plants found in Begnas-Rupa area 198 Annex XXI: Payment mechanism for major ES of BWS 203 Annex XXII: Roles of key stakeholders in PES in BWS 205 Annex XXIII: Photographs 208 xv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACCRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank AOM Annual Operation and Maintenance cost BBEC Begnas Boat Entrepreneurs‘ Committee BBZCF Bagmara Buffer Zone Community Forest BFEA Begnas Fish Entrepreneurs‘ Association BIS Begnas Irrigation System BTRT Begnas Taal Rupa Taal Watershed Management Project BWS Begnas Lake Watershed CBS Central Bereau of Statistic CF Community Forest CFUG Community forest User Group CSUWN Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal DADO District Agriculture Development Office DDC District Development Committee DFO District Forest Office DIDO District Irrigation Development Office DOI Department of Irrigation DPR Detail Project Report DSCWM Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management DWS Drinking Water System Eba Ecosystem Based Adoptation EIA Environment Impact Assessment ES Ecosystem Services FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal FGD Focus Group Discussion FMIS Farmer Managed Irrigation System HH Households IEA International Energy Agency INGO International Non-government Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JRRS Jagdishpur Reservoir KII Key informant interview xvi LI-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development Masl Meter above Sea Level MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation MPM Market Price Method NEA Nepal Electricity Authority NGO Non-Government Organization NPS National Parks Service NTB Nepal Tourism Board NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation PES Payment for Ecosystem Services STWSSP Small Town Water Supply and Sanitation Project TEV Total Economic Value VDC Village Development Committee WUA Water User Association WTP Willingness to Pay WWF World Wildlife Fund xvii Abstract Concept of ecosystem services has been gaining enormous popularity after the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Identification of ecosystem services is crucial to estimate economic values of ecosystems and calculate monetary benefits or loses against its destruction, modification or restoration. Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) scheme for certain ecosystem service is being used as a mechanism to provide incentive to supplers of the services by the beneficiaries. In Nepal, PES like schemes are in practice since a long time; though the discussions on formal PES schemes have recently been started. This study has been carried out at Begnas Lake Watershed (BWS), a Ramsar site, at Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan of Nepal. It aims to identify the principle types of ecosystem services on the categories of ecosystem services provided by MEA i.e. provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services and prioritize them. It also aims to fulfill the knowledge gap on total economic value of Begnas Lake Watershed by estimating it and ouline key components of PES for the watershed. Market Price Method (MPM), Travel Cost Method (TCM), Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and Benefit Transfer Method (BTM) has been used to estimate its economic value. The study identifies variety of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services of BWS. Recreation and ecotourism service has been prioritized most important followed by erosion control, fishing and irrigation, ground water recharge and discharge and habit for worldlife. The total economic value of BWS has been calculated to be US$ 9,744,539 year-1 and potential economic value of US$ 89,586,772. Recreational and aesthetic service is valued highest with annual value of US$ 8,592,863. The key components of PES have been outlined based on perception of upstream and downstream communities. The willingness to pay (WTP) of watershed residents and beneficiary groups suggests the potential of PES in BWS. The study outlines major stakeholders, existing PES mechanism, funding mechanism, SWOT analysis of priorized ES as potential PES scheme and roles of key stakeholders in PES development. The study recommends for development of PES mechanism for conservation and sustainable management of ecosystem resources for which ‘Begnas Watershed PES Advisory and Coordination Committee’ is to be formed to initiate PES mechanism development. Key words: Ecosystem services, Economic value of ecosystem services, Payment for ecosystem services, Begnas lake Watershed, Begnas lake PES advisory and Coordination Committee xviii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Humans depend on various types of ecosystem services directly or indirectly for their survival and well being. This study intends to identify the various types of ecosystem services of Begnas Lake Watershed (BWS) of Pokhara-Lehnath Metropolitan in Kaski district of Nepal. The identification of ecosystem services is followed by economic valuation of some seleted services. Currently, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes are increasingly used as an environmental management tool to enhance conservation and sustainable management of natural resources. This studys also intends to outline key components of PES mechanism for BWS. 1.1.1 Ecosystem Services Ecosystems provide large number of services, which are of fundamental importance to human well-being (Costanza et. al., 1997 and TEEB Foundations, 2010). Ecosystem services are the benefits provided to humans through the transformations of resources (or environmental assets, including land, water, vegetation and atmosphere) into a flow of essential goods and services e.g. clean air, water, and food (Constanza et. al., 1997). The extreme environmental concerns including adaptation to climate change, enhancement of resistance and recovery from consequences of extreme weather events largely depends on better and timely management of ecosystems. It also generates wide range of benefits on which people depend. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) accepts the role of managing ecosystems as fundamental gateway to develop strategies to enable people and nature towards conservation and sustainable management of natural resources (IUCN, 2009). The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defines ecosystem services as the benefits that humans receive from the nature, such as clean water, food, fiber, wood, timber, medicinal herbs, leaf-litters, bush meat, groundwater recharge, flood mitigation and climate regulation. Ecosystem services and human well-being are linked together and the socio-economic factors mediate the linkage. Changes in ecosystems and the services they provide affect human wellbeing at local, national and global levels. Various interventions can be strategized to 1 conserve ecosystems and enhance human wellbeing (MEA, 2005). The concepts of ecosystem services and ‗natural capital‘ have been recently started to stress on prominent link between human welfare and ecological sustainability foe conservation initiatives, development and policy formulation (Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005). Some ecosystem services, such as the regulation and stabilization of climate, water flow, and the movement of nutrients have been even less visible until recent times, when disturbance to these systems has exacerbated climate change, soil erosion or eutrophication. Like all complex systems, ecosystems can appear to be working well until they suddenly collapse, as the supporting base may have eroded without obvious warning symptoms (Mullon et. al., 2005). Ecosystems are capital assets that provide a range of services. These include supporting service that maintain the conditions for life; provisioning services that provide direct inputs to livelihoods and economy; regulating services such as those that prevent flood and disease control and cultural services that provide opportunity for recreation, and spiritual or historical sites (MEA, 2005). While there is no single, agreed method of categorizing all ecosystem services, the MA framework is widely accepted and is seen as a useful starting point. Many ecosystem services have not been easy to observe until they cease to flow, hence they have not been formally counted in economic systems. However, when these externalities become a significant cost burden to society, such as restoring degraded river systems, it becomes a priority to understand and value ecosystem services and to integrate them into economic frameworks (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2009). 1.1.2 Economic valuation of Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services are not fully captured in markets or adequately valued in monetary terms, they are often taken for granted and do not receive due importance in policy decisions (Costanza et. al., 1997; TEEB, 2008, 2009, 2010). Moreover, lack of knowledge of the monetary value of ecosystem goods and services is not the only factor leading to resource degradation. There are many other proximate factors such as existing policies and practices, demand on existing services, and the opportunity costs of conserving services, which add complexities to our understanding of the value of these resources. As a result, there is insufficient investment in conservation and sustainable management which leads to ecosystem deterioration (MEA, 2005). 2 The underlying case for the valuation of ecosystem services is that it will contribute towards better decision-making, ensuring that policy appraisals fully take into account the costs and benefits to the natural environment (DEFRA, 2007). The concept of ecosystem service value can be an important tool to measure and distinguish where trade-offs between society and the rest of nature are possible and where trade-offs can be made to enhance human welfare and nature conservation in a sustainable manner (DEFRA, 2009; UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2010). However, while win-win opportunities for human activities within the environment may exist, they also appear to be increasingly scarce in a global ecological economic system. This makes valuation more essential for guiding future human activity (Farber et. al., 2002). Quantifying the economic value of ecosystem services is useful for strengthening the case for conservation and providing a base for informed policy decisions (Swinton et. al., 2007). However, methodological difficulties remain an obstacle to estimate the economic value (Bräuer, 2003; Nijkamp et. al., 2008). Economic valuation of ecosystem services not only demonstrates the importance and value of ecosystems, but also provides insights about the gains and losses faced by different stakeholders directly or indirectly due to ecosystem degradation and subsequent loss of these services (Kumar, 2005). Increasing demands on ecosystem good and services are now putting pressure on the natural resources that they contain (Rasul et. al., 2011). Valuation is a close supplement to the ecosystem services movement in conservation of environment and advocacy. Being popularized over the last decade, concept of ecosystem valuation has deeper roots in natural resource management and environmental economics. The ecosystem services concept holds that nature produce goods and services that contribute to social and economic well-being (Costanza et. al., 1997; Boyles et. al., 2011; Moore et. al., 2011). Pearce (2001) argues that measuring the economic value of ecosystem services is a fundamental step in conserving resources since the pressures to reduce biodiversity-based goods and services are so large that incentives should be introduced for the conservation of biodiversity with due concern that economic value. The role of environmental valuation methodologies in policy formulation is increasingly recognized by policymakers. The Convention on Biological Diversity‘s Conference of the Parties decision IV/10 acknowledges that economic valuation of biodiversity and biological resources is an important tool for well managed incentive and conservation measures. It encourages parties, governments, and relevant organizations to take into account economic, 3 social, cultural, and ethical valuation in the development of relevant incentive measures. After all, there are many reasons for conserving nature, and recognizing that the natural world has monetary value is just one of them, but an important one (Lawton, 2010). 1.1.3 Payment for Ecosystem Services The ecosystem services valuation has been an effective tool to design payments mechanisms by the consumers of those services to the service providers. With the increase in population, growing demand of ecosystem services and less interest in conservation has led to a swirl of conservation innovations over the past decade in the form of various types of payment schemes (Wunder, 2007). These types of various payment schemes have been linked extensively to the provision of specific ecosystem services enhancing the concept of PES (Ferraro & Kiss, 2002; Wunder, 2007). PES occurs when the beneficiaries or users of an ecosystem service make payments to the providers of that service. In practice, PES takes the timely form of payments to suppliers for using various types of ecosystem services. The basic idea is that whoever provides a service should be paid for doing so (Fripp, 2014). PES has come to conservation front in the past decade as a possible solution to address environmental problems and ecosystem restoration. PES is a relatively new cooperative tool for environmental protection, it is important if used carefully (UN, 2014). In context of Nepal, various forms of payment mechanisms exist for ecosystem services like drinking water, irrigation and tourism. But these are not the actual PES mechanisms because of lack of key elements of PES. In actual practice, the service providers do not receive payment for management of services. There is potential of localized PES schemes for sustainable management of resources in Nepal (IUCN, 2013). However, there lacks the clear provision of policy, acts, rules, regulations and guidelines to institutionalize PES and benefit sharing. Awareness and empowerment of local communities is mendatory to end the situation of managers of services remain suffered and free riders getting the benefit. PES mechanism can play a significant role to improve livelihood of people and enhance biodiversity conservation (Kunwar, 2008). PES was first implemented in Kulekhani hydropower site in Makwanpur district of Nepal, with the main objective of reducing siltation to the reservoir through effective conservation of forest and soil in its catchment. The mechanism was set up under the policy provision of Local Self Governance Act and Local Self Governance Regulations in 1999, which has 4 provision for the central government providing 12 percent of its total electricity royalty to the Makwanpur District Development Committee housing hydroelectricity project (Adhikari, 2009). Economic valuation of ecosystem services has been recently been undertaken for various protected areas and wetlands in Nepal. Shivapuri National Park provides supply of 40% drinking water for Kathmandu and provides numerous other ecosystem services. Water supply and purification occupy the highest value and that is US $112/ha/yr, which is significantly higher than global estimates (Maskey, 2008). Similarly, the Total Economic Valuation of Ghodaghodi Ramsar Site (138 ha) was US$ 265,256 per year of which direct use value was US$ 248,067. Recreational & aesthetic value was US$ 16,747 and cultural & religious value US$ 442 (Chand, 2009). This sort of economic valuation becomes the base for designing local PES schemes. Over the last decade, use of PES schemes has gained popularity with focus on nature conservation via watersheds, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and aesthetic and landscape beauty approaches. There are more than 300 programs worldwide with the broad estimated global value of USD 8.2 billion (Blackman & Woodward, 2010). PES are estimated to channel over USD 6.53 billion annually by national programs in China, Costa Rica, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States alone (OECD, 2010). 1.2 Statement of the problem In the late 1990s and early 2000s the concept of ecosystems services slowly found its way into the policy arena, e.g. through the ―Ecosystem Approach‖ (adopted by the UNEP-CBD, 2000) and the Global Biodiversity Assessment (Heywood & Watson, 1995). The concept of ecosystem services was firmly placed on policy agenda and accepted globally by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). This assessment stressed human dependency not only on ecosystem services, but also on the underlying ecosystem functioning, contributing to make visible the role of biodiversity and ecological processes in human well being. Since the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), the literatures on ecosystem services and international projects working with the concept have multiplied (Fisher et al., 2009). In the 5 last few years several initiatives have framed global environmental problems in economic terms and conducted global cost-benefit analysis (Gómez-Baggethun et. al., 2010). The projects and researches on accessing the value of ecosystem services have been significantly carried out across the globe since the last decade. Meanwhile schemes like ‗PES‘ have been increasingly practiced as rewarding mechanism to bear the cost of producing ecosystem services and conservation. Economic evaluation enhances the perceived power of economic arguments and numbers in social discourse (Boyd, 2011). Furthermore valuing ecosystem services and incorporating values into policy decisions help to compare the real cost effectiveness of an investment, evaluating trade-offs between different ecosystem management options and choosing between competing uses, e.g. of land use; creating markets for ecosystem services in order to mobilize financial resources, build awareness and communication to the public on the overall contribution of ecosystem services to social and economic well-being (GIZ, 2012). Nepal remains the land of diverse ecosystems and various identified as well as unidentified ecosystem services. Nepal is geographically a diverse country. Variation in land topography, climate conditions, biodiversity and socio-economic aspects has made Nepal peculiar with diverse types of ecosystems and ecosystem services (ES). One model of PES mechanism may not be appropriate for these diverse ecosystems and associated ES. On this context, various development agencies, INGOs, NGOs as well as independent researchers have started working on field of valuation of ecosystem services and designing PES scheme on various parts of Nepal. Still these research activities are not significant on covering various geographical areas so there is need of more study to aware people about the value of ecosystem services nearby and direct them towards ecosystem conservation. Valuation in monetary terms can be perceived as a means of making people realize about the importance of ecosystem services. Furthermore, its implications can be applied on decision making, cost-benefit analysis of investments, access liability to damage on environment and measure for environmental litigation. It is even important for international lobbing, e.g. Carbon trading. And designing PES schemes gives the base of payment mechanism between producers and users in order to promote conservation and sustainable use of ecosystem services. On this base, this academic study is directed to identify economic services, estimate economic values of ecosystem services and outline key components of payment scheme for ecosystem services of Begnas Lake and provide meaningful findings for the concerned agencies working towards environment conservation. 6 In this context, this study is guided by the following Research questions in regard to identification of ecosystem services, its valuation and outline of key components for payment for ecosystem services scheme: 1. What are the essential and desirable ecosystem services available? 2. How are people benefiting from ecosystem services? 3. What is the monetary value of ecosystem services? 4. Are there any existing mechanisms for payment schemes for ecosystem services? 5. What could be key components for designing a payment for ecosystem services scheme? 1.3 Rationale of the research The conservation of ecosystem is not possible without the proper identification of available ecosystem services. The identification and documentation of ecosystem services aware people about the importance of ecosystem and natural capital in one hand and also motivates them to work for its conservation, sustained use and also restoration on the other hand. The direct services of the ecosystem may be well known to the users like food, fodder, timber and other raw materials but its importance in terms of other intangible services like climate regulation within micro or macro level may remain unnoticed without proper study of the site. Furthermore, preliminary identification of ecosystem services may direct towards further in-depth study about such services and its intensity. In the present time of materialistic society, the economic luggage and language are most effective ways to communicate with people. Assigning economic value or the price tag on the ecosystem services effectively attracts people to understand its value and importance. Also, value of many ecosystem services can‘t be viewed fully on market transactions. Valuation of ecosystem services not only aware people about the monetary importance of various resources and ES but provides a strong argument for environmental advocacy and litigation. It can ease the decision making process through the cost benefit analysis of potential investments. It also help to create market for ecosystem services like global carbon trade thereby help to mobilize financial resources. Therefore, valuing ecosystem services is necessary to access the liability of damage to ecosystem and promotes conservation, sustained use and trade of ecosystem services. 7 Designing mechanisms for PES help to motivate individuals and communities to take actions that increase or maintain the provision of ecosystem services. As nature provides the services, it is not clear whom to pay but creating mechanisms or institutions for payment provide motivation for those who conserve the ecosystem. It can help to fulfill the goal of both conservation and sustained use of environmental services in a win-win scenario for both buyers and sellers. Thus this proposed research focuses on identification of ecosystem services, its valuation and outline of key components of PES scheme to enhance ecosystem conservation and figure out liability of damage to ecosystem of proposed study site. Begnas Lake is enlisted as the wetland of international importance as a Ramsar Site. Furthermore, BWS has been densly populated and an important urban centre. BWS holds high economic importance to large number of people; many of whom directly or indirectly depend on Begnas Lake for income generation and livelihood. BWS has metropolitan level of local administrative system and tax collection system from entrpreneurs who generate income from asthetic services of Begnas Lake. The proposed research would contribute to the existing stock of knowledge relating the lake watershed. It also drags immediate concern of stakeholders and promotes its conservation attempts. The identified components of payment mechanism would motivate concerned conservation managers to continue the conservation attempts in more sustainable way. Apart from informing concerned stakeholders about the economic value of the lake, the findings would be useful to various agencies for planning and implementing related environmental initiatives including PES. 1.4 Objectives of the study 1.4.1 General objective Estimate the economic value of Begnas Lake watershed through the assessment of its ecosystem services. 1.4.2 Specific objectives i. To identify the principal types of Ecosystem Services of Begnas Lake Watershed ii. To estimate economic value(s) of Begnas Lake Watershed iii. To outline the key components for a payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme for Begnas Lake Watershed 8 1.5 Scope and limitation of the research This study is carried out in Begnas Lake watershed at Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan in Kaski district of Nepal. This study primarily focuses on identification of preliminary ecosystem services. The listing of ecosystem services is on the framework of four categories of ecosystem services designed by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment i.e. Provisioning, Regulating, Supporting and cultural services. The scope of the study extends to the estimation of economic value of ES of Begnas Lake watershed (BWS) and outline key components of PES scheme for the same. Apart from direct observation and consultation with stakeholders, mostly the available literatures have been reviewed to gather knowledge on ecosystem services of the lake. Due to the time, budget constraints rather than investing the presence of ecosystem services in detail, the research aims to generalize gathered knowledge about the ecosystem services of the lake. The study regarding economic valuation of lake is carried out using various valuation techniques like Market Price Method, Benefit Transfer Method, Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Method. As Begnas Lake is famous as fishing site, people derive food and fodder from community forests, benefit from irrigation services, carbon sequestration and it is internationally renowned recreational tourist site with good flow of tourist; these particular methods are best suited to calculate the value. However, the value calculated may not be consistent with other study carried out at the same site using other valuation methodologies in another timeframe. Furthermore, the components of PES have been outlined from due perception and response of respondents and stakeholders. As mentioned, the identification of ecosystem services is the basic introduction of available services and intensity or in-depth study of such service is not viewed as the scope of this study. The study is limited to cursory observations. Observation was done using a checklist designed for identification of ES at three land use patterns i.e. Begnas Lake, agricultural fields and community forests. Obsevation was done in 6 sites; Begnas Lake, 2 community forests and 2 agricultural fields representing upstream and downstream and trading points of fish. Checklist has been used for conducting discussions, interactions, interview and meetings. Information has been gathered from the informants who were available during the visit. Available secondary data has also been accessed as source of information. However, triangulation method has been used to verify the information gathered at various points from 9 different stakeholders and informants. The estimate of economic valuation in this study following certain economic valuation methods may differ if calculated using a different technique. 1.6 Description of the study site Begnas is the second largest lake of Pokhara valley after Phewa Lake. It was designated as the Ramsar site on 2nd February 2016 along with other lake clusters of Pokhara valley (Ramsar, 2016). Begnas watershed is under going through various developmental pressures; mainly the urbanization which can be perceived as the major threat to sustainable environmental management. Drastic changes in the land use practices; conversion of cultivable land into residential areas and rapid increase in commercial areas have created significant impact on the environmental aspects of the watershed. However, Begnas Lake and its watershed area along with nearby Rupa Lake is a famous tourism site with large inflow of both domestic and international tourists. A seasonal monsoon stream Syankhudi Khola is the major inlet stream to the lake. Small seasonal streams namely Lipdi, Maladi, Majhikuna are the other supporting inlet to the Begnas Lake. The outlet stream is Khudi Khola. 1.6.1 Geographical location Begnas Lake is a fresh water lake situated in the Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan of Kaski district. It extends between 28º 7‘ N to 28º12‘ N latitude and 84º5‘ E to 84º10‘ E longitudes. The average depth of water in the lake is estimated to be 6.6 m with the water surface elevation 655.7 m abmsl (NLCDC, 2010). Begnas Lake is an eutrophic fresh water lake and total catchment area is 18.7 square km. The water body of the lake is 3.27 square km (373 ha) including the shallow areas i.e. the marsh fields towards west, north and east. However, the estimated land area of the watershed is 4,504 ha based on the aerial photographs taken in 1991 (Oli, 1996). The watershed area comprises of former Begnas VDC, Majthana VDC, ward 1-5 of Kalika VDC and wards 8,9,10 and 11 of former Lekhnath Municipality; Begnas Lake entirely being located in former Lekhnath Municipality. After the recent reclassification of local administrative units by government, most parts of watershed area lie in wards 28, 30 and 31 of 10 Pokhara-Lekhnath Municipality. Figure 1.1 Geographical location of the study site (Source: Adopted from Li-Bird, 2016) 11 1.6.2 Climate and soil Marked by monsoon rainfall during May to September, the climate of Begnas Lake can roughly be termed as sub-tropical and humid. With varying micro climatic condition depending upon orientation, slopes and location, the climate of watershed area can be classified into upper-tropical and lower sub-tropical zones. Summer is generally mind hot and winters are tolerably cold. The seasonal cycle of temperature is cool-warm to hot-warm with peak temperature in July and August 35.5°C but falling to just 13.2°C in January (Shrestha, 2016). The annual rainfall is 3,710 mm with peak monthly rainfall in July (886 mm) and lowest in November and December (13mm). Evapotranspiration is lowest in December (53 mm) and highest in May with an average of 171mm (Oli, 1996). Pre monsoon periods are hot and dry accompanied by hailstorms sometimes. Regarding the geology of the area, this area is primarily comprised of slate and phyllite zone with beds of calcareous conglomerate and gravel deposits. The prominent type of soil in this area is clay loam and medium-textured alluvial silt (Parajuli, 2011). 1.6.3 Vegetation Begnas as an important mid hill lake hosts a wide variety of floral diversity. The diversity in vegetation in Begnas watershed ranges from lower sub-tropical forests in the higher elevation (1000-1500m) to upper tropical vegetation in the lower elevations (500-1000m). Castenopsis indica and Schima wallichii are the predominant species of the area and other species include Engel hardtiaspicata, Syzygium cumini, Myrica esculenta, Dyospyros, Dioscorea, Indigofera, Pteris and Rhus javanica. Lower altitudes are dominated by sub-tropical forests like hill Sal (Shorea robusta) forest with chilaune-katus (Schima wallichii – Castanopsis indica) forest dominating between 1,000 m and 1,700 m. Mainly lower temperate broadleaved forests with Pinus roxburghii up to 2000 m and Pinus wallichiana at the higher elevations represents the floral diversity of the watershed (Bhatta, 2011). Most of the forests of the watershed are converted into community forest and are conserved by the local people. Plantation forest covering small patches of land include Sissoo and Khair (Dalbergia sissoo and Acacia catechu). Begnas watershed is habitat to various endangered, vulnerable, rare and threatened species of plants like Harro, Barro, Bhate Unyu, Bhyakur, Champ, Kamal, Wild rice etc. Various plant communities with scientific value have been recorded in the watershed area namely: Azola imricata (Floating fern), Cyathea spinulosa (Bhate nigro), Mangifera indica (wild mangoes) etc. (Oli, 1996). Begnas Lake is also home to White Lotus which has 12 medicinal value. 166 plants with medicinal value have been recorded from Begnas area (LIBIRD, 2016). There are unidentified filamentous algae along the shallow parts of the lake that make the lake suitable habitat for aquatic fauna (NLCDC, 2010). 1.6.4 Fauna Wetlands are the major habitats of wildlife. Forest, shrubland, rice fields, marshland and lake is the major habitat of diverse fauna species in the watershed. Six species of amphibians have been recorded from Begnas and Rupa Lake area (Rupa lake is nearby Begnas and scientific study often incorporate Begnas and Rupa as common study unit) namely Bufo melanostricutus, Bufo andersoni, Rana limnochoris, Rana pipens, Rana Swami and Rana tigrina. Fourteen species of reptiles from five reptile families have been recorded in the lake area including Agma tuberculata (cheparo), Amphisesma stolta (Thukre), Pytas mucosus (Dhaman), Elaphae hodsoni (Karait) etc. Moreover, 34 species of mammals from 17 families have been recorded in the Begnas-Rupa area. Common species of mammals in the watershed includes Jackal, Leopard, Indian fox, Barking deer, Porcupine, Salak, Bat, Squirrel etc. Begnas Lake hosts a wide variety of threatened birds. 104 species of birds are recorded in Begnas-Rupa area of which 85 species are common to both the areas of which 90 species are endemic and 14 are migratory birds (Oli, 1996). 174 species of butterflies representing nine families have been identified common to Begnas-Rupa watershed area (Smith et. al, 2017). 1.6.5 Aquatic flora and fauna The biodiversity of lake includes 22 native and 7 exotic fish species and wide ranging aquatic plants and algae. Acrossocheilus hexagonolepis (Katle), Barilius barna (Phageta), Barbus sp. (Sera bhitte), Chagunius chagunio (Rewa), Catla catla (Bhyakur), Labeo rohita (Rahu), Garra annadelei (Buduna), Cyprinus carpio (Common carp), Puntius ticto (Bhitte) are the major species of fish found in Begnas Lake. There are unidentified filamentous algae along the shallow parts of the lake that make the lake suitable habitat for aquatic fauna (NLCDC, 2010). Different types of water bird like Jogi ducks, Phalacrocorax carbo, Grus antigone, Tadorna ferruginea, Motacilla cinerea, Ardea cinerea, Amaurornis phoenicurus, Egretta garzetta etc. are found in the lake. Furthermore, cage and enclosed fisheries is practiced in various areas nearby to the lake. The basic exotic species introduced in lake and enclosed fisheries in the area are Common carp, Silver carp, Bighead carp, Grass carp etc. Various species of zooplankton and Phytoplankton have also been recorded in Begnas Lake. Different type of the lotus like white, blue, and red are found in the lake and are being 13 endangered. Various types of hydrilla and water hyacinth are found in the lake and lake shores. Other species of aquatic fauna includes frogs, crabs, toads and snakes. 1.6.6 Land use practices Various factors like slope, productivity, irrigation, soil type etc. determine the local land use practices in Begnas Lake Watershed. Increasing urbanization and growing population due to natural population rise and migration towards the downstream areas are creating pressure to change the land use practices towards agricultural land and built infrastructures. Cultivated land represents the most used land use practice in the watershed area followed by forests. Most of the forest areas have been converted into community forests and have been managed by local people. Table 1.1 Land use pattern in Begnas basin S.No. Land use type Area in ha Upper watershed Valley floor Total of Begnas Basin 1 Cultivated land 935.51 1353.15 2288.66 2 Forests 524.99 112.74 637.73 3 Bushes 31.94 5.04 36.90 4 Grassland 17.43 19.02 36.45 5 River Cliff 15.03 15.03 6 River Bed 5.97 45.47 51.44 Water Bodies 322.63 17.33 339.96 Total 1838.47 1567.78 3406.25 (Sand) 7 (Source: Parajuli, 2011) About 51% of upper watershed area is used for cultivation whereas about 86% of downstream land area is used for cultivation purpose with only 9% of total land as forest area. 14 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Review of theoretical literature 2.1.1 Definitions 2.1.1.1 Ecosystem The term ―ecosystem‖ was introduced by Roy Clapham in 1931 to describe both physical and biological factors of an environment closely interrelated and functioning as a unit (Willis, 1997). Similarly, Arthur George Tansley (1935), a botanist and pioneer in the science of ecology, used the term ecosystem extensively as the interactive system between biocoenosis (a group of living creatures) and their biotopes (the environment in which they live). "Ecosystem" means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit (Convention on the Biological Diversity, 1992, p-3). Oxford Dictionary (2016) defines ecosystem as a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment. An ecosystem consists of the living community that occurs in some locale, and the physical and chemical factors that make up its non-living or abiotic environment. 2.1.1.2 Ecosystem services Ecosystem goods (such as food) and services (such as waste assimilation) represent the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions (Costanza et. al., 1997). Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans receive from the nature, such as clean water, food, fiber, wood, timber, medicinal herbs, leaf-litters, bush meat, groundwater recharge, flood mitigation and climate regulation. Ecosystem services and human well-being are obviously linked together being mediated by socio-economic factors (MEA, 2005). 15 Almost all the literatures perceive the term ecosystem services from anthropocentric approach. Ecosystem services are the outcomes of ecosystem processes which are beneficial to human beings for their wellbeing and prosperity. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2012, para. 1) defines ecosystem services as ―the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living. Examples of ecosystem services include products such as food and water, regulation of floods, soil erosion and disease outbreaks, and non-material benefits such as recreational and spiritual benefits in natural areas. The term ‗services‘ is usually used to encompass the tangible and intangible benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems, which are sometimes separated into ‗goods‘ and ‗services‘.‖ 2.1.1.3 Types of Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services have been categorized in number of ways by various people in different times though the idea of ‗ecosystem services‘ got prominent since last decade.  Descriptive groupings, such as renewable resource goods, nonrenewable resource goods, physical structure services, biotic services, biogeochemical services, information services, and social and cultural services (Moberg & Folke, 1999).  Organizational groupings, such as services that are associated with certain species, that regulate some exogenous input, or that are related to the organization of biotic entities (Norberg, 1999); and  Functional groupings, such as regulation, carrier, habitat, production, and information services (de Groot et. al. 2002). But the framework provided by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) has been widely accepted used for classification globally. The four stated categories are provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services. 16 Table 2.1 Types of ecosystem services Provisioning Services (products Regulating obtained services from ecosystems) (the Supporting Cultural services services (The non-material benefits (Ecosystem services benefits people obtained from the that are necessary obtain regulation from of for the production of ecosystems) ecosystem all other ecosystem) processes) Food Climate regulate Soil formation Recreation and tourism Fiber, timber, fodder Hazard regulation Nutrient cycling Aesthetic experience Freshwater Noise regulation Primary production Cultural heritage Genetic resources Pollination Habitat Spiritual and religious enrichment Biochemical & regulation of water, Water cycling Pharmaceuticals air and soil quality Ornamental resources Diseases and pests regulation (Adopted from UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2012) 2.1.1.4 Valuation of ecosystem services Ecosystem values are tentative measures of importance of ecosystem services to people and their worth. Ecosystem Valuation incorporates non-technical consideration of the economic theory of benefit estimation and based on valuation methods and practical considerations for applying them (King & Mazotta, 2000). One motivation for ecological valuation is to fill in missing prices, so that nature‘s value is seen and appreciated on an equal footing with market commodities (Boyd, 2012). Valuing ecosystem services serves a number of purposes. Valuing the benefits in terms of present and future from the natural environment illustrates its significant contribution to wellbeing and illustrates how human beings are depended on natural ecosystems for their needs fulfillment. In one sense, the natural environment is of 17 infinite value since it underpins and supports all human activity. However, for policymaking, the more relevant application of valuation is to measure marginal changes in the environment (DEFRA, 2007). According to a study of Kumar (2005) on mountain ecosystems of Nepal, economic valuation of ecosystem services not only demonstrates the importance and value of mountain ecosystems, but also provides insights about the gains and losses faced by different stakeholders directly or indirectly due to ecosystem degradation and subsequent loss of these services. In this context, in one hand valuation can rewards to the efforts of conservation in Nepal or elsewhere. 2.1.1.5 Payment for ecosystem services A definition for PES that has become fairly well accepted has been put forward by Sven Wunder, in which he explains, ―A payment for environmental services scheme is a voluntary transaction in which a well-defined environmental service (ES), or a form of land use likely to secure that service is bought by at least one ES buyer from a minimum of one ES provider if and only if the provider continues to supply that service (conditionality)‖. (Wunder, 2005, p-3 ). According to Wunder (2005), PES scheme should have at-least five following basic components or elements, which includes:   a voluntary transaction;  service;  at least one provider or seller of services; and  a well-defined ecosystem service or land use option likely to secure that at least one buyer of services; if and only if, the service provider secures service provision as a conditionality. In general, PES can be treated as an umbrella term that is used to denote all forms of economic incentives paid in use of certain ecosystem services and intended on nature conservation. DAFRA (2013, p-13) defines PES as ―schemes in which the beneficiaries, or 18 users, of ecosystem services provide payment to the stewards, or providers, of ecosystem services.‖ In practice, PES often involves a series of payments to land or other natural resource managers in return for a guaranteed flow of ecosystem services (or, more commonly, for management actions likely to enhance their provision) over-and-above what would otherwise be provided in the absence of payment. Payments are made by the beneficiaries of the services in question, for example, individuals, communities, businesses or government acting on behalf of various parties. According to the OECD (2010), there were already more than 300 PES or PES-like programmes in place around the world by 2010 at national, regional and local levels. 2.1.2 Context of valuation of ecosystem services A motivation for ecological valuation is that economic value of ecosystem services isn‘t easily manifested. As ecosystem goods and services tend to be shared as public goods and are not bought and sold, their value can‘t be viewed through market transactions (Boyd, 2011). Furthermore, the more deterioration of environment and ecosystems is due to unawareness among people about its worth. It has often been argued that a major reason for our failure to conserve natural ecosystems is the underestimation of their actual importance. For instance a farmer trying to clear a patch of forest for agricultural purpose may only pay attention on advantage of crop production but may not value ecosystem services that demolishes after forest destruction. World Bank describes the importance of economic valuation of ES as ―National ministers of finance often base their budget decisions solely on the basis of indicators such as GDP, foreign exchange balances, and tax receipts, in which ecosystems services either do not appear or are not recognized as such—indeed, perversely, GDP often identifies activities that destroy ecosystems as ‗benefits‘. Not surprisingly, conservation budgets tend to get slighted‖ (World Bank, 2004, p.2). Valuation of ecosystem services can also be an effective initiative to create a market and get rewards for various conservation efforts. Valuation also helps in deciding between different policy options, in identifying more efficient and cost effective alternatives, and in designing appropriate institutional and market (and non-market) instruments, including PES. While valuation is a necessary first step, it is usually not sufficient in and of itself. For example, to 19 make PES operational, it will also be necessary to mount a concerted effort in which clear roles are defined for multiple stakeholders and well-defined mechanisms are put in place to facilitate and negotiate transactions and decision making (Huang & Upadhyaya, 2007; UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2010). The important role of economic valuation of ecosystem services can be reviewed in decision makings. Evaluating the cost and benefit of environmental and developmental agendas, it fosters to take initiative in favor of nature conservation. Valuation will play an important role in decision making and prioritization in resource allocation, distribution, and management. In many countries, investment decisions on public goods and utilities such as dams, roads, and others often ignore the possible impacts (and real financial implications) that these activities have for the environment and for livelihoods (Bateman et al., 2010). The underlying case for the valuation of ecosystem services is that it will contribute towards better decision-making, ensuring that policy appraisals fully take into account the costs and benefits to the natural environment (DEFRA, 2007). Adhikary et. al. (1998) giving their notes on ―economic assessment of protected areas: guidelines for their assessment‖ has emphasized on market-based instruments for environmental management and described on its application potential in Nepal. 2.1.3 Types and methods for valuation 2.1.3.1 Types of value In environmental philosophy, there are three approaches of assigning values ecocentric, biocentric, or anthropocentric. In an ecocentric viewpoint, ecosystem processes have intrinsic value while individual species have instrumental value. Biocenticss believe that animals and plant have intrinsic value while non-living nature has the instrumental value. With anthropocentrism, only humans have intrinsic value, while everything else (i.e. nature) has instrumental value (Meffe & Carroll, 1997). The economic approach to ecosystems is one of anthropocentric instrumentalism. Economists divide values into two main categories: use and non-use. Use values are derived from physical involvement with some aspect of an ecosystem. One type of use value is direct, such as logging, fishing, recreation, and tourism, while another is indirect. Direct use 20 is further divided into consumptive (logging, fishing) and non-consumptive (recreation, tourism) values. There are also indirect use values, which arise from supporting humans or what humans directly use. Regulation and habitat functions, such as flood control, climate regulation, and waste assimilation would fall into this category (Adamowicz, 1991; Edwards & Abivardi, 1998). Non-use values do not involve physical interaction. This includes existence, bequest, and option values. Existence value (sometimes called passive use) is derived from the satisfaction of knowing that a certain species or ecosystem exists, even if it will never be seen or used. Bequest value is satisfaction from being able to pass on environmental benefits to future generations (Adamowicz, 1991; Edwards & Abivardi, 1998). Option value pertains to the possible use of a resource in the future. This has to do with uncertainty and risk-aversion. An example is the preservation of tropical rainforests because we may be able to find new medicines (Adamowicz, 1991; Brown et al. 1993; Edwards & Abivardi, 1998; Goulder & Kennedy, 1997). 2.1.3.2 Methods of valuation Many of the values described above are abstract and subjective. Economic theory is based on the premise that individuals have preferences for different market and non-market goods. The trade-offs made during substitution reveal something about the values held for each good. Measurements of these values are expressed as either willingness to pay, the maximum amount a person would be willing to pay for an increment of a good, or willingness to accept, the minimum amount a person would require as compensation for the loss of an increment of a good (Freeman, 2003). The valuation methods tend to fall into one of two types: revealed preference and stated preference methods (Boxall et. al., 1996). The revealed preference method uses information about a marketed commodity to infer the value of a related, non-marketed commodity through a complementary (surrogate or proxy) market. In this case, they use surrogate markets for ecosystem services to estimate monetary value based on indirect use values. An example of a revealed preference approach would be the measurement of the economic value of noise nuisance as reflected in house prices: houses in noisy areas are likely to be cheaper than comparable houses in quieter but otherwise similar areas. Inferred values are calculated from data on behavioral changes in genuine 21 markets using the actual purchase and consumption of marketed goods and services that are variously related to the items for which there is no market. The most common techniques for assessing revealed preferences are replacement costs (the cost of replacing a service with a human-made system); changes in productivity; costs of illness; avoided costs (costs that would be incurred if the service were absent); hedonic prices and estimates of the value of non-market goods and services determined by observing behaviour in the market for related goods and services (e.g. change in the value of real estate with a change in environmental attributes); and travel cost methods (de Groot et. al. 2002, Paccagnan, 2007). Stated preference methods are based on hypothetical constructed markets, i.e. they ask people what economic value they attach to a particular environmental attribute. In other words, the economic value is revealed through a hypothetical or constructed market based on a survey. Stated preference methods estimate the monetary value of ecosystem services by asking how much money people would be willing to pay for a particular service or how much they would be willing to accept as compensation if the service were to be eliminated (Boxall et al. 1996; Birol et al. 2006). The two primary types of stated preference methods are the contingent valuation method (CVM) and conjoint analysis. The CVM is useful for estimating the value of goods and services that have neither explicit nor implicit prices and is the most commonly used of the two options. Conjoint analysis is conceptually similar to CVM, but it asks respondents to rank alternatives rather than to make direct statements relating to value (Arifin et. al., 2009). The common types of valuation methods in practice are: a. Market price Method: This method of valuation is extensively used to infer economic values to environmental goods or services that are commercially traded in market. It measures the use value of resources based on consumer surplus and producer surplus based on market price and quantity. The total net economic benefit is sum of consumer surplus and producer surplus. It value changes in quantity and quality of goods and services. It is commonly used method. b. Productivity Method: Productivity method is generally used to determine the economic value of goods or services that contribute to the production of commercially marketed goods. This method is also known as net factor income or derived value 22 method as value is derived as the input for production of final goods. For instance economic value of improved water quality of irrigation could be measured from increased revenue from greater crop productivity. c. Hedonic Pricing Method: It is generally used to estimate the economic values of goods or services that directly affect the market prices. This method is generally used to value various environmental characteristics or amenities that impact the price of residential lands and buildings. Furthermore, it is also used to estimate the economic cost associated with environmental quality including air quality, water quality or noise as well as other environmental amenities like aesthetic views or proximity to recreational sites. d. Travel Cost Method: This is the most common valuation method widely used to estimate economic use values of ecosystem services or sites that are generally used for recreational purposes. The basic concept of this method is the travel and time cost of people to access a recreational site gives the price of access to the site. TCM is generally used to estimate economic benefits or costs resulting from changes in access costs or elimination of certain recreation site, addition of new recreational site or changes in environmental quality of the recreational site. e. Damage Cost Avoided, Replacement Cost, and Substitute Cost Methods: These methods of economic valuation of ecosystem services based on either the costs of avoiding damages due to lost services, the cost of replacing ecosystem services, or the cost of providing substitute services. However, these methods do not provide strict measure of economic values based on WTP. These methods assume that the costs of avoiding damages or replacing ecosystems or their services provide useful estimates of the value of these ecosystems or services. Hence this method assumes that if people incur costs to avoid certain damage, replace certain service or use another substitute, then the worth of those services must be atleast what people paid to replace them. f. Contingent valuation method: This method of valuation can be used to estimate economic values of any type of ecosystem services i.e. use and non-use values. However, this is extensively used to measure non-use values. This is a survey based 23 methods and follows directly asking people how much they would like to pay for certain environmental service or how much they want as compensation for the loss of certain service. It is based on peoples‘ willingness to pay for certain environmental service and generally classifies as stated preference method. It is only method to estimate the value of environmental services that do not involve market purchases and may not involve direct participation. However, this is most controversial of all methods. g. Contingent choice method: This method can also be used to estimate value of virtually any type of ecosystem services. It is a hypothetical method which asks people to make choices based on hypothetical scenarios. The contingent choice method asks the respondent to state a preference between one group of environmental services or characteristics, at a given price or cost to the individual, and another group of environmental characteristics at a different price or cost. It is generally suited to policy decisions where a set of possible actions might results on different impacts on environmental services as it focus on trade-offs among scenarios with different characteristics. h. Benefit transfer method: It is the simplest of all methods. In this method the economic values of ecosystem services are simply transferred from available information or studies already conduced in another place or context. Basically, benefits are estimated from one context by estimate of benefits from other similar contexts. Benefit transfer method is generally used when there is a budget or time constraint to conduct valuation of certain ecosystem services as it is most inexpensive method of all. In a guidelines published by Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation of Nepal, entitled ‗An economic valuation tool for wetlands of Nepal‘, it provides four key steps in estimating economic value of ecosystem services of wetlands.   Defining the service  Identifying the final benefit and quantifying in physical terms  Describing the role of wetland for the provision of service Monetizing the benefits 24 It suggests for the use of Market Price approaches for the calculation of use values to estimate proxy (welfare) values. It also states that Benefit Transfer Method could be applicable for all types and ecosystem services. Similarly, Economic Impact Assessment can also be carried out for direct use values based on evidence on expenditure, income and employment related to ecosystem services (CSUWN, 2011). 2.1.4 Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystem services Economic valuation of ecosystem services is only possible when we have good knowledge and understanding of ecosystem services, but it is often very hard to know what ecosystem functions are required to maintain those services and to understand how human activities changes those provision of ecosystem services (Bingham et. al., 1995). This lack of information often causes values to be underestimated (Daily, 1997b). Moreover, finding a total value of all services in an area is not as simple as valuing each category and adding them up (Daily, 1997b). Added, the geographical and temporal specificity of any service valuation limits extrapolation of current, local values beyond local or bioregional scales and for all times (Daily, 1997b; Turner et. al., 1998). Another issue is with willingness to pay. Since willingness to pay directly depends on income and individual financial condition, poor people will possess lower WTP thereby affecting the total value (Bakker & Matsuno, 2001). Discounting is a standard practice but is often problematic with environmental issues in analyzing present worth of future benefits. The problem is that many people believe that the sustainable use of ecosystem services leads to perpetuity and it‘s not rational to view these services as man made products that lose value quickly. Discounting often doesn‘t consider future generations and may risk the provision of fundamental resources in future. Also, as ecosystems cannot be replaced like man-made products, ecosystems should not be discounted like man-made products (de Groot, 1992; Gowdy, 2001). Many people view ES are priceless and valuation of these services is an attempt to price the priceless. Using money as a standard to measure the value of services is not fair too (de Groot, 1992). Morever, it is diffilcult to conduct monetary valuation for aesthetic or spiritual services. Hence, ‗priceless experiences‘ should be counted without dragging these stuffs 25 into decision making processes without monetary valuation (de Groot, 1992 as in Hawkins 2003). The concept economic value of an ecosystem services remains just an estimate rather than active value because of various discussed ambiguities. 2.1.5 Theoretical background of PES In the Nobel Prize winning work, The problem of social cost, Ronald Coase in 1960 theorizes that negative externalities, such as environmental degradation, can be alleviated through the powers of markets and posits that externalities become a problem with lack of property rights. The Coase Theorem, as it has become to be known, states ―if private property rights are clearly defined by enforceable contracts, then generators and recipients of externalities can, through voluntary exchange, reach an agreement that maximizes human welfare‖ (Coase, 1960, p. 3). PES Schemes are centered on these aspects of Coasean economics. Coinciding with the Coase theorem, Garrett Hardin‘s 1968 article ‗The Tragedy of the Commons‘, featured in Science, elaborates the problems associated with public ownership of resources. Hardin concedes that human exploitation creates situations where publicly owned resources degrade from over use or exploitation (Hardin, 1968). Like Coase, Hardin prescribes establishing well-defined, enforceable and preferably private property rights are necessary for conservation of environmental resources. With property rights, private right holders can decide whether to use a resource and exclude others or transfer their resource rights to other parties and profit economically, creating a win-win situation for both the environment and the economy (Kosoy & Corbera, 2010). Constanza et al. in their pioneering work ‗The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital‘, released in 1997 in the reputable science journal Nature estimating the value of services by ecosystems worldwide, found it to be between US sixteen trillion dollars to fifty-four trillion dollars, with an average of thirty-three trillion dollars. Gross global national product was around eighteen trillion US dollars in 1997, showing the stark reality that world economic vitality relies heavily on unpriced ecosystem services. Though various people questioned their research; one thing is certain: their report represented a catalyst for payment of ecosystem services markets and payment schemes. Recently MEA (2005) worked within ecosystem services framework and studied how the ecosystem services were declining. Also noted were effects on developing countries and their abilities to pursue economic interests 26 due to undervaluing of their ecosystem services (MEA, 2005). Coase, Hardin, Constanza, and the MEA set groundwork for inception and promotion of PES as an environmental governance option, with programs developing at an exponential pace. It is also noticeable that Paying for ecosystem services concept in the United States dates began with the Soil Conservation Act, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 27, 1935 in response to the great Dust Bowl. Farmers were paid subsidies to change their land use practices such as planting native grasses or implementing less intensive farming practices to reduce erosion. 2.1.6 Policy, legislation and institutional provisions for PES There is no specific policy or legislation in Nepal to address institutionalization of PES. However, National Development Periodic Plan identified PES as one of the potential market based instruments for generating conservation finance. The Three Year Plan (2010/11- 2012/13) and the Thirteenth Plan Approach Paper (2012/13-2013/14) have given high importance to conservation finance through the selling of ecosystem services such as tourism, carbon and water resources. In addition to this, MFSC has formulated a guideline which has provisioned 10% of royalty fee from hydropower inside protected areas to be invested in conservation of environment and local community development. However, these are not the true PES mechanisms and to far extent, are not fully practiced. These legislations are not fully clear and lack interest and commitment from stakeholders to amend and formulate new policies for institutionalization of PES mechanisms. Also, MFSC has established a fund from sale of forest products from national and private forests known as Forest Sector Development Fund (IUCN, 2013). There are few environmental related legislation such as the Forest Act (1993), Water Resources Act (1992), National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973), Environment Protection Act (1996) and, Soil and Watershed Conservation Act (1982) among others which directly do not address any PES related issues but are rather based on Polluter pays principle. Some of the related policies and legislations in Nepal are: 27 Table 2.2 Policies and legislations relating to PES in Nepal Year 1996 Policy/strategy Buffer Related provision Related case Zone It facilitates public participation in the Shivapuri- Management conservation, design and management of Nagarjun Regulation, 1996 buffer zones and provides guidelines to National manage 30–50% of park generated revenue Park, with the communities in the buffer zone Kathmandu District 1992 Electricity Act, It has stated that during the construction and Kulekhani 1992 operation of hydropower station, hydropower, environment and watershed areas should be Makwanpur protected. This Act provisions that 10% of District the total revenue generated by hydropower needs to be ploughed back to the concerned district developments 1993 Forest Act, 1993 The Forest Act, 1993, accounts for all forest Haldekhal values, including environmental services and irrigation, biodiversity, as well as production of timber Kanchanpur and other products. The Act empowers local District people for their participation in decisionmaking and sharing of benefits in terms of forest resources. 1999 Local Self It provides immense autonomy to the District Shardu Khola Governance Act, Development 1999 Committees (DDCs), watershed municipalities and Village Development management. Committees (VDCs). Section 55 empowers VDC to levy taxes on utilization of natural Conserving resources. Similarly, Section 189 sanctions Rupa the DDC for formulation of and Kaski implementation of plans for conservation and District utilization of forest, vegetation, biological diversity and soil 2000 Revised Forestry It introduced a new concept in managing the Mohana 28 Lake, Year Policy/strategy Sector Policy Related provision Related case forests of the Terai, Churia and inner Terai Kailali named collaborative forest management corridor (CFM). Fifty percent of the income from CFM will be provided to local communities and local governments. 2007 National Plan 2009 Water This support Churia conservation program Central Terai (2007– for ecological services down to Terai PES 2027) irrigation Tourism Policy It states that certain proportion of income Shivapurifrom village tourism will be utilized in Nagarjun tourism infrastructure development and National environmental conservation. Park, Kathmandu District 2009 Working Policy It highlights that 10% of the government Incentivizing on Construction royalty earned from electricity generated buffer zone and Operation of thereof shall be deposited by the hydropower communities Development Projects owner to the concerned protected area for in environmental conservation and community Protected Areas 2010 development. Three Years It provisions that 35% of the income of Overall Interim Plan‘s community based resource management development Approach Paper models will be returned back to local policy (2010–2012) communities for their livelihood. It states that a trust fund will be created from private contribution to be used for the development of forest-based enterprises. (Adopted from Bhatta et. al., 2014) 29 2.1.7 Structural and Practical concerns of PES 2.1.7.1 Economic concerns Major structural economic concerns include the basic concepts of trade-off, leakage, nonexcludability and property rights, stock and flow properties of ecosystem services. Opportunity cost remains the major concern here, economic trade-offs speak the concept of opportunity costs. Many researchers are worried about payments or incentives offered to sellers do not compensate adequately to offset gains from other management practices, consequently not covering other opportunity costs of other land use actions (Alpizar, Blackman & Pfaff, 2007). PES schemes may not compete efficiently with opportunity costs. The concept of leakage posits destructive environmental practices alleviated by PES programs in one area will simply resume in unregulated areas, making net environmental gains nullified (Houdet, Trommetter & Weber, 2012). PES programs prioritize environmental outcomes, specifically at levels of operations or holdings, and leakage occurs when environmentally damaging practices are merely displaced, not reduced (Wunder, Engel, & Pagiola, 2008). 2.1.7.2 Political concerns As PES schemes operate in collaboration with multiple stakeholders who have diversified background and goals make the establishment of unified mission difficult. Primary issues include reaching consensus, building trust, representation of all stakeholders involved, and achieving solutions which rectify original goals and missions (Chaffin et. al., 2012). Many authors concede including multiple goals for PES programs, such as combining social and economic agendas, ultimately degrades environmental missions (Pagiola & Platais, 2007). Policies implemented to solve multiple goals can often lose sight of their original intentions (McGrory et. al., 2008). 30 2.2 Review of Empirical Literature 2.2.1 Review of empirical literature outside Nepal Since the last two decades or so, especially after MEA various INGOs, NGOs, government agencies, independent researches and academicians are working to document ecosystem services of various types of ecosystem, estimate economic value, design appropriate PES Scheme and implement it. The study conducted by Haefele et. al. (2016) in US presents the first-ever comprehensive estimate of the total economic value of the National Parks Service (NPS). The estimate covers administered lands, waters, and historic sites as well as NPS programs like protection of natural landmarks and historic sites, partnerships with local communities, recreational activities and educational programs. Estimate of the total economic value to the American public is $92 billion. Two-thirds of this total ($62 billion) is for National Park lands, waters and historic sites; the remaining $30 billion is attributed to NPS Programs (Haefele et. al, 2016). They used choice experiment method for valuing different dimensions of the National Park System. Attempts have been made to estimate the value of wetland product and services in Uganda. Kakaru et. al. (2013) in their study entitled Total Economic Value of Wetlands Products and Services in Uganda, determined the economic value of wetland resources and their contribution to food security in the three agroecological zones of Uganda. The values of wetland resources were estimated using primary and secondary data. Market price, Productivity, and Contingent valuation methods were used to estimate the value of wetland resources. The per capita value of fish was approximately US$ 0.49 person−1. Fish spawning was valued at approximately US$ 363,815 year−1, livestock pastures at US$ 4.24 million, domestic water use at US$ 34 million year−1, and the gross annual value added by wetlands to milk production at US$ 1.22 million. Flood control was valued at approximately US$ 1,702,934,880 hectare−1 year−1 and water regulation and recharge at US$ 7,056,360 hectare−1 year−1. Through provision of grass for mulching, wetlands were estimated to contribute to US$ 8.65 million annually. The annual contribution of non-use values was estimated in the range of US$ 7.1 million for water recharge and regulation and to US$ 1.7 billion for flood control. Thus, resource investment for wetlands conservation is economically justified to create incentives for continued benefits. (Kakaru et. al., 2013) The economic value of wetlands worldwide is estimated at US$3.4 billion per year, from the economic assessment of 63 million hectares of wetlands. The highest benefits are obtained 31 from wetlands in Asia with an economic value of US$1.8 billion per year (Brander & Schuyt, 2010). Adekola et. al. (2006) conducted the economic and livelihood value of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland in South Africa. The main provisioning services valued in the study were the collection of edible plants, crop production, livestock grazing, fishing, hunting, fuel-wood, reeds and sedge collection. In this study, the Market price method was applied. The value of Ga-Mampa was estimated at an annual net financial value of $211 per household which was found to exceed its annual cash income of $35 per household. The 2005, IUCN Integrated report on the Institutional and legal requirements for acceding and Implementing the Ramsar Convention, and associated costs and benefits in Laos, reviewed the total economic value of wetlands in the Lao PDR is at US$945,000 per ha/year while the average economic value of the world‘s wetlands has been estimated as US$2,393/ha/year. It was indicated in this report that, by applying the global average economic value of wetlands, the total economic value of wetlands in the Lao PDR is estimated at US$ 2.3 billion per year (IUCN, 2005). It was pointed out that the estimate were crude and based on a range of assumptions, but it serves to illustrate the fact that wetland ecosystems in the Lao PDR are valuable and deliver many services to people (IUCN, 2005). In another study, economic benefits that New Jersey derives from the Hopatcong Lake and the park were estimated total between $8.4 million and $13.6 million annually and have a present value of between $280 million and $455 million (based on an annual discount rate of 3% in perpetuity). In addition to the monetary benefits, these sites support an estimated 87 jobs (excluding temporary construction jobs and part-time or seasonal jobs). The values cited in this report are all expressed in 2007 dollars. The Lake and the adjacent Hopatcong State Park provide at least $1.2-1.3 million/year in recreational benefits to visitors; the additional benefits attributable to near-by residents were not estimated due to a lack of necessary data (Bureau of Nature Resources Science, 2008). They used present and annual value approach to calculate economic values of various identified use and non-use values. The study entitled ‗Economic Valuation of Bhoj Wetland for Sustainable Use‘ in Bhopal city of Central India carried out in 2001 included economic estimates on various uses of the wetland. Methodology for valuation of the uses, comprised of the following techniques: 1. Direct Valuation 2. Cost of Illness Approach and Defensive or Preventive Costs 3. 32 Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) 4. Hedonic Pricing. Their finding estimated the total recreational value of Rs. 4,84,68,956 in the form of voluntary payments (Verma et. al., 2001). The study carried out by Luke A. Colavito in Hail Haor Wetland in Moulvibazar district of Bangladesh estimated the economic value of Hail Haor wetland. The annual economic output value estimated for Hail Haor is Tk 454 million (USD 8 million). The net present value of this benefit stream over 15 years is Tk 4.7 billion (USD 83 million). The estimate for recreation value was estimated to be Tk 7,025,634 (Colavito, 2001). 2.2.2 Review of empirical literature within Nepal Nepal has a very recent history of PES implementation. PES piloting first started nearly a decade ago (2006) by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Nepal at Shivapuri National Park focusing on investigating delivery of ecosystem economic benefits for upland livelihoods and downstream water resources. In 2004, study was carried out to estimate the economic value of Central zoo of Nepal. Focusing on finding out the linkages between the visitor‘s willingness to pay and the services provided by the zoo, the methodology adopted consisted of activities in the following premises: Information collection, Hypothesis setting, Data analysis, conclusion and recommendation. Considering the total travel cost; Shadow pricing of time spent during the zoo visit, other expenses during zoo visit and entry fee, the per capita Economic value of the zoo was found to be NRs. 226.286 i.e. US$ 3.15. (1 US Dollar = NRs. 71.74, as of December 12, 2004) (Mahat, 2004). Another study was conducted in Baghmara Buffer Zone Community Forest of Chitwan National Park (CNP) in September 2010 by KC et. al . The researchers followed contingent valuation method, a form of ―Stated Preference Method‖ to identify: i) willingness to pay and ii) quantify and convert services into the monitory value followed by a two-fold survey; one with the users and another with the visitors. The projected average willingness to pay by all users for recreational and aesthetic services was NRs. 33,347 (about US$ 460) per year. The total WTP for the sustainable management and conservation of BBZCF by users was calculated US$ 459 per HH per year. The study revealed that the local respondents were willing to pay for the sustainable use, management and conservation of the BBZCF. 33 Furthermore, it recommends the buffer zone community forest user committee should emphasize to distribute the benefits among all users equitably (KC et. al., 2013). In a similar research conducted by Chand (2010) in Ghodhaghodi wetland of Far-western Nepal, the maximum WTP for sustainable use and management was US$ 31,453 per year. Another study done in Jagdispur Ramsar Site, total economic value (TEV) of reservoir is estimated as NRs 94.5 million. Among different values, future use value (option or existence value) contributes more than half of the value of the reservoir followed by the direct use value (wetland goods and recreation) and non-use value (carbon, biodiversity and water use). High nonuse option value shows the importance of the reservoir conservation and protecting for the future needs. Total economic value of the wetland was divided by the total households benefiting from reservoir (17,390 households) to compute value of wetland for each household while value was divided by area of the reservoir (18,506 ha) to compute value by unit area ha. The total value of wetlands for each HH is NRs 5439 while it is NRs 4825/ha in terms of area. The study adopted a total economic valuation approach for identifying array of values that are attributed to JRRS. TEV is a well-established and useful framework for identifying the various values associated with protected areas (Baral, 2006). In another work of Rai et. al. (2016) entitled ‗Designing a Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme for the Sardukhola Watershed in Nepal‘ designed the scheme of water supply to Dharan Municipality linking with upstream communities. The study used discrete choice experiment to understand the demand. The study proposes three local institution; Dharan Drinking water Board, Sardu watershed protection Committee and Sardu upstream Committee could work together to implement a PES based fund. The proposed Water Board in Sardukhola could act as a service buyer where the Sardu Upstream Committee would be the supplier of watershed services. The proposed Sardu Watershed Protection Committee, with representatives from upstream community and water users as well as line agencies would be responsible for watershed management, funds management and distribution to the Upstream Committee and monitoring (Rai et. al., 2016). 34 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Criteria for selection of study site The idea of economic valuation of ecosystem services and PES are relatively new in context of Nepal. And it is accepted that wetlands are the most productive ecosystems; so potential wetlands were enlisted for the study. In this context, Begnas Lake is an important mid hill lake of Nepal and is easily accessible from Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal. It is located in Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan city, one of fast grpwing urban centre of Nepal and can be reached on 6 hours of drive from Kathmandu. Furthermore, being located in mid-hill area, the significance of this watershed is high in termes of its services. Begnas lake has been enlisted as a Ramsar site; a wetland of international importance. This criterion was also used to select this site. As per Ramsar criterion, it is a representative, rare or unique natural wetland that has an important role in groundwater recharge, flood control and sediment trapping. Another criterion is that it has great role in maintainance of biological diversity and is home to rare species and threatened ecological communities. Also, its significance extends to various provisioning services like native and rare species of fish, irrigation, drinking water and hydropower (Ramsar, 2016). Furthermore, Begnas Lake supports livelihood of large number of households and watershed area is extensively developed for domestic and international tourism. Moreover, Begnas Lake holds importance from the point of boating, trekking, bird watching and other eco touristic activities. Being an easily accessible touristic spot and resources of watershed especially the Begnas Lake serving for livelihood of local people, it provides an ideal scenario of economic valuation of ecosystem services. Added, many downstream people and people around Begnas Lake are directly dependent on the ecosystem services of the lake; outlining the key components of PES scheme would provide a gist of potential PES scheme that could be developed in Begnas watershed. As no previous studies focused on the economic valuation of this lake was found by the researcher, Begnas Lake watershed was selected for the purpose of this study. 35 3.2 Conceptual Framework of the study 3.2.1 Theoretical Framework of the Study The study for the identification of principle types of ecosystem services is based on the categories of ecosystem services provided by MEA, 2005. Ecosystem services are basically defined as the benefits that people get from the surrounding ecosystem for their well-being (MEA, 2005). Hence, for the purpose of this study the concept of ecosystem services has been used as anthropocentric concept. The general categories of ecosystem services provided by MEA, 2005 used for the purpose of identification of ecosystem services are Provisioning services: These are the products obtained from ecosystem. It includes food, fresh water, raw materials, Biomass fuel, Pharmaceuticals and ornamental resources. Regulating services: These are the benefits derived by the people through the natural regulation of ecosystem process. Climate regulation, Water regulation, Flood control, Erosion protection, Water purification, disease and pest regulation and pollination are the regulating services under the scope of this study. Supporting services: These services are necessary for the production of other ecosystem services beneficial to human beings. It includes habitat and soil formation. Cultural services: These are the non-material benefits derived from the ecosystem that are supportive to spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, recreation, aesthetic experiences and peace. (MEA, 2005) The economic valuation in this study will be based on the TEV approach developed by various environmental economists over time. TEV framework is a concept in cost–benefit analysis that refers to the value people derive from natural resources or ecosystem services compared to not having it. It appears in environmental economics as an aggregation of the values provided by a given ecosystem. Those include use and non-use values. 36 Use Value – Can be split into Direct and Indirect use values:  Direct use value: The benefits obtained from ecosystems that are generally used for comsumptive purposes. Example: food, timer, drinking water etc.  Indirect use value: These are indirect benefits obtained from ecosystem that helps in maintenance and protection of natural and human systems. For instance, maintence of water quality and flow, air quality regulation etc.  Option value: Though people may not be using a certain resource or service at present there might be some potential future ability to use the resource. There may be either high or very low likelihood of future use of those services. This reflects the willingness to preserve an option for potential future use. Non-use value –Non-use values are the values placed for the existence of certain resources. For example, people might value to know that tigers are in the wild; even you may never see them. Non-use values can be split into:  Bequest value: Bequest value are the values placed for those resources that an individual never gets benefit of, but value it with a view that future generation might be able to enjoy the particular service or resource.  Existence value: Placed on a resource that will never be used by current individuals, derived from the value of satisfaction from preserving a natural environment or a historic environment (i.e. natural heritage or cultural heritage). 37 Total Economic Value Use Value Non-use value Direct use Bequest Value Provisioning services Food Drinking water Timber Fuelwood Air Biochemicals/medicines (Benefits for the use of future generations) All types of services Cultural services Eco tourism/Recreation Education/Research Festivals/Celebrations Existance value Cultural services Scenerary and aesthetic view Identity and cohesion Religious and spiritual beliefs Festivals and celebrations Indirect use Regulating services Water/air quality regualtion Climate regulation Erosion/flood control Soil quality regulation Disease control Pollinatiom Provisioning services Genetic resources (Existance of bio diversity) Conservation of rare flora and fauna Supporting services Nutrient cycling Water cycling Soil formation Option value Future benefits from all types of services Figure 3.1 TEV Framework for BWS 38 3.2.2 Analytical framework of the study The study follows the framework as proposed by Felipe-Lucia et. al. (2014) in journal article ‗A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services‘ published in Ambio journal. As this study is associated with identification and valuation of ecosystem services of Begnas ecosystem the rationale for this approach is that it is more concerned with stakeholder‘s assessment i.e. more inclined towards assessment with the grass root users and beneficiaries of the service. But for the context of this study, the whole social approach of this model is remodeled to account economic approach for this study incorporating economic valuation tools. The spatial and temporal context: Here the spatial and temporal boundaries for ecosystem services assessment are fixed as mentioned in the introduction section. The geographical boundary of Begnas watershed and the time frame on which the study has been conducted are the spatial and temporal context for this study. The social context: Consultation with stakeholders and beneficiaries in their social setting is used identify the services they receive from ecosystem and outline components of PES scheme for the watershed. Furthermore, social context analysis also helps to identify the service producers and beneficiaries. Methods: The use of economic tools and in-depth consultations with stakeholders to value ecosystem services and outline the components for the PES scheme. The framework modeled for the purpose of the study is: 39 Figure 3.2 Analytical framework of the study (Adopted and modified from Felipe-Lucia et. al., 2014) 40 3.2.3 Operational framework of the study The analytical framework, for the purpose of the study has been remodeled as: Spatial/temporal Context Identification (ES) Observation/ Consultation Understanding the study site Fixing the study boundary Consultation and PES Household survey Focus Group Discussions Key Informant Interview Categorizatiom of ES Identification of tradable ES Prioritization of ES Valuation techniques Economic Value of ES Key components of PES Funding mechanism SWOT Analysis for PES Total Value of BWS Potential economic value of BWS Market Price Method Travel Cost Method Benefit Transfer Method Contingent Valuation Method Figure 3.3 Operational framework of the study The study initiated with identification of spatial contxt of the study site. The geographical boundaries fot the study was fixed and study duration is the temporal context for the study. It further commenced with observation and consultation activities using various tools to identify and prioritize various ES. Suitable tools were selected to value the selected ES to estimate TEV of BWS. Finally, with proper consultation with stakeholders, the key components for PES were outlined with investigation on existing PES mechanisms. 41 3.3 Research Design The study used mixed method i.e. both the qualitative and quantitative methods. The research is based on qualitative method to large extend to identify the available ecosystem services and outline key components of PES scheme design whereas more quantitative method is applied to find out the estimates of economic value of selected ecosystem services. The research proceeded with identification of sampling frame, determination of sample size and identification of concerned business, governmental, nongovernmental organizations concerned on either as a producer, consumer of ecosystem services or involved in environmental conservation activities at the study site. The research used a variety of research tools including observation, household survey, FGD, KII, and desk research wherever applicable. Qualitative tools for the study included Observation, surveys, KII, FGD and desk research. Qualitative method was followed for identification of ES and to outline key components of PES. Quantitative approach was followed for estimation of economic value of ES of BWS for which surveys, KII, FGD and desk research were used to know the quantity of goods or services derived or income made. 3.4 Study duration and location The field study was carried from 6th June 2017 to 17th June 2017 for the duration of 12 days. Sundari Danda, Bhanjyang-Panchbhaiya, Majhikuna and Lamichhane gaun at Majhthana were the places selected for household survey at upstream community whereas household survey at downstream community was carried out at Piple, Sisuwa and Gagangauda areas. Focused Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews were carried during all days of field study. 3.5 Sampling procedure and Sample size The identification of location for household survey was done with consultation with experts and local environment activists and with due consideration to limitations of time, budget, 42 human resource and research expertise. For this Sundari Danda, Bhanjyang-Panchbhaiya, Majhikuna and Lamichhane gaun at Majhthana were the places selected for household survey at upstream community and Piple, Sisuwa and Gagangauda were the areas selected for the household survey at downstream level. The rationale for selection of these places is that these places at upstream are well known for community forestry management practices and the selected places at downstream are the major users of ecosystem services either fishery, boating, irrigation or tourism. A total of 60 HH, 30 representing upstream and 30 representing downstream were surveyed. Thirty households each from upstream community and downstream community were sampled using Strategic sampling procedure of Purposive sampling method. The major advantage of using purposive sampling is that the samples were identified under certain conditions to be assured they are the reliable sources of information and a small sample size would be reliable to make generalization of the study. Special attention was given that sampled population includes beneficiaries of community forests, beneficiary groups like fishermen, boaters, hotel owners and other tourism entrepreneurs, farmers and other land users. The households were considered eligible for the sample under following assigned criteria:   Residing at the study area atleast since five years.  Must be atleast 30 years of age.  study area.  Must have general knowledge about the environment and natural resources of the A member of community forest user group (CFUG) for upstream. Involved in boating, fishing, irrigation, tourism or the beneficiary any other ecosystem services for the downstream. For the purpose of visitors‘ survey in order to value the recreational service of Begnas Lake using travel cost method, the available visitors on the study duration were sampled using judgmental and convenience methods of non-probability sampling method. The visitors were divided into three groupings: Nepali visitors, SAARC visitors and Foreign visitors using judgement so diverse visitors could be represented with diverse expenses for their visit to the lake. And those visitors of each group were sampled who were conveniently available to 43 participate in study and was judged if sample taken so wise represent all three visitor groups. A total of 32 visitors were surveyed for the purpose of the study. Various institutions/organizations were also consulted for the purpose of the study based on the availability of contact persons during the study duration. Following are the institutions consulted: Table 3.1 Organizations consulted for the study S.No. Organizations Rationale 1 Begnas and Rupa Tourism Promotion Committee Major user of ES 2 Begnas Taal Boat Entrepreneurs Association Major user of ES 3 District Agriculture Development Office Major user of ES 4 District Forest Office, Kaski Concerned stakeholder 5 Fish Entrepreneurs Association, Begnas Taal Concerned stakeholder 6 Hotel and Restaurant Association, Lekhnath Major user of ES 7 Ilaka Forest Office, Sisuwa Concerned stakeholder 8 Irrigation Development Division, Kaski Concerned stakeholder 9 LI-BIRD, Pokhara NGO working in BWS 10 SEED Foundation, Panchbhaiya environmental NGO workingaspects in BWSof 11 Ward Office, PL Metropolitan 30 & 32 environmental aspects of Concerned stakeholder 12 Water User Association, Begnas Major user of ES 3.6 Data Collection 3.6.1 Primary Data Collection Primary data collection was done through following methods: 3.6.1.1 Household survey Household survey was carried out using three set of questionnaire for both the upstream and downstream communities. Questionnaire I (Annex I) has been designed to identify the key 44 ecosystem services on the Begnas watershed using four categories of ecosystem services provided by MEA. The questions for provisioning services have been designed to identify the current consumptive use of available services. Questions for regulating and supporting services was to identify the perception on availability of such services among the respondents as the information regarding available quantity and quality of such services cannot be obtained through survey among local people. Questions for cultural services were to identify and record the practice of local watershed people including festivals, celebrations, rituals, gatherings etc. Questionnaire II (Annex II) has been designed to value the ecosystem services. It is intended to record the specific use of ecosystem services, its quantity or proportion so it can be valued in monetary terms. Questionnaire III (Annex III) has been designed to understand the general perception and identify the key components of PES scheme regarding the general view of people. The list of questions to be included in the questionnaire was decided with reference to former such studies carried out in Nepal or abroad, consultation with the supervisor, discussion with colleagues and on the base of theories and guides of the concerned topics. The subject matter and purpose of survey was explained in brief before asking questions with the respondents. Moreover, respondents were also briefed about the role and importance of watershed areas and the need and responsibilities of downstream and upstream communities in the management of watershed. In most cases household heads were considered as the primary respondents but in case of their absence other family members were also interviewed as the potential respondents. 3.6.1.2 Observation Observation method of primary data collection has been one of the key tools during the field study phase of this study. Observation was mainly done to identify the general environmental status of the watershed. Regarding, the identification of principle types of ecosystem services; observation was made to verify the information obtained from household survey and secondary data as far as possible. This also helped to get idea about various ecosystem services of the Begnas watershed. A checklist was developed (Annex V) in order to systematically record the general observation findings about ecosystem services. Obsevation was done in 6 sites; Begnas Lake, 2 community forests, namely; Paurakhi45 Kalimati-Sundari community forest and Ghatakopakho Comminity forest, 2 agricultural fields representing upstream and downstream and trading point of fish. Furthermore, general observation was also made about the use of ecosystem services at its trading points i.e. boating, irrigation etc. which also helped to verify the information about the quantity of such services traded obtained from household survey and KII or stakeholder consultations. This helped in triangulation of data obtained from various sources. The checklist for observation of ecosystem services was designed within the framework of categories of ecosystem services of MEA. 3.6.1.3 Focus Group Discussion Focus Group Discussions has been used as an effective tool for the purpose of this study. Focus Group Discussions have been carried out with the former and present officials of Begnas Lake Boat Entrepreneurs Association to find out the average boating hours of per boat and average income made from it as there was no systematic official record of individual boat operations. Focus Group Discussion has also been conducted gathering the people representing various fields like business, leading farmer, local politician etc. to gather overall information regarding the availability of ecosystem services, tradable and consumptive ecosystem services, market value of tradable ecosystem products and gather understanding on key components and general perception towards PES scheme. FGD was carried out using a semi structured checklist (Annex VI). 3.6.1.4 Key Informant Interview/Stakeholder Consultation Key informants and stakeholders comprising of officials of various entrepreneurs‘ associations, local people, school teachers, old citizens, government officials, officials of nongovernmental organizations working on environmental aspects have been interviewed using a semi structured checklist (Annex VI) to collect more data and identify the roles of various stakeholders on the PES scheme. Stakeholders‘ consultation included the people from local, ward and district level. At local level officials of various entrepreneurs‘ association, at ward/Metropolitan level ward chairman and at district level officials of Irrigation Development Division, District Agricultural Development Office (DADO) and 46 District Forest Office (DFO) were consulted as potential stakeholders in PES scheme. Furthermore, consultation was also made with president of various CFUG to understand the roles of upstream communities in the watershed management and their expectations and knowledge about the ecosystem services of the watershed and PES scheme. The detailed list of people and organizations consulted is attached as the Annex VII. 3.6.2 Secondary Data Collection Desk study about the availability of ecosystem services and natural resources of Begnas Watershed has been done for the purpose of this study. Various published and unpublished documents by national and international scholars have been reviewed to identify the floral, faunal and other information as field identification of food species, floral and faunal diversity wasn‘t under the scope of this study. Various publications of IUCN, Jalshrot Bikas Sanstha, LI-BIRD, CBS, DFO, DADO and other organizations have been reviewed to obtain information on the course of this study. Ample secondary publications were also reviewed to obtain ideas on the valuation techniques and on other technical aspects of economic valuation of ecosystem services. Various primers and guide books were reviewed in order to obtain information on outlining key components of PES scheme at local level. This study makes extensive use of secondary documents as the prime source of information as detailed study of various topics weren‘t possible due to various constraints and limitations during the field study and overall course of this study. However, efforts have been made to verify the data obtained from such sources during the course of field study to large extent. Major literatures reviewed were   Environmental studies on Begnas and Begnas watershed areas  Valuation of ecosystem services of wetlands of Nepal and abroad  Government policies, regulations and guidelines  PES design studies and guide books for PES Various statistics of CBS and publications of government and non-government agencies 47 3.7 Learning agenda and details of field methods Specific Objective 01: To identify the principle types of ecosystem services in Begnas watershed The information for this objective was basically obtained through review of secondary data, household survey and FGD and verified through direct observation and KII/Stakeholder consultation. Descriptive method has been followed for this objective. The documents of MEA were followed as the guiding document for classification of ES. Operational plan documents of CFs were reviewed to identify the forest area, major tree species or available medicinal herbs. Other studies by LI-BIRD, IUCN etc. were also reviewed to gather required information. Specific Objective 02: To estimate the total economic value of Begnas Lake watershed The information for this objective has been obtained primarily through household survey, secondary data review for various quantitative data and KII. Observation, FGD and Stakeholder consultation methods have been supportive to work on this objective. Quantitative methods including various valuation techniques have been used. Methods for economic valuation include:  Market Price Method (for consumptive use) Market Price Method (MPM) has been used to value the comsumptive goods harvested from BWS. Fish harvest, Niuro harvest and fuel-wood harvest has been valued using MPM. The price of these goods was derived from nearby Lekhnath and Pokhara markets. Boating service has been valued using the service charge of this service. Identifying the additional productivity due to irrigation, the nutritional benefit of irrigation has been calculated on the basis of total market price of additional crop yield. 48  Travel Cost Method (TCM) This method has been used to value recreational and aesthetic service of BWS. Total cost of individual visitors has been calculated as the sum of individual travel cost, time cost, food and accommodation expense and WTP for entry fee from three visitors zone; Nepal, SAARC and foreign. Total recreational and aesthetic value is calculated as the sum of total cost of total number of visitors. Hence, the total cost of each individual to visit BWS for the purpose of the study is: Total cost = Travel Cost + Time Cost + Food and Accomodation expense + WTP for entry fee  Benefit Transfer Method (BTM) Total annual value of carbon sequestration has been calculated using this method. To identify the total forest area, DFO, Kaski and Ilaka Forest Office, Sisuwa were consulted to identify the community forests in BWS and their area. Entire community forests of Sisuwa area have also been counted within BWS for this study. The total carbon sequestration rate of Schima-Castanopsis forest reported by Baral et. al, 2009 at Gaukhereshwar CF of Kavre district in mid hill of Nepal has been used as carbon sequestration rate of forests in BWS because of their similar forest type and geography. Similarly, for the carbon storage rate of water bodies, the figure used by Baral et. al., 2016 at Jagdishpur reservoir of Nepal has been followed.  Contingent Valuation Method The total maximum WTP of respondents for conservation and sustainable management of ecosystem resources were recorded using this method. This is survey based method where respondents were directly asked about their WTP. The higher amount was continuously bidded until respondents were not ready to pay more than certain amount. 49 Specific Objective 03: To outline the key elements of PES Scheme for Begnas Lakewatershed In order to fulfill this objective KII/Stakeholder consultation, Household survey and FGD have been key tools to obtain information. Review of secondary data and Observation has been supportive to work on this study. Documents such as operational plan of CFs were reviewd to identify their major income source. 3.8 Data Analysis Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to analyze the data. After completion of household survey, the data was entered into Microsoft Excel with unique number attached to every questionnaire. Each question and response was coded. All quantitative data has been analyzed through the use of statistical methods using excel. Descriptive statistics (mean, percentage, frequency and range) has been used to analyze the data to make generalization and discussions. Ample efforts have been made to avoid issues that are encountered while assigning economic values of ecosystem services involving various types of biases, uncertainty and omissions. Efforts have been made to make true estimate of values of ecosystem services that has no direct market values or market values are difficult to obtain. Moreover, the steps of economic valuation of ecosystem services have been strictly followed. Wherever direct method of valuation was impossible, or it was not possible due to various limitations or constraints of this study, values have been derived from rapid assessments methods such as benefit transfer method for the quantification and monetization of ecosystem values with keen precaution that the method followed reflects the true value to a large extend. Qualitative analysis of data has been carried for data collected from FGDs, KIs, and observation too. Descriptive analysis of different cases of environmental services particularly those services that cannot be quantified such as various regulating, cultural or supporting 50 services and components of PES scheme has been carried out for better understanding of the problems, and their remedies. Simple statistical tools like average mean, bar diagram, pie chart, etc. has been used to picture and better display of data. Stakeholder analysis along with statements and observations encountered has been used to draw inferences and make conclusions in case of qualitative data. 51 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Socio-economy of respondents The sample HH for this study have been considered from both downstream and upstream communities of BWS. The distribution of sample HH of the study area are discussed on the basis of age, gender, education, ethnicity, income, hand holding status and size among other variables listed below. Samples were purposively selected to represent various gender, ethnic groups, income status and diversity regarding educational involvement. People of atleast 30 years of age were selected as respondents perceiving that they were able to depict the intensity, depth and changes in flow of ecosystem services in the course of time. 4.1.1 Sample distribution by gender Out of 30 respondents from the upstream community, 18 respondents were male and 12 respondents were female. Similarly among same total number of respondents from downstream community; total number of male was 21 and total number of female was 9. In total among 60 respondents 39 were male and 21 were females. Males represent 65% of total respondents whereas females represent 35% of total surveyed respondents. Table 4.1 Sample distribution by gender Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) S.No. Gender No. of respondents 1 Male 18 60.00 21 70.00 2 Female 12 40.00 9 30.00 Total 30 100 30 100 % No. of respondents (Source: Field study, 2017) 52 % 4.1.2 Sample distribution by age The highest numbers of respondents were from 30-39 years age group followed by age group 40-49. Least number of respondents was of age 60 or more. The age of respondents ranged from 30 to 72 years of age. The total number of respondents from age group 30-39 years was 27 representing 45% of total respondents. Number of respondents of age group 40-49 was 19, 50-59 was 8 and 60 & above age group was 6 representing 31.67%, 13.33% and 10% of total respondents respectively. Table 4.2 Sample distribution by age group Age group Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) S.No. (yrs) No. of respondents 1 30-39 12 40.00 15 50.00 2 40-49 10 33.33 9 30.00 3 50-59 4 13.33 4 13.33 4 60 % above 4 13.33 2 6.66 Total 30 100 30 100 % No. of respondents % (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.1.3 Sample distribution by education Illiterate people who were never been to schools and couldn‘t read and write and the literate population with educational qualification above class 12 constitute the major groupings of respondents. Among all the respondents, 15 people were totally illiterate, 12 people were literate with basic ability to read or write, 7 people attained schools below class 10, 10 people completed SLC, 2 people completed grade 12, 14 people had educational qualification of either bachelors or masters. This indicated 25% of sample were illiterate, 20% could read and write, 11.67% didn‘t complete SLC, 16.67% completed SLC, 3.33% completed +2 and 23.33% had educational qualification higher than +2. 53 Table 4.3 Sample distribution by educational level Upstream (n=30) S.No. Educational No. of respondents Downstream (n=30) % No. of respondents % level 1 Illiterate 6 20.00 9 30.00 2 Literate 6 20.00 6 20.00 3 Below SLC 5 16.67 2 6.67 4 SLC 3 10.00 7 23.33 5 Plus 2 2 6.67 0 0.00 6 Above +2 8 26.66 6 20.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.1.4 Sample distribution by ethnicity/social groups In both upstream and downstream community, Brahmin constitutes the largest social group of respondents. In upstream community 13 respondents were Brahmin, followed by Chhetri, Janajati and Dalit with 8, 5, and 4 respondents respectively. While in downstream, 10 respondents were Brahmin, 5 were Chhetri, 6 Janati and 9 Dalits. Jalari are categorized as Dalit community. Altogether, there were 38.33% Brahmin, 21.67% Chhetri, 18.33% Janajati and 21.67% Dalit including Jalari respondents. Table 4.4 Sample distribution by ethnicity/social groups Upstream (n=30) S.No. Ethnicity/ Downstream (n=30) No. of respondents % No. of respondents % Social group 1 Brahmin 13 43.33 10 33.33 2 Chhetri 8 26.67 5 16.67 3 Janajati 5 16.67 6 20.00 4 Dalit (& Jalari) 4 13.33 9 30.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 54 4.1.5 Sample distribution by occupation In upstream, agriculture remains the most involved occupation with 53.33% involvement. 13.33% people are involved in private job, 3.33% in daily wage, 10% in business including tourism entrepreneurship and 20% in other jobs like public service and others. Similarly in downstream, 56.67%, 13.33%, 3.33%, 16.67% and 10% people are involved in agriculture including fishing, private job, daily wage, business and other activities respectively. Table 4.5 Sample distribution by occupation Ethnicity/ S.No Social group Upstream (n=30) No. of respondents Downstream (n=30) % No. of respondents % . 1 Agriculture/fishing 16 53.33 17 56.67 2 Private job 4 13.33 4 13.33 3 Daily wage 1 3.33 1 3.33 4 Business 3 10.00 5 16.67 5 Others 6 20.00 3 10.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.1.6 Sample distribution by monthly income In the upstream area, 20% respondents reported to earn less than 10,000 monthly income whereas households with more than 50,000 income were 13.33%. In the downstream, households with less than 10,000 monthly income were only 6.66%. In overall watershed, 8 respondents reported to have less than 10,000, 20 reported to have 10,000-20,000, 16 reported to have 20,000-30,000, 8 reported to have 30,000-40,000, 4 reported to have 40,00050,000 and 4 reported to have more than 50,000 income representing 13.33%, 33.33%, 26.66% 13.33%, 6.67% and 6.67% of total sample size respectively. 55 Table 4.6 Sample distribution by monthly income S.No. Income Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) No. of respondents % No. of respondents % 1 Less than 10,000 6 20.00 2 6.66 2 10,000-19,999 7 23.33 13 43.33 3 20,000-29,999 5 16.67 11 36.66 4 30,000-39,999 6 20.00 2 6.67 5 40,000-49,999 2 6.67 2 6.67 6 More than 50,000 4 13.33 0 0.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.1.7 Sample distribution by family head and family size Males are the head of the family in most of the HH surveyed with 80% male headed families in upstream and 86.67% male headed families in downstream. Meanwhile, there were only 20% female headed HH in upstream and 13.33% in downstream. In overall, Male headed HH were 83.33% and female headed HH were 16.67% in BWS. Table 4.7 Sample distribution by family head Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) S.No. Family head No. of respondents 1 Male 24 80.00 26 86.67 2 Female 6 20.00 4 13.33 Total 30 100 30 100 % No. of respondents % (Source: Field study, 2017) Most of the households in upstream had 4 to 6 family members whereas half of the HH in downstream had family size greater than 6. In upstream and downstream both 10% of HH 56 had family size upto 3 with 3 HH respondents. 18 HH in upstream and 12 HH in downstream had family size in between 4 to 6. 9 HH in upstream and 15 HH in downstream had family size more than 6. 2 members was lowest recorded HH and maximum size of family was 12. On the whole, 6 households in BWS had family size up to 3 representing 10% of HH, 30 HH had family size in between 4 to 6 representing 50% of total sampled HH and 24 HH had family size greater than 6 representing 40% of total households. Table 4.8 Sample distribution by family size Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) S.No. Family size No. of respondents 1 Up to 3 3 10.00 3 10.00 2 4 to 6 18 60.00 12 40.00 3 More than 6 9 30.00 15 50.00 Total 30 100 30 100 % No. of respondents % (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.1.8 Sample distribution by land holding status 85% of total respondents have their own land in BWS while 15% had no ownership over land. 27 out of 30 households in upstream had land ownership whereas the figure was 24 HH for downstream. And, 3 HH in upstream reported that they had no land holding whereas in downstream 6 households didn‘t have their own land. Table 4.9 Sample distribution by land holding status Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) S.No. Land holding No. of respondents 1 Yes 27 90.00 24 80.00 2 No 3 10.00 6 20.00 Total 30 100 30 100 % No. of respondents (Source: Field study, 2017) 57 % 4.1.9 Sample distribution by residential status In BWS, 81.66% of total HH surveyed inhabited permanently, since a long back and are native to the place where 18.33% had migrated to BWS from other places like Syanja, Gulmi etc. for either the purpose of business or other. 83.33% of respondents were native to BWS in upstream whereas 80% of respondents were residing permanently in downstream with 16.67% and 20% migrated population in upstream and downstream respectively. Table 4.10 Sample distribution by residential status Upstream (n=30) S.No. Residential status Downstream (n=30) No. of respondents % No. of respondents % 1 Permanent 25 83.33 24 80.00 2 Migrated 5 16.67 6 20.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.1.10 Sample distribution by size of land holding In the upstream of BWS, 13.33% HH had less than 2 Ropani land, 33.33% 2-5 Ropani, 30 % had 5-10 Ropani, 13.33% had more than 10 Ropani and 10% were landless. In the downstream, 16.67% had less than 2 Ropani of land, 13.33% had 2-5 Ropani, 26.67% had 510 Ropani, 23.33% had more than 10 Ropani and 20% were landless Table 4.11 Sample distribution by size of land holding Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) S.No. Land size No. of respondents % No. of respondents 1 Less than 2 Ropani 4 13.33 5 16.67 2 2-5 Ropani 10 33.33 4 13.33 3 5-10 Ropani 9 30.00 8 26.67 4 More than 10 Ropani 4 13.33 7 23.33 5 Landless 3 10.00 6 20.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 58 % 4.2 Identification of ecosystem services of BWS For the purpose of this study; Ecosystem services of Forest ecosystem, Begnas Lake (aquatic) ecosystem and agricultural (cultivated land) ecosystem were considered to enlist ES of BWS. On the basis of field study and available secondary data, principle types of ecosystem services of BWS have been categorized as follows: 4.2.1 Provisioning Services The identification of provisioning service is based on the use of the people of watershed and their response along with discussion with key informants, observation and secondary data review. 4.2.1.1 Food Agricultural cultivation is the most prominent source of food in both upstream and downstream areas of BWS. Agriculture is practiced in all areas except some steep to very steep slopes. Paddy (Barkhe and Chaite), Wheat, Maize, Potato, Millet, Buck Wheat, Soybean, Finger Millet, Black Gram are the major food crops cultivated. Cultivation is carried out mostly in summer and winter seasons with also spring cultivation being practiced. Availability of irrigation system determines the types of crop cultivated in the watershed. However, increasing urbanization and population growth is lowering the area of cultivable lands. Oilseeds, Groundnut and Fallow are also cultivated in some areas. BWS is famous for tasty and native varied of rice farming. The native varieties of rice include Ekle, Anadi, Pahele, Jethobudho, Basmati, Birimphul etc. The list of varieties of rice cultivated in BWS has been attached as Annex XIX. Begnas Lake itself is famous for delicious fish production. There are 22 native and 7 exotic fish species and wide ranging aquatic plants and algae. Acrossocheilus hexagonolepis (Katle), Barilius barna (Phageta), Barbus sp. (Sera bhitte), Chagunius chagunio (Rewa), Catla catla (Bhyakur), Labeo rohita (Rahu), Garra annadelei (Buduna), Cyprinus carpio (Common carp), Puntius ticto (Bhitte) are the major species of fish found in Begnas Lake ((NLCDC, 2010). Atleast 42 familes are dependent on fishing for livelihood, known as Jalari community. They capture fish for both commercial and subsistence purpose. Enclosure fishery is also practice for fish production. 59 Table 4.12 Major food crops cultivated in BWS S.No. Land type Upstream Downstream 1 Irrigated Paddy, Maize, Wheat, Paddy, Wheat, Maize, Buckwheat, Barley Potato, Soybean, Black Soybean, Black gram, gram, Oil seeds, Fallow. Potato, Oil seeds, Fallow. 2 Non-irrigated Maize, Millet, Potato, Maize, Groundnut, (Rainfed) Fallow. Fallow, Sugarcane (in very few areas) (Source: Field study, 2017) Vegetable cultivation is the next major source of food in BWS. It is practiced in both upstream and downstream areas with people being involved in commercial vegetable farming. People cultivate cucumber, Pumpkin, Bottle gourd, Sponge gourd, Chili, Snake gourd, Tomato, Bitter gourd, Eye beans, Cabbage and carrot. Some major varieties of native species of vegetables in BWS include: Table 4.13 some native species of vegetables in BWS S.No. Common name Scientific name Use 1 Tomato Solanum lycopersium Mixed with other vegetables, pickles 2 Tree Tomato Solanum betaceum Make pickles 3 Ash Gourd Benincasa hispida Vegetables, make pickles 4 Snake Gourd Irichosanthes Vegetable cucumerina 5 Bitter Gourd Momordica charantia Vegetable, Medicine 6 Spiny Gourd Momordica dioica Vegetable, Make pickle 7 Chili Capsicum annuum Vegetable, Make pickle 8 Bottel Gourd Lagenaria siceraria Vegetable, Make pickle, Make juice 9 Cucumber Cucumis sativus Pickle, Salad (Source: Poudel et. al, 2016) 60 People also used to collect wild foods from the forest in the past like tuber and roots such as Yam, Gittha, Bhyakur. But now people rarely collect wild foods from the forest areas. One reason for this is restriction for local people to extract forest resources from community forest on their will. People occasionally collect wild fruits like Wild Raspberry (Aiselu) during month of Chaitra/Baisakh, Kafal (Bay Berry), Kimmu, Painyu, Bar, Lapsi, Satibayar, Ainjeru, Hadi bayar etc. during the month of Jestha/Asar. Before some multiple decades people in upstream remember collecting mushroom from the forest like Dudhe and Dalle mushroom but now practice of collecting wild mushroom has been stopped but commercial mushroom farming has been started. Animal husbandry and Poultry farming is practiced in both upstream and downstream areas of BWS. People rare cow, goat and buffaloes for household or commercial purposes. People consume meat, eggs, milk and other milk products. Hen is the basic variety for poultry farming. There are few commercial bee farming practiced for money bee. In the past, some people used to collect honey from beehives in the wild but such practice has completely been stopped. People also collect few varieties of species from the forests and shrub areas. Such species include Timur like Siltimur or Ankhe timur during the month of Ashoj/Kartik and other local varieties of spices include Dalchini (Cinnamon) among others. Game hunting was occasionally practiced in the upstream area some twenty years ago. Now due to the conservation initiatives of government and declaration of community forests hunting has been stopped. People used to hunt Kalij (Lophura leucomelana) and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) among others. Currently, coffee farming has also been started for commercial and consumption purposes. 4.2.1.2 Drinking water Diverse sources of drinking water were found to be originating from the upstream areas as mentioned by respondents. Those sources of water have been traditionally managed by the local people on their own and now modern management of those sources is also practiced forming a local user groups in some places. People have conserved those sources, constructed gravitational tanks, built pipelines from the sources and brought to individual houses or built 61 common tap to multiple houses on their own investment or with technical and financial assistance from local governmental authorities or nongovernmental organizations. In the downstream areas, as it is flat plain, people extract underground water as the water source. Presence of Begnas Lake has been contributing significantly to the ground water recharge which makes easy availability of underground water all the year around in the downstream. Small natural springs, streams and natural gullies are the major sources of water in the upstream. Major such sources include Chandi Khola, Kanmarang Khola, Libdhi Khola, Baspani Khola, Khahare Khola, Dang Dung Khola, Dund Khola and Baguwa Khola. BWS has two types of Drinking water system (DWS). BWS has about 25 locally built and managed DWS which includes one collection chamber at the intake, network of pipelines leading to reserve tank, and distribution taps (Parajuli, 2011). Ainselu, Simle-Kusunde, Simle-Riyale, Sisuwa, aarupata, Gagan Gauda, Simle Juki, Damsuli etc. are some of the DWS in BWS. During monsoon when there is good rainfall the availability of water is 24 hours but after the end of monsoon season the water scarcity increases. There are also government built large DWS that serves multiple villages and population. In the valley floor and downstream areas the water is trapped from watershed. 11 DWS have been built in the downstream areas since 25 years to support drinking water (Parajuli, 2011). Government of Nepal has initiated a community supported water supply and sanitation project with financial assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which is called the ―Small Towns Water Supply and Sanitation Project‖ (STWSSP). 4.1.1.3 Raw materials Before the introduction of community forestry programme in 1990s, forests were the prominent source of various types of raw materials in BWS. People used to collect large amount of fuel wood, fodder and timber from the forest areas. Timber collected was also used to construct houses and sheds for animals. However, the availability of modern goods like plastic, nylon ropes and other products have reduced peoples‘ dependence on raw materials from forest completely. Bamboo, Ringal Bamboo (Nigalo) and Amriso (Broom grass) are the major raw materials people obtain from the watershed region. Bamboo is used for construction purpose and fencing the household boundary. Nigalo is used to make to make useable utensils like basket but at present it is not found in good quantity and people also do 62 not use it for such purposes. Amriso is popular as a broom plant that is used for making broom and is still collected for making broom for household and commercial purpose. However, the tree species prominent in the region aren‘t good to be used for timber. The most prominent of species of watershed are Chilaune-Katus can be used as timber for construction purposes but they don‘t provide excellent timber quality. Small patches of forest in the lower altitude like hill sal (Shorea robusta) and small patches of plantation forests of sissoo and khair (Dalbergia sissoo and Acacia catechu) are the sources of good timber quality. Some people plant trees in the private land known as Kharbari and use timber produced. People also collect leaf litters from the forest areas and use it as manure in their fields in the upstream areas. People occasionally collect fodder for the livestock from the forest areas and also cultivate fodder in their land. Respondents reported various types of Bhui Ghas and Daale ghas are extracted from the forest. Khanyu, Khanayo, Khari, Bajhi, Bhorla, Nimaro, Kutmero and Banjh are some of the fodder species found in BWS. There is no commercial extraction of sand and gravel in the watershed; however people reported small amount of sand is used from small streams. 4.2.1.4 Biomass fuel Fuel wood is the major source of biomass fuel in the BWS area. However, people are restricted to unauthorized extraction of firewood from the forest area as most of the natural and plantation forest have been converted into community forests. Before the introduction of community forestry programme, fuel wood was mostly used for cooking purposes and was extensively harvested. Respondents in the Piple and Sisuwa basically the Jalari community remember collecting full boats of fuel wood from the nearby forests and transporting across the Begnas Lake to their households. Still people collect fuel wood from community forests when community forests are open for harvesting fuel wood and fodder for certain duration in a year usually during the month of December/January. Interestingly, people also reported that they collect fuel woods from the outer areas of community forests in other times of the year without notice of forest officials. People, who have Kharbari, use the trees from their plantation as fuel wood especially during the rainy season. People also use agricultural 63 residues, supplies from home-garden and orchards for firewood purposes. However, the use of LPG gas for cooking purposes has lowered the dependence on firewood. 4.2.1.5 Irrigation There are different types of irrigation system regarding the upstream and downstream areas of BWS. In the upstream areas, traditional canals have been developed from the seasonal streams for the purpose of irrigation whereas there is modern irrigation system developed in the downstream with the assistance of ADB. There are FMIS (Farmer Managed Irrigation System) in the upstream areas whereas Begnas Irrigation System (BIS) can be termed as Public Irrigation System (PIS). Upper Watershed has a number of FMIs that trap water from the small streams. Almost all the small streams available are used for irrigational purposes. The Dund Khola alone supply water to nine such FMISs. Moreover, the physical condition of such canals is poor which makes them low productive. Furthermore, there is scarcity of water in these canals during the dry season during March to mid-June but FMISs receive adequate water during the monsoon season (Parajuli, 2011). Furthermore, it was noted that all the areas of upstream aren‘t irrigated and depend on rainfall for irrigation. The downstream areas are irrigated through BIS. It was constructed under hill irrigation project implemented in western region under the loan assistance of ADB in 1988. BIS comprises of earth fill dam, main canal and branch canal with lining and essential cross drainage structures. BIS uses the lake water for irrigation with an operating system at dam side. BIS is integration of old network of traditional canals into new ones. The total culturable command area of BIS is about 580 ha and lies in ward no. 1, 10, 11, 12, 13 of former Lekhnath municipality of which most of its part now falls in wards 29, 30, 32 of Pokhara Lekhnatan Metropolitan. BIS is jointly managed by WUA and DOI. An earth fill dam constructed of 540m length and 6.8m high stores monsoon rain and small streams within catchment area of Begnas Lake which flows through the outlet structure to the main canal. BIS consist of main canal and four branch canals. 64 Table 4.14 Canal system of BIS S.No. System Length (Km) Command area (ha) 1 Main canal 3.44 580 2 Branch canal no. 1 3.012 200 3 Branch canal no. 2 3.60 150 4 Branch canal no. 3 3.0 200 Branch canal no. 4 Branched from Branch 3 (Source: Maintenance Viability Report of BIS, n.d.) In the downstream, there is a traditional canal system that runs parallel to BIS main canal and ends in a local pond called Bausi Raha. And other three canals originate from Bausi Raha. The source of water to this canal is seepage water from Begnas Lake, escape of BIS main canal and local springs. 4.2.1.6 Hydropower Lake water can also be a potential source of hydro electricity generation. But no effective attempts have been made to generate hydroelectricity from lake water in Nepal. No pumped storage type of hydroelectricity projects are in operation in Nepal. There has been identified the potentiality of pumped storage hydropower (PSH) in BegnasRupa lakes. PSH stores energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water, pumped from lower elevation to higher elevation. And during the demand of electrical energy, the stored water is released through turbines to generate electric power. The gross head difference between Begnas and Rupa lakes is 60 meters. It is estimated that plant capacity of such pumped-storage hydropower in Begnas-Rupa to be 100 MW operating for five hours. This five hour operation will use 5.1 million cubic meters (MCM) of water which will drawdown (lowering of water level) in Begnas by 1.5m. This drawdown is estimated to 65 inundate 60ha of farmland in upstream of Rupa. At downstream of Rupa, earthen dam of 8m height is to be constructed. In this system, a reversible pump turbine is expected to return water in 5.5 hours (Sah et. al., 2014). This shows that Begnas along with nearby Rupa Lake holds potentiality for significant amount of electricity if concerned authority shows interest in constructing pumped-storage type of plant in this lake. 4.1.1.7 Genetic resources BWS has been home to wide variety of floral and faunal species. BWS is comparatively famous for native variety of rice found mostly in wild and cultivated that holds significance in terms of taste along with native species of fish and vegetables. Begnas Lake is home to 22 native and 7 exotic fish species (NLCDC, 2010). Begnas catchment area is also home to globally threatened plant species (Gauli et. al., 2016). A total of 520 species of vascular plants has been identified in Begnas and Rupa Watershed1. There are 128 tree species and 85 herbaceous plants and shrubs in BWS. BWS along with Rupa watershed is home to 80 species of plants and trees with religious importance, 40 species of fodder trees and shrubs and 45 species of wild edible fruits. These species includes various endangered, rare, threatened and vulnerable species (Oli, 1996). Begnas-Rupa watershed area harbors 63 varieties of rice, 17 varieties of finger millet and 12 varieties of taro (LI-BIRD, n.d.). Furthermore, 2 species of toads, 4 species of frogs, 14 species of Reptiles are recorded common to Begnas-Rupa watershed. 34 species of mammals, 104 species of birds (85 being common to both Begnas and Rupa watershed) have been recorded; among which 14 are migratory and 90 species are endemic (Oli, 1996). 166 species of medicinal plants are found in BWS (LI-BIRD, 2016). 174 species of butterflies was also reported from Begnas Rupa area (Smith et. al., 2016). Furthermore, the BWS is home to various varieties of ferns, algae, fungi, zooplankton and phytoplankton. 1 Begnas and Rupa watershed are nearby and separated by Sundari Danda and share adjoining watershed area with similar geographical, physical, climatic and edaphic characteristics. Experts and key informants responded that similar types of flora and fauna are found in both adjoining watersheds. 66 Table 4.15 Life forms in Begnas Rupa watershed . S.No. Life forms No. of species 1 2 3 4 5 Birds Butterfly Finger Millet Fish Fodder trees and shrubs 104 174 17 22 (native) 7 (exotic) 40 6 Herbaceous plants and shrubs 85 7 Mammals 34 8 Medicinal plants 166 9 80 10 11 Plants and trees of religious significance Reptiles Rice 12 13 14 15 Taro Toads and Frogs Tree Vascular plants 12 6 128 520 16 Wild edible fruits 45 14 63 (Source: Oli, 1996; LiBird, n.d.; Gauli et. al., 2016; NLCDC, 2010; Smith et. al., 2016) 4.2.1.8 Biochemical, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals Oli, 1996 found 128 medicinal plants common to the Begnas-Rupa watershed. A similar study carried by LI-BIRD2 in 2016 has recorded 166 medicinal plants in altogether in the same area. Local people in BWS hold very little knowledge about the medicinal plants found around in that area. This may be because the increasing access to health centers‘, easy availability of processed medicines and loss of indigenous knowledge about medicinal herbs and their use with the passage of time. However, people reported domestic use of medicinal plants from the forests or their gardens to cure some illness. But no cases were found about the commercial farming of medicinal 2 Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD) is Pokhara based NGO working in Begnas and Rupa watershed 67 herbs even in the community forests. Most common medicinal plant people use are Pakhanbed to cure body ache, fever, fracture and animal related problems, Tite to cure fever, Harro and Barro to cure gastric, Chari amilo in female reproductive problems, Guransko phul during stomach ache, Jethi madhu to control throat problem, Nim patta to control fever, sugar and typhoid, roots of lotus to cure jaundice and maintain body heat, Siru in back ache and knee pain among others. Women group has started to preserve white lotus because of its high medicinal value around Begnas Lake. It was also reported that commercial orchid farming was also practiced in Begnas area. 4.2.2 Regulating services Wetlands are considered most productive and valuable ecosystems because of its globally significant regulating services (Greeson et. al., 1979). Wetlands are widely recognized for its water purification services, nutrients and pollution regulation and trapping sediments (Ramsar, 2009). Wetlands also play a significant role in flood regulation, regulating catastrophic weather events, carbon storage and waste management. Begnas Watershed with 637.73 ha of forest cover, 339.96 ha of water bodies can be linked with various regulating services. Forest also play a major role in carbon sequestration, regulation of soil erosion and flood, pollution control, regulation of disease and pests and pollination (Sing et. al., 2015). Thus, BWS with forest areas and water bodies could be linked with various regulating services. The following Regulating services have been identified based on perception of respondents, consultation with key informants/stakeholders, secondary data review and observation to some extent. 4.2.2.1 Air quality regulation The role of forests in maintaining air quality is widely accepted. Forests interact with natural pollutants in many ways, absorb and use contaminants without apparent harm. Trees absorb pollutants in the natural life processes of plants. The electric charge on leaves help to attract pollutants of opposite charge in the air. Trees help to lower the speed and deposit the pollution load in air (US Department of agriculture, 1977). Furthermore, forests play an important role in uptaking CO, O3, SO2, NO2 and PM10 from the atmosphere (Baro et. al, 2014). The increasing number of automobiles, hotels and restaurants in Pokhara Lekhnath 68 Municipality and nearby Pokhara industrial area are continuously generating pollutants and dust particles as mentioned by respondents. On this background, BWS with 637.73 ha of forest area, 37.00 ha of bushes, 36.45 ha of grassland can contribute to improve the air quality of BWS and nearby areas by absorbing the pollutants and dust particles. Key informants also agreed that air pollution is less in upstream of BWS compared to downstream because of greater forest cover. 4.2.2.2 Water regulation 4.2.2.2.1 Water purification and treatment Wetlands are known as ‗biological filters‘ that significantly provides protection for water resources such as lakes and ground water. Wetlands provide physical removal of contaminants associated with particulate matter in water or streams. As surface water moves very slowly through wetlands due to broad sheet flow and resistance of floating by rooted plants, sedimentation of suspended solid is possible. Wetlands also biologically remove chemical contaminants like nitrate, ammonium and phosphate, certain toxic metals such as cadmium and lead from water as they are readily taken up by plants as contaminants are the form of essential plant nutrients. Wetlands also contribute to chemical removal process in wetland soils through sorption3, resulting in short-term retention or long-term immobilization of several classes of contaminants. Hence, wetlands contribute to water purification through storage of contaminants in the wetland soil and vegetation, or through losses to the atmosphere (US Department of Agriculture, n.d.). Roots of trees makes soil porous and filter water and remove various toxins and other contaminants. BWS with 637.73 ha of forest area, 37.00 ha of bushes, 36.45 ha of grassland and associated wetland area can be contributing to water purification and waste treatment in the adjoining streams and Begnas Lake in particular. Water Quality Parameters recorded by Water and Meteorological Department, 2016 suggests that pollution isn‘t significant in Begnas Lake and its vicinity and water quality parameters of the lakes were satisfactory. 3 Sorption is a broadly defined term for the transfer of ions (molecules with positive or negative charges) from the solution phase (water) to the solid phase (soil). Sorption actually describes a group of processes, which includes adsorption and precipitation reactions. 69 Table 4.16 Water Quality Parameters of Begnas Lake S.No. Parameters Average 1 Dissolved Oxygen (mgl-1) 6.60 2 pH 7.60 3 Total hardness (mgl-1) 80.00 4 Total organic carbon (mgl-1) 2.00 5 Total dissolved solid (mgl-1) 20.00 6 Nitrate (mgl-1) 0.14 7 Nitrate (mgl-1) 0.10 (Source: Water and Meteorological Department, 2016) 4.2.2.2.2 Water timing, flows and ground water recharge Wetland along with wetland vegetation slows down the movement of water, detain it for a while and act like sponges which prolong stream flow during low flow periods. Wetland vegetation covers the soil surface and reduces soil evaporation regulating the water loss. Water bodies, in addition, significantly contribute to discharge groundwater through base flows to the streams. Water bodies recharge the ground water table of nearby areas (Environmental Concern Inc, n.d.). The community forests in the BWS can be linked with their role in water flow to the streams in the watershed namely Chandi Khola, Kanmarang Khola, Libdhi Khola, Baspani Khola, Khahare Khola, Dang Dung Khola, Dund Khola etc. However, these streams are almost seasonal and lack water during winter and spring. The forest areas regulate the water flow into these streams during monsoon season, in particular. The trees absorb the water in porous soils and control water flow to streams checking the heavy flow and sedimentation in rainy seasons. The Begnas Lake, in particular plays a vital role in recharging ground water table in the downstream areas and contribute to base flow into Seti river. Though the stream flow is minimum during rainy season, forest‘s role can be linked with regulating lower peak flow during rainy season. BWS receives annual rainfall of 3,710 mm with peak monthly rainfall in July (886 mm) and lowest in November and December (13mm). 70 4.2.2.3 Climate regulation Ecosystems have the most stressing role in regulation of local, region and global climate. Ecosystems are the sources of aerosols that affect temperature and cloud formation. Ecosystems provides sink to greenhouse gases, enhance evapotranspiration and local cloud formation and rainfall (Kleidon et. al., 2000) and affects surface albedo and temperature (Betts, 2000). Forests can lower temperature in the nearby areas. It can be noticed that temperature in the upstream areas of BWS is lower than downstream areas. Furthermore, forests in the BWS can be contributing to microclimatic condition through provision of shade of forest canopies and creating cooler pools of water. The role of forests areas in the BWS can be linked with the regulation of regional and global climate regulation through its role in carbon sequestration and sink to global greenhouse gas emissions. Though BWS 637.73 ha of forest area, comparatively small for global significance, it plays role in global temperature, precipitation and carbon cycle. Forests stores carbon and help in sequestrating carbon. A study in Nepalese mid hill reports the carbon sequestration rate of Schima-Castronopsis forest to be 1.56t/yr/h (Baral et. al., 2010). This indicates forests in BWS also sequestrates good amount of carbon. Furthermore, evaporation from the Begnas Lake helps in local cloud formation and rainfall thereby regulating the local climate. Forests in BWS also contribute in heat absorption through albedo effect. The soil carbon sequestration in the other land is another climatic regulating function of BWS. It is estimated that soils can sequest carbon around more than 10% of the anthropogenic emissions making it more promising source of carbon sink (FAO, 2017). 4.2.2.4 Erosion protection and flood control Forests play an important role in controlling soil erosion and trapping sediments flowing into the water body in watersheds. Forests in the upstream of the watershed checks the speed of surface run off as they absorb most of the energy of the surface run off thereby depositing the flowing sediments in upstream areas and control flooding. Furthermore, trees in wetland areas and upstream bind soil and prevent it from erosion (Department of environmental conservation, n.d.). Most importantly forest litter prevents the excessive surface runoff as forest litter can hold 1-5 times more water than its weight and stabilizes flow regime. In 71 addition forest cover intercepts rain and reduces splash erosion, trees at the bank of water bodies stabilizes the banks and control bank erosion (Reis et. al., n.d.). Key stakeholders and respondents reported that forests in the upstream after the plantation program initiated by project ‗Begnas Taal Rupa Taal watershed management Project, July 1981 – Jun 1997‘ led by CARE Nepal generated greenery in upstream areas of BWS that has been significantly controlling the soil erosion to the lake. The community forestry program has also led to proper management of forests in upstream areas that has been playing major role in controlling erosion from steep to very steep slopes and stabilizing the soil; thereby reducing sedimentation in the Begnas Lake. The vegetative cover in upstream traps the rain water in space created by roots and checks flooding. With better vegetative cover and leaf litters in upstream areas; erosion has been checked to great extent. The unsustainable agricultural practices needs to be controlled. Proper vegetation in the banks of Begnas lakes along with surrounding hills has stabilized the banks of the lake and controlled sedimentation to lake. However, sedimentation is one of the major threats to the lake. However, poorly planned road construction, over land flow during heavy monsoon and poor placement of check dams at upstream is altering the physical and biological environment of the lake and decreasing its depth (Sherpa et. al., 2015). Ramsar Information Sheet states that the lake clusters of Pokhara valley holds medium significance for erosion protection service (Ramsar, 2016). 4.2.2.5 Soil quality regulation Forests in the watersheds are often beneficial because of its power of increasing fertility of the land by adding nutrients. Forests reduce the maximum soil temperature and increase the minimum soil temperature within the depth of soil (Ansari, 2003). Forests actively help in soil nutrient cycling through nutrient uptake and storage in vegetation perennial tissues, litter production, litter decomposition, nutrient transformations by soil fauna and flora, nutrient inputs from the atmosphere and the weathering of primary minerals, and nutrient export from the soil by leaching and gaseous transfer (Foster & Bhatti, 2006, p. 718). Forests also help in controlling nutrient loss through soil erosion and biological nitrogen fixation. BWS with 637.73 ha of forest area, 37.00 ha of bushes, 36.45 ha of grassland and associated biogeochemical cycles and erosion control in the watershed area regulates the soil quality. 72 The leaf litters and biomass of the forests after decomposition adds organic matter and humus to the soil which when during surface runoff gets trapped in the cultivable lands increasing its productivity. Forest in BWS can be linked with the function of conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into nutrients. Respondents reported that litters from forests and bushes are collected and transferred to cultivable land as manure. Regarding agricultural ecosystems in BWS, root nodules of some legume crops such as bean and peas can contribute to atmospheric nitrogen fixation. 4.2.2.6 Diseases and pest regulation Ecosystem regulates disease and pests through the actions of various predators and parasites and by the defense mechanism of their prey. One of the most pressing diseases and pest regulation services is carried out by the insectivorous birds in the agricultural fields. 104 species of birds are recorded in BWS, 90 species being endemic (Oli, 1996). Carrion birds like vulture disposes the dead and decayed bodies of animals; thereby reducing the chance of environmental contamination, pests‘ multiplication and chance of diseases like anthrax and botulism. As a scavenger, vultures play most important role for this service. There are various insectivorous birds like Gray-headed flycatcher, Wt.-throated flycatcher, Gray tit, Yellow cheeked tit, Crested serpent eagle, Mountain hawk eagle, Black vulture, Brown woodpecker, Black naped woodpecker, Brown leaf Warbler etc. that help to free the agricultural land and forests from pests and reduce disease spreading through these pests and help to keep the ecosystem healthy. Sparrow hawks and harriers are also reported to keep control of grain eating birds. Rats and mice, which are threats to grain crops, are controlled by jackals, foxes, snakes and owls. Furthermore, respondents reported the cases of disease outbreak in community forests at a certain time is itself treated and disease eradicates on their own after certain time. However, it was reported that the vultures are rarely seen in the BWS compared to some decades ago. Same is the case with jackals and foxes. Also, Begnas Lake is often encroached by water hyacinth. 73 4.2.2.7 Pollination It was reported that some farmers are involved in commercial bee farming. This indicates that farmed bees along with wild bees are distinct agents of pollination in the area. Furthermore, 174 species of butterflies are identified in BWS along with adjoining Rupa watershed (Smith et. al., 2017) along with 104 species of birds (Oli, 1996). The availability of bees, butterflies, moths, flies, bats and other birds and insects help in pollination of agricultural crops like mustard, maize, wheat, paddy, buck wheat, millet and other fruit species. They are also the agents of pollination in the wild. Birds in the BWS like Thick-billed flowerpecker, Plaincoloured flowerpecker, Paddyfield pipit, Scarlet-breasted sunbird, jungle myna, Common myna, Spot- winged stare and gray-headed myna are the distinctly identified pollinator birds in the BWS. The role of pollinating birds can be linked with crop productivity in the region. Furthermore, it can be stated that wind pollination for certain species of trees like Pine and aquatic pollination through water in the Begnas Lake for aquatic plants like hydrilla and water hyacinth is natural pollination mechanism in BWS. 4.2.3 Supporting Services The following Supporting services have been identified based on perception of respondents, consultation with key informants/stakeholders, available secondary literature review and observation to some extent. 4.2.3.1 Habitat BWS provides both terrestrial and aquatic habitat to various species of flora and fauna. As mentioned in above segments, BWS alone with Rupa watershed is habitat to 520 species of vascular plants including 128 tree species, 85 herbaceous plants and shrubs, 80 species of plants and shrubs with religious importance and 40 species of fodder trees and shrubs. Moreover, BWS is home to 45 species of edible plants and 128 species of medicinal plants (Oli, 1996). BWS is habitat to many endangered, rare, threatened and vulnerable terrestrial and aquatic species. Moreover, Begnas-Rupa watershed provides habitat for 63 varieties of rice, 17 varieties of finger millet and 12 varieties of taro (LI-BIRD, n.d.), 2 species of toads, 4 74 species of frogs, 14 species of Reptiles, 34 species of mammals, 104 species 104 species of birds; among which 14 are migratory and 90 species are endemic (Oli, 1996) and 174 species of butterflies (Smith et. al., 2016). Begnas Lake alone provides habitat for 22 native and 7 exotic fish species. Begnas watershed is home to various types of zooplankton and phytoplankton. BWS is also temporary habitat for various migratory birds including Ruddy Crake, Painted Snipe, Hoopoe, Nepal house martin, Barn swallow, Pied wagtail, Rufous turtle dove, Dark kite, Pintail and Common teal among others. Begnas Lake itself is habitat to aquatic birds like Osprey, Little grab, Pintail, Pond heron, and Sand martin. The availability of various habitat types including forests, shrubland, grassland, rice field, village, marsh land and lake has made BWS good habitat for various residential and migratory species. Furthermore, wetlands are considered most suitable habitat for bird species. 4.2.3.2 Soil formation The process of soil formation isn‘t quick and occurs for a very long time. The disintegration of rocks and minerals; major process of soil formation cannot be studied on a short span of time because of its extensive time consuming process. However, forest plays an important role in soil formation. The forest biomass after the death of plant and forest litters, the organic matters in dead plants and animals decompose after the certain time period and form the top layer of soil, humus. Various microorganisms and microbial communities help in the process. BWS with good forest cover can be linked with this service. Added, the function of wetlands in often linked with the retention and accumulation of soil (Maltby, 2012). The marshy areas in the floor of BWS retain the run off soil from the watershed and accumulate it. Wetland moreover, retains the soil as it slows down run-off thereby making it lose energy and deposit the soil particles. However, Begnas Lake is in the threat of siltation and sedimentation brought by its inlet from upstream areas. 4.1.3.3 Nutrient cycling Nutrient cycling is often considered important factor for primary production. Nutrient cycling is the ecological processes carried out by life processes of biodiversity and other physical 75 processes within the interaction of atmosphere and soil. The microorganisms in the soil surface are also the important agents of nutrient cycling. Every ecosystem goes through nutrient cycling. In this context, nutrient cycles like carbon cycle, sulfur cycle, nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle and oxygen cycle, among others is the continuous phenomenal either in the soil surface or the water surface of BWS. Key informants reported that surface run offs from upstream areas deposit nutrients in the downstream areas. Furthermore, wetlands provide conditions for removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from surface water. Wetlands accelerate biologic, physical, and chemical transformations of various nutrients within the biota, soils, water, and air (EPA, n.d.). The wetland areas of Begnas Lake can be linked with these functions. However, in depth study is required to identify the rate of nutrient cycling in BWS. 4.1.3.4 Water cycling BWS receives good amount of rainfall during monsoon season and very less amount of rainfall during the months of November – December. The annual rainfall is 3,710mm with peak monthly rainfall in July (886 mm) and lowest in November and December (13mm). Evapotranspiration is lowest in December (53 mm) and highest in May with an average of 171mm (Oli, 1996). The rainfall in BWS can be said to be influenced by two factors; monsoon clouds from Bay of Bengal and local climatic phenomena influenced by Begnas Lake. Heavy evaporation occurs in Begnas Lake and seasonal streams in upstream, during summer seasons which influence the local rainfall in the watershed. Evapotranspiration is lowest in December (53 mm) and highest in May with an average of 171mm (Oli, 1996). Most of the streams in BWS are seasonal and depends on monsoon rain. The pre monsoon periods are hot and dry accompanied by hailstorms occasionally. Respondents reported that landslides occur in sloppy terraces but there are not serious instances of severe landslide in BWS; nor have people faced severe drought conditions in the watershed region. However, people have noticed the change in rainfall pattern and amount of rainfall over the years. 76 4.2.4 Cultural Services The identification of Cultural Services is done on the basis of actual practice of respondents identified through household survey, interaction with key informants and stakeholders and observation. 4.2.4.1 Recreation and ecotourism Begnas Lake and nearby areas are internationally renowned touristic hub. People from all over the word visit Begnas Lake for the recreational purposes. People enjoy watching beautiful landscape in Begnas area. Tourism entrepreneurship is the main occupation of people living around the Begnas Lake. Easy connectivity with the capital city of Kathmandu through Prithvi highway and being nearby to Pokhara city, one of the most economic touristic center of the world; Begnas has been a must visit place in Nepal. Various touristic infrastructures can be found in the areas around Begnas Lake. There are more than 65 hotels and restaurants targeted to international and domestic tourists and more than 200 tea shops. Rupakot Resort, Tiger Mountain Resort and Begnas Resort are some major night stay places in Begnas Lake area. Eco touristic activity in Begnas Lake includes boating, sight seeking, mild trekking in foot trails, swimming and local culture observation. Begnas Lake is mostly preferred by tourists to enjoy a day away from hustle of the city. The image of Annapurna range in Begnas Lake during clear sunny day is one of the major attractions of the lake. Tourists can also enjoy fishing in the lake. Professional fishing is restricted and requires a license but for armature fishing no restriction is there. Furthermore, though few in numbers, there are homestay in the Sundari Danda area, few kms uphill of the Begnas Lake, but hotels and lodges are more preferred than homestay in Begnas region. Sundari Danda, Majhi Kuna, Pachbhaiya and Piple are the famous touristic places in BWS as most of the tourist centered hotels and lodges are located in these places. Located slightly uphill; these places provide the best view of Begnas Lake. As there is no permit and entry fee required to enter the lake, there is no official data on no. of tourists visiting the site per year. However, consultations with the stakeholders revealed that daily flow of tourists during peak seasons is around 400 whereas during off season average daily inflow of tourist is 100 77 including domestic and international visitors. Begnas Lake is also used as picnic spot by the people residing nearby in the cities of Pokhara, Dumre, Damauli etc. It was also observed that Begnas Lake is a popular dating spot for the youths nearby. Recently constructed Sundari Danda view tower and museum of native products of BWS is a must visit place to watch the beautiful view of Begnas and Rupa lakes from a single spot. Added, it was reported that beautiful scenery of Begnas wetland is increasingly being used to shot movies, music videos and documentaries. Begnas Lake is one of the best sites for bird watching. Begnas Lake along with its wetland area is habitat to various aquatic and migratory birds. Recently, Begnas Fish Festival jointly organized by government agencies and local tourism entrepreneurs also attracts increasing number of tourist each year. However, Begnas Lake still lacks touristic infrastructure to attract significant proportion of tourist visiting Pokhara. Infrastructures to develop night life, modern and star hotels, publicity and promotion strategies are required to enhance the tourism business in Begnas Lake. 4.2.4.2 Aesthetic and spiritual values The lap of nature is often linked with spiritual flourishment. The beautiful natural landscape of Begnas Lake connects visitors with nature and provides peaceful feeling and deepens connection with inner self. Almost all visitors at Lake accepted that they had peaceful feeling observing the beauty of BWS. Almost all festivals observed in Nepali society are found to be celebrated by residents of BWS. People observe various religio-cultural performances before and after paddy crop cultivation and harvesting. People gather to sing and dance during paddy cultivation and celebrate ‗nuwagi‘4 after the first paddy harvest. Dashain, Tihar, Maghe Sakranti, Holi, Nag Panchami, Janai Purnima, New year, Teej, Bala Chaturdasi are the major festivals celebrated in BWS. Jalari Community along with among other festivals; celebrates Shree Panchami to pay homage to their ancestors and fore fathers. 4 Nuwagi indicates the culture of eating first paddy harvest. The ripen rice grain is mixed with milk and sugar and eaten in the family. 78 Barahi temple in the western bank of Begnas Lake is one of the important site regarding the religious significance in the area. Boaters during the month of Baisakh gather at the temple to worship Barahi and please god to protect boats from natural hazards like storm, rainfall and other calamities. Barahi temple is visited by women during Teej celebration and people visit Barahi temple for Shagranti worship every first day of month. People organize mela during Chaite Dashain in banks of streams in various sites of BWS and worship in community temples. Another mela is observed in Taal Beshi during holi where around 1000 people gather for holi celebration. There are various small temples in various villages of watershed to conduct daily and occasional worships. People devote pigeons and leave them free as their sacrifice in Deurali temple in Deurali village. Shiv Ratri is another festival widely observed in BWS. 500-1000 people gather to worship Lord Shiv in Shiva mandir located at Sundari Dada during Shiv Ratri festival. There are local markets called ‗haat bazar‘ organized weekly in various places but because of increasing market expansion and access the value of such ‗haats‘ have decreased significantly. 4.2.4.3 Educational and inspirational values As reported by respondents, various educational institution from capital city and from around the country have been visiting Begnas area for field tours and excursions on various topics. A team of students were met in Sundari Danda area for educational excursion tour during the field visit duration of this study. Furthermore, BWS is potential study and research site for various researchers on topics of watershed management, biodiversity, water quality, soil conservation, agriculture, socio economic status and livelihood of people. Nepali and foreign students visit this place for thesis and project works. LI-BIRD, a NGO working in BWS initiated the establishment of Biodiversity Information Centre in Sundari Dada, Lekhnath-11 in cooperation with other organizations and local authorities. This information Centre provides information about watershed, biodiversity including species of paddy, fishes and birds available, lifestyle of wetland dependent Jalari community to facilitate various students and researchers working in BWS. Furthermore, nature is the source of inspiration to human beings. The beautiful view of Begnas wetland helps to cherish and refresh oneself. People may visit this place to get rid of 79 loneliness, enjoy the view, get inspired and fill oneself with energy. It can be linked with inspirational value of watershed. 4.2.5 Prioritization of Ecosystem Services of BWS Major ecosystem services of BWS were listed consulting the key informants, officials of district level government bodies and NGOs working in the watershed. After listing those services, a question was added on questionnaire for household survey and respondents were asked to score individual listed services on the range of 1-10. The average of those individual scores is used to prioritize ecosystem services of the watershed presented in following table. The perception of respondents has been the key factors to prioritize the ecosystem services of BWS. Table 4.17 Prioritization of ES of BWS S.No. Ecosystem Services Upstream Downstream BWS Average Rank Average Rank Average score 1 Erosion control (soil, Score Rank Score 8.16 3 8.23 3 8.20 2 7.13 5 8.33 1 7.85 4 8.73 1 8.30 2 8.51 1 sediment & nutrient retention) 2 Ground water recharge and discharge 3 Recreation and ecotourism 4 Fishing and irrigation 8.00 4 7.93 4 7.96 3 5 Habitat for wildlife 8.20 2 7.46 5 7.83 5 Source: Field Survey, 2017 The respondents were asked to score the listed ecosystem services on the scale of 1-10. Based on respondent‘s perception, use and importance; the rank of ES differed in upstream and downstream. Upstream respondents ranked Recreation and ecotourism service the highest whereas Groundwater recharge and discharge was the most prioritized service for 80 downstream respondents. Similarly upstream respondents ranked Habitat for wildlife after recreation and ecotourism followed by Erosion control, Fishing and irrigation and Ground water recharge and discharge respectively. Similarly, downstream respondents prioritized recreation and ecotourism as second important ES followed by erosion control, fishing and irrigation and habitat for wildlife respectively. Considering the overall response of BWS, recreation and ecotourism is the most prioritized service of BWS followed by Erosion control (soil, sediment & nutrient retention), Fishing and irrigation, Ground water recharge and discharge and Habitat for wildlife respectively. 81 4.3 Economic valuation of ES 4.3.1 Consumptive use value 4.3.1.1 Fishing Jalari are the indigenous community that is primarily dependent on fishing for their livelihood. There are 42 jalari HH settling around Begnas Lake; most of them are residing in Piple village. Few of them settle in Lipdi, Maladi and Majhikuna. Begnas Lake is the fishing site for people of this community. Begnas Lake Fish Entrepreneurs‘ Association (BFEA) is umbrella organization for fishermen in BWS. Fishermen need to take fishing license from BFEA. BFEA invests around 10 lakhs per year to leave juvenile fish in Begnas Lake as mentioned by Jhalak Jalari (president of BFEA). Sahar, Katle, Baan, Fageta, Rewa, Bhyakur, Rahu, Naini, Common gras, Silver, Bighead crap, Tilipia, Mahur, Bhurluk and Sano bhitta are the major species of fish harvested from Begnas Lake. BFEA runs an outlet in Begnas Lake area when the licensed fishermen sell their harvested fish. The Selling price of various fish species was gathered from selling outlet of BFEA and fish species of same price are grouped together and harvest pattern is differentiated by season. A total of 12 Jalari HH were surveyed for the purpose of this study. Discussions with Jhalak Jalari, president of BFEA and other fishermen, reported that individual HH fish 25 days in a month in an average. Market Price Method has been used to calculate the value of this ES. Table 4.18 Market price of different fish species S.No. Species of fish Market Price (Rs/kg) 1 Bam 500 2 Bhyakur 450 3 Fageta, Rewa & Others 480 4 Rahu, Naini, Common & 430 Grass carp 5 Sahar & Katle 650 6 Sano Bhitta 250 7 Silver carp & Bighead carp 330 8 Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk 260 Source: (BFEA, 2017) 82 4.3.1.1.1 Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk Average per day HH harvest of Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk in Summer is 3.66 kg whereas in winter it is 1.83. From BFEA, it was known that there are 42 HH commercially harvesting fish from Begnas Lake. Discussions with Jalak Jalari, president of BFEA and other fishermen, it was reported that individual HH fish 25 days in a month in an average. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from these fish species are calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.19 Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk harvesting pattern S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) HH) 1 0-2 2 8 2 2-4 4 3 3 4-6 6 1 Total 12 12 (Source: Field Study, 2017) Table 4.20 Annual gross income from Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk S.No. Season Average Total Total HH Market Total monthly harvesting involved in price/Kg Income harvest (kg) months fishing 1 Summer 91.5 6 2 Winter 45.75 6 (Rs) 5,995,080 42 Total gross 260 2,997,540 Income 8,992,620 (Rs) (Source: Derived from table 4.19) 83 4.3.1.1.2 Sahar & Katle Average per day HH harvest of Sahar & Katle in Summer is 2.5 kg whereas in winter it is 1.83 kg. Average per month HH harvest of Sahar & Katle happens to be 62.5 kg in summer and 45.75 kg in winter. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from these fish species are calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.21 Harvest and consumption pattern of Sahar & Katle S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) HH) 1 0-2 6 8 2 2-4 3 3 3 4-6 3 1 Total 12 12 (Source: Field Study, 2017) Table 4.22 Annual gross income from Sahar & Katle S.No. Season Average Total Total HH Market Total monthly harvesting involved price/Kg Income (Rs) harvest months in fishing (kg) 1 Summer 62.5 6 2 Winter 45.75 6 10,237,500 42 650 7,493,850 Total Income 17,731,350 gross (Source: Derived from table 4.21) 84 (Rs) 4.3.1.1.3 Sano Bhitta Average per day HH harvest of Sano Bhitta in summer is 1.5 kg whereas in winter it is 1 kg. Average per month HH harvest of Sano Bhitta happens to be 37.5 kg in summer and 25 kg in winter. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from these fish species are calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.23 Harvest and consumption pattern of Sano Bhitta S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of HH) Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) 1 0-2 9 12 2 2-4 3 0 3 4-6 0 0 Total 12 12 (Source: Field study, 2017) Table 4.24 Annual Gross income from Sano Bhitta S.No. Season Average Total Total HH Market Total monthly harvesting involved price/Kg Income (Rs) harvest months in fishing (kg) 1 Summer 37.5 6 2 Winter 25.75 6 2,362,500 42 250 1,622,250 Total Income 3,984,750 gross (Source: Derived from table 4.23) 85 (Rs) 4.3.1.1.4 Bam Average per day HH harvest of Bam in summer is 1.33 kg whereas in winter it is 1.16 kg. Average per month HH harvest of Bam happens to be 33.25 kg in summer and 29 kg in winter. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from these fish species are calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.25 Harvest and Consumption pattern of Bam S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of HH) Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) 1 0-2 10 11 2 2-4 2 1 3 4-6 0 0 Total 12 12 (Source: Field study, 2017) Table 4.26 Annual gross income from Bam Average S.No. Season monthly Total Total HH harvesting involved in harvest (kg) months 1 Summer 33.25 6 2 Winter 29.00 6 Total price/Kg Income fishing (Rs) 4,189,500 42 500 3,654,000 Total Income 7,843,500 gross (Source: Derived from table 4.25) 86 Market (Rs) 4.3.1.1.5 Rahu, Naini, Common carp and Grass carp Average per day HH harvest of Rahu, Naini, Common carp and Grass carp in summer is 1.33 kg whereas in winter it is 2.16 kg. Average per month HH harvest of Rahu, Naini, Common carp and Grass carp happens to be 33.25 kg in summer and 54 kg in winter. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from these fish species are calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.27 Harvest and Consumption pattern of Rahu, Naini, Common carp and Grass carp S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of HH) Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) 1 0-2 10 7 2 2-4 2 3 3 4-6 0 2 Total 12 12 (Source: Field Study, 2017) Table 4.28 Annual gross income from Rahu, Naini, Common carp and Grass carp S.No. Season Average Total Total HH Market Total monthly harvesting involved price/Kg Income harvest months in fishing (Rs) (kg) 1 Summer 33.25 6 2 Winter 54.00 6 3,602,970 42 430 5,851,440 Total Income 9,454,410 gross (Source: Derived from table 4.27) 87 (Rs) 4.3.1.1.6 Bhyakur Average per day HH harvest of Bhyakur in summer is 1 kg whereas in winter it is 1.66 kg. Average per month HH harvest of Bhyakur happens to be 25 kg in summer and 41.5 kg in winter. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from this fish species is calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.29 Harvest and consumption pattern of Bhyakur S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of HH) Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) 1 0-2 12 9 2 2-4 0 2 3 4-6 0 1 Total 12 12 (Source: Field Study, 2017) Table 4.30 Annual gross income from Bhyakur S.No. Season Average Total Total HH Market Total monthly harvesting involved price/Kg Income harvest months in fishing (Rs) (kg) 1 Summer 25 6 2 Winter 41.5 6 2,835,000 42 450 4,706,100 Total Income 7,541,100 gross (Source: Derived from table 4.29) 88 (Rs) 4.3.1.1.7 Silver carp and Bighead carp Average per day HH harvest of Silver carp & Bighead carp in summer is 1.33 kg whereas in winter it is 3 kg. Average per month HH harvest of Silver carp happens to be 33.25 kg in summer and 75 kg in winter. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from these fish species is calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.31 Harvest and consumption pattern of Silver carp and Bighead carp S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of HH) Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) 1 0-2 10 4 2 2-4 2 4 3 4-6 0 4 Total 12 12 (Source: Field study, 2017) Table 4.32 Annual gross income from Silver carp & Bighead carp S.No. Season Average Total Total HH Market Total monthly harvesting involved price/Kg Income harvest months in fishing (Rs) (kg) 1 Summer 33.25 6 2 Winter 75 6 2,765,070 42 330 6,237,000 Total Income 9,002,070 gross (Source: Derived from table 4.31) 89 (Rs) 4.3.1.1.8 Others Other species of fish that are generally harvested from Begnas Lake are Fageta, Rewa and other native species of fish. Table 4.33 Harvest and consumption pattern of other fish species S.No. Quantity in kg Summer (No. of HH) Winter (No. of HH) (Daily) 1 0-2 9 7 2 2-4 3 5 3 4-6 0 0 Total 12 12 (Source: Field Study, 2017) Average per day HH harvest of other fish species in summer is 1.5 kg whereas in winter it is 1.83 kg. Average per month HH harvest of other species happens to be 37.5 kg in summer and 45.75 kg in winter. As fishing is carried out in all months of the year, the annual income from these fish species is calculated on seasonal basis. Table 4.34 Annual gross income from other fish species S.No. Season Average Total Total HH Market Total monthly harvesting involved price/Kg Income (Rs) harvest months in fishing (kg) 1 Summer 37.5 6 2 Winter 45.75 6 4,536,000 42 480 5,533,920 Total Income 10,069,920 gross (Source: Derived from table 4.33) 90 (Rs) 4.3.1.1.9 Gross Annual income from fishery Table 4.35 Gross annual income from fishery S.No. Fish Species Gross Annual Income (Rs) 1 Tilipia, Mahur & Vurluk 8,992,620 2 Sahar & Katle 17,731,350 3 Sano Bhitta 3,984,750 4 Bam 7,843,500 5 Rahu, Naini, Common carp 9,454,410 and Grass carp 6 Bhyakur 7,541,100 7 Silver carp and Bighead carp 9,002,070 8 Others 10,069,920 Total 74,619,720 (Source: Field Study, 2017) 4.3.1.2 Niuro Niuro (variety of fern that is edible) is used as vegetable and is harvested from forest areas, swamps and marshy areas around Begnas Lake and also from agricultural lands. The harvesting pattern has been extensively reduced compared to decades ago as mentioned by respondents. Still people reported that they harvest Niuro for household consumption. It is mainly harvested by upstream people and indigenous people around Begnas Lake compared to people living in downstream, distant from lake. Only 27 HH out of 60 surveyed reported that they harvest Niuro for vegetables. The harvesting pattern of Niuro is shown on following table: 91 Table 4.36 Niuro harvesting pattern of respondents S.No. Niuro harvested per No. of HH Percentage month (Kg) 1 0-1 17 62.97 2 1-2 8 29.62 3 2-3 2 7.41 4 More than 3 0 0.00 Total 27 100 (Source: Field Study, 2017) The average harvest of Niuro per HH is 0.94 kg per household per month. The total HH of BWS considering its administrative divisions 8, 9, 10, 11 wards of former ekhnath Municipality, Majhthana VDC and 1-5 wards of Kalika VDC is 4504 HH (CBS, 2011). The per kg local market price of Niuro was found to be Rs. 80 (normally) from local vegetable market. The total market price of Niuro harvested is calculated to be Rs. 1,354,803.20. Table 4.37 Market price of Niuro harvested annually Average Niuro harvested per Month per HH (Kg) 0.94 No. of harvesting months 4 Total HHs in BWS 4504 Market price per Kg (Rs) 80 Total Annual Income (Rs) 1,354,803.20 (Source: Derived from table 4.36) 4.3.2 Fuel wood Very few of the surveyed HH used fuel wood as the major source of fuel for cooking. However, people in the upstream used fuel wood to cook fodder. Some Jalari HHs were observed using fuel wood for cooking purposes. This indicates the decrease in harvest of fuel wood over years. LPG is extensively used as cooking fuel. However along with LPG and Kerosene; people also use fuel wood to cook food occasionally. It is also used to warm up 92 during winter. Generally fuel wood is harvested from community forests once a year. People also use woods from their agricultural land and kharbari as fuel wood. Market Price Method has been used to value the fuel wood harvest. Following table presents the harvest pattern of fuel wood in BWS. Table 4.38 Harvest pattern of fuel wood S.No. Total bunch of fuel wood No. of HH Percentage harvest annually (Bhari) 1 0-10 18 42.86 2 10-20 12 28.57 3 20-30 12 28.57 4 30-40 0 0.00 Total 42 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) Above table shows that 42.857% HH harvest 0-10 Bhari of fuel wood annually whereas 28.571% HH harvest 10-20 Bhari and same figure of HH harvest 20-30 Bhari annually with no figure exceeding more than 30 Bhari. The average bunch of fuel wood harvested by per HH stands at 13.571 Bhari. The gross monetary value of total annual fuel wood harvest is Rs. 6,112,378.40. Table 4.39 Total annual income from fuel wood harvest Average bunch of fuel wood Time Labor cost Local Total Total annual harvested required to per Bhari market households income annually collect 1 (Rs) price per in BWS (deducting per HH Bhari 13.571 1 hour Bhari (Rs) 80 180 (Source: Derived from table 4.38) 93 labor cost) 4504 6,112,378.40 4.3.3 Boating service Boating is of the major tourist attraction of Begnas Lake and one of the sources of income for local people. Begnas Lake Boat Entrepreneurs‘ Committee (BBEC) manages the boating activities in the lake that was established in 2037 BS. There are currently 257 boats in operation at the lake. Boats are owned by local people, operated by owner themselves or rented to other people and outsiders are restricted to own a boat in the lake. BBEC holds syndicate over boat operation in the lake and permit to introduce new boats in the lake has been stopped since 4 years back. However, BBEC is going to review about providing permit to introduce boats next year. Boats operate in a rotational basis and single boat may have to wait for multiple days for its turn. Discussions with Dhaknath Kandel, president of BBEC, Som Raj Kandel, ex-president of BBEC, Bishwa Nath Kandel, ex-vice chairman and other officials of BBEC reported that minimum of 10 and maximum of 100 boats operate in a day with an average of 45 boats operating daily. Boats operate all the year around, even in rainy seasons. Generally, a single boat operates for 2 hours in a day in an average. Small boat is most favored type of boat among other pedal and fiver boat available in small numbers. As small boat with driver is usually demanded by tourist, hourly average income of single boat is Rs. 450. Every boatman has to pay monthly royalty of Rs. 150 to BBEC. Table 4.40 Daily income from boating service Average Average Number Number Labour Total daily Monthly no. of hourly of of cost for income income from boats income operating operating riding from boating operating from hours in a days in a boat boating service (Rs) daily single boat day per month (hr/Rs) service boat 45 450 2 (Rs) 30 100 31,500 9,45,000 (Source: Field study, 2017) The average daily income from boating is calculated to be Rs. 31,500 deducting the labour cost for operating boats. The total monthly income happens to be Rs. 9,45,000. This indicates 94 that boating is good income source at Begnas Lake. As boats are operated all the year around, the total annual income from boating is calculated Rs. 11,340,000. Table 4.41 Total annual income from boating Monthly income No. of operating months Total annual income from boating (Rs) in a year from boating (Rs) 9,45,000 12 11,340,000 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.3.4 Irrigation Begnas Irrigation System (BIS) was constructed under hill irrigation project implemented in western region under the loan assistance of ADB in 1988. BIS comprises of earth fill dam, main canal and branch canal with lining and essential cross drainage structures. BIS uses the lake water for irrigation with an operating system at dam side. BIS is integration of old network of traditional canals into new ones. The total culturable command area of BIS is about 580 ha. Only irrigation in downstream in BWS has been included in this study. The major crops cultivated in the command area of BWS are rice, wheat, maize, oil seeds, vegetables etc. Discussions with officials of WUG of Begnas, about 5000 HH are benefited form BIS. The farmers irrigating their farms from BIS have to pay Rs. 20 per year to WUG management. As stated in Annual Report 2072/73 of DADO, Kaski, 24200 ha of total land area in Kaski out of 68937 ha of total cultivable land is used for paddy cultivation. 20583 for maize, 6820 ha is used for wheat, 1700 ha for potato and 460 ha for oil seeds cultivation respectively. This implies that out of 580 ha of culturable command area of BIS, 203.5 ha is used for paddy cultivation, 173 ha for maize, 57 ha for wheat, 14 ha for potato, 4 ha for oil seeds cultivation. Fertilizer cost is neglected to calculate nutrient benefit as fertilizer is used even in absence of irrigation. However, productivity of maize in rain fed and non-irrigated land isn‘t included because of unavailability of data. 95 Table 4.42 Irrigation affecting productivity of land S.No. Crops Productivity in Productivity in non- irrigated land irrigated or rain fed (metric ton/ha) land5 (metric ton/ha) 1 Paddy 3.00 2.09 2 Wheat 1.98 1.97 3 Potato 12.00 8.80 4 Oil seeds 0.75 0.74 (Source: Annual Report 2072/73, DADO, Kaski) From above data, the total productivity benefit of various cultivated crops and total productivity benefit because of Begnas Irrigation System could be calculated as: Table 4.43 Nutritional benefit from irrigation S.No. Crops Total Total increase Local Total annual cultivated irrigated in productivity market price income from land (ha) (metric ton) per metric irrigation ton (Rs) (Rs) 1 Paddy 203.50 185.18 50,000 9,259,000 2 Wheat 57.00 0.57 40,000 22,800 3 Potato 14.00 44.80 30,000 1,344,000 4 Oil seeds 4.00 0.04 2,000 80 Total 10,625,880 (Source: Derived from table 4.42) The table above calculates the total change in production due to nutritional benefit from irrigation and market price of increased production gives the total annual income from irrigation. 5 Productivity of either rain fed or non-irrigated land has been used as per availability of data 96 4.3.5 Hydropower There has been identified the potentiality of pumped storage hydropower (PSH) in BegnasRupa lakes. It is estimated that plant capacity of such pumped-storage hydropower in Begnas-Rupa to be 100 MW operating for five hours (Sah et. al., 2014). This shows that Begnas along with nearby Rupa Lake holds potentiality for significant amount of electricity if concerned authority shows interest in constructing pumped-storage type of plant in this lake. For, the purpose of this study, electricity tariff of Rs. 10 per kWh for 51-150 units of 15 Ampere single phase line has been considered as the standard electricity of Nepal as of 2015/16. The total income from 100 MW power plant operating for 5 hours a day in a year is calculated as: Table 4.44 Potential annual gross income from hydro electricity Amount of Operating Total SP of Operating Total gross electricity duration electricity electricity days in a income in a generated (hr/day) produced (per kWh) year year (Rs) Rs. 10 365 9,125,000,000 daily 100 MW (100000 5 500000 kWh kWh) (Based on study of Sah et. al., 2014) In order to calculate the net income from the power plant the annual operation and maintenance cost (AOM) is to be deducted from gross income. Though hydro power plants do not require replacement of its equipment for a long period of time; AOM is generally calculated as percentage of the investment cost per kW per year with an average of 2.5% globally (IEA, 2010). The investment cost for 1 kW is generally taken to be 3500$ (Black & Veatch, 2012). The average AOM cost for 1 kW per year is $87.5 i.e. Rs. 9,012.5 (US$ 1 = Rs. 103). 97 Table 4.45 Potential net income from hydroelectricity AOM Total capacity per kW of plant Total AOM Total gross Total net income income (Gross income – total AOM) Rs. 100000 kWh Rs. 901,250,000 Rs. 9,125,000,000 Rs. 8,223,750,000 9,012.5 (Source: Derived from table 4.44) Hence, the pontential net income from hydroelectricity is estimated to be Rs. 8,223,750,000. However, the study doesn‘t include plant factor under consideration and theoretically assumes the efficiency of plant to be 100%. 4.3.6 Carbon sequestration The Begnas Tal Rupa Tal Watershed Management Project (BTRT) implemented by CARE Nepal and DSCWM from 1984 to 1997 played a vital role to regenerate the degraded forests in BWS in their natural condition and worked for better forest management. The people in BWS fairly credits BTRT project for the current greenery in the community forests. With the help of Mr. Nabin Bishwakarma, Ranger at DFO, Kaski and Ramchandra Poudel, official at Sisuwa Ban Illaka, Kaski, the names of community forest within the confines of BWS was identified, The list of names of community forests in BWS identified for the purpose of this study is attached as Annex VIII. The total area of community forest in BWS at present is found to be 1520.82 ha. Reviewing the Operational Plans of community forests, it was found that most of the community forests in the area are Schima-Castanopsis dominated mixed with some species like Alnus nepalensis, Bombax ceiba, Modhuca longifolia, Shorea robusts among others. A study carried out of Baral et. al, 2009 at Gaukhereshwar CF of Kavre district in mid hills of Nepal reports the average above ground carbon sequestration rate of Schima-Castanopsis forest to be 1.56 ton ha/yr. In another research to value the carbon sequestration of water bodies at Jagdishpur reservoir of Nepal Baral et. al, 2016 has used 1.3 ton ha/yr as the standard annual carbon storage of fresh water body. Similarly, the average rate of transaction was found to be US $ 2.9 per ton of CO2 (Schneck et. al, 2011). As 1 ton of carbon equals to 98 3.67 tons, the mean of transaction for 1 ton of carbon happens to be $10.64 or Rs 1,0966. The total value of carbon sequestration of BWS is calculated as: Table 4.46 Value of carbon sequestration S.No. Source Area (ha) Rate of C Total carbon Value of Total sequestration sequestration carbon value (ton h/yr) (ton/yr) (per ton) 1 Forests 1520.82 1.56 2372.50 1096 2,600,260 2 Water 340.00 1.30 442.00 1096 484,432 bodies Total 3,084,692 (Source: Forest area derived from Operational Plan of CFs of BWS) From the table 4.46 above, the value of total annual carbon stock of BWS is found to be Rs. 3,084,692. 4.3.7 Recreational and aesthetic value Begnas Lake is a famous tourist site in Pokhara valley. Everyday national as well as international tourist visit Begnas to enjoy its natural beauty. Tourist enjoys boating, taste fish, explore local culture and even swim in Begnas Lake. Being near to Lake side of Pokhara, it has comparative advantage to attract international tourist. Tourists do not have to pay entry fee to enter the lake. Though there is no official data maintained on number of visitors entering Begnas Lake area daily, consultation with Damodar Bhakta Thapa (President, Hotel and Restaurant Association, Lekhnath), Dhaknath Kandel (President, BBEC), Durga Prasad Adhikari (Ex-president, Hotel and Restaurant Association, Lekhnath), Jhalak Jalari (President, BFEA) and other tourism entrepreneurs, boat operators and local people, it was revealed that maximum of 400 tourists visit during peak season whereas as low as 100 tourist visit Begnas Lake during off seasons, with an average of 250 tourists visiting Begnas daily of which generally 180 are Nepalese, 30 are from SAARC countries and 40 are foreigners . 6 The exchange rate of dollar to Nepali Rs. is 103 as of July 12, 2017 as per NRB. 99 Most of the visitors were found to visit Begnas for only a day and spent night at Lake Side, Pokhara. Visitor‘s survey was carried on 10th and 11th June 2017. A total of 32 visitors were surveyed representing various nationalities. Travel cost method has been used to value recreational and aesthetic services of Begnas Lake. 4.3.7.1 Background characteristics of visitors 4.3.7.1.1 Age and gender of visitors The age and gender distribution of surveyed visitors is summarized in table 27. During 2 day visitor‘s survey at Begnas Lake, 18 visitors were male and 14 were females out of 32 surveyed visitors representing 56.25% and 43.75% of total visitors respectively. Table 4.47 Surveyed visitors by gender S.No. Gender No. of visitors Percentage 1 Male 18 56.25 2 Female 14 43.75 Total 32 100 (Source: Field Study, 2017) The age of the visitors in Begans Lake is summarized in the table 31 below. Highest numbers of visitors are from the age 20-30 years representing 62.5% of total surveyed visitors. 9.37% of visitors were 10-20 years of age whereas same 9.37% of visitors were from age group 3040 years. 6.25% of visitors surveyed represented age group 40-50 years and 12.5% were from age 50-60 years. 100 Table 4.48 Age of the surveyed visitors S.No. Age No. of visitors Percentage 1 0-10 0 0.00 2 10-20 3 9.37 3 20-30 20 62.50 4 30-40 3 9.37 5 40-50 2 6.25 6 50-60 4 12.50 7 More than 60 0 0.00 Total 32 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.3.7.1.2 Occupation of the visitors Out of total 32 surveyed visitors, 6 were purely students and were visiting Begnas Lake either on their own or part of field visit of their academic course. 6 visitors were involved on some sort of private business whereas the largest percentage of visitors, nearly half i.e. 15 visitors were involved in either private or public service. 5 visitors were found to be involved in agriculture, who were in Begnas either part of field visit of agricultural groups or family visits. Same 18.75% of visitors represented students and private business groups. 46.87% of visitors were involved in either private or public service whereas 15.62% of visitors were purely involved in agriculture. Table 4.49 Occupation of the visitors S.No. Occupation No. of visitors Percentage 1 Students 6 18.75 2 Business 6 18.75 3 Service 15 46.87 4 Agriculture 5 15.62 Total 32 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 101 4.3.7.1.3 Nationality of visitors Begnas Lake is famous tourist hub for visitors all around the world. Among the surveyed visitors, majority of the visitors were Nepali i.e. 22 out of 32, representing 68.75% of total surveyed visitors. 4 visitors were of SAARC nationality except Nepal, mostly Indian and Bangladeshi representing 12.5% of surveyed visitors. 6 foreign visitors except from SAARC countries were surveyed representing 18.75% of total surveyed visitors. Table 4.50 Nationality of visitors S.No. Nationality No. of visitors Percentage 1 Nepali 22 68.75 2 SAARC 4 12.50 3 Foreign (except SAARC) 6 18.75 Total 32 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.3.7.1.4 Visitors mode of transport to reach the lake Majority of visitors were found to be using bus service to reach the lake. 17 visitors surveyed had used bus service to reach the lake representing 53.12% of total surveyed respondents. 8 visitors used taxi or personal car to reach the lake. They represented 25% of surveyed visitors. 7 surveyed visitors had used airplane and other mode of transport either bus or car to reach the lake representing 21.87% of surveyed visitors. Table 4.51 Visitors mode of transport S.No. Mode of transport No. of visitors Percentage 1 Bus 17 53.12 2 Taxi/car 8 25.00 3 Aeroplane and other 7 21.87 Total 32 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 102 4.3.7.1.5 Visitors main motive to visit the lake Visitors had recreational, educational or spiritual motive to visit the lake. Spirituality hasn‘t been perceived in religious terms but also feeling of inner peace, getting away from crowd and enjoy self-time for the purpose of this study. Most of the visitors had recreational motive to visit the lake. Table 4.52 Visitors motive to visit lake S.No. Motive No. of visitors Percentage 1 Recreational 21 65.62 2 Educational 4 12.50 3 Spiritual 7 21.87 Total 32 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) Majority of respondents had recreational motive to visit the lake with 65.62% of total surveyed respondents. Meanwhile, only 12.5% of visitors of visitors had educational motive, the troops from educational institution on field visit were considered to have educational motive. Similarly 21.87% visitors had spiritual motive to visit the lake. 4.3.7.1.6 Things visitors like most in the lake Enjoying nature/landscape, boating and tasting fish are the major things tourist like most in Begnas Lake. Out of surveyed 32 visitors, 13 respondents replied that they liked nature/landscape most in Begnas Lake. Representing about 40.62% of total surveyed visitors, they liked scenic beauty of the lake most. 12 respondents among 32 liked boating the most representing about 37.5% of total surveyed visitors. 7 respondents reported that they liked the taste of fish the most in Begnas Lake representing 21.87% of total respondents. 103 Table 4.53 Things visitor like most in Begnas Lake S.No. Things liked most No. of visitors Percentage 1 Taste of fish 7 21.87 2 Boating 12 37.50 3 Nature/landscape 13 40.62 Total 32 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.3.7.1.7 The frequency of visitors Majority of the surveyed respondents were first time visitors to the Lake. 14 respondents were visiting lake for the first time. First timers constitute 43.75% of total surveyed visitors. 7 visitors representing 21.87% of total surveyed visitors were visiting lake for the second time whereas 5 visitors representing 15.62% were visiting lake for the third time. 6 visitors representing 18.75% of surveyed respondents had visited the lake at least 3 times earlier. Table 4.54 Frequency of visitors S.No. Frequency No. of visitors Percentage 1 1st time 14 43.75 2 2nd time 7 21.87 3 3rd time 5 15.62 4 More than 3 times 6 18.75 Total 32 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 104 4.3.7.1.8 Monthly income of visitors Considering the income of Nepali visitors, 7 respondents who were students and didn‘t make any income on their own were regarded to have zero monthly income. 12.5% of Nepali visitors had income below Rs. 20,000 among surveyed income making Nepali visitors. 25% earned between Rs. 20000-40000, 43.75% earned Rs. 40000-60000, 12.5% earned Rs. 60000-80000 and only 6.25% had income Rs. 800000 to 100000. Among surveyed visitors from SAARC countries 25% of visitors had income below Rs. 50000. 50% had income inbetween Rs. 50000 to 1 lakh and 25% had income more than 1 lakh and less than 1.5 lakhs. Among surveyed foreign visitors, except SAARC countries, 33.33% had income of Nrs. 1 lakh-2 lakhs whereas 66.67% had income in-between Rs. 2 lakhs – 3 lakhs. Table 4.55 Monthly income of visitors Monthly income (in Rs) S.No Nepali Income SAARC No. of Income visitors Foreigners No. of Income visitors No. of visitors 1 0-20000 2 0-50000 1 0-1000000 0 2 20000-40000 4 50000-100000 2 100000-200000 2 3 40000-60000 7 100000-150000 1 200000-300000 4 4 60000-80000 2 5 80000-100000 1 Total 16 4 6 (Source: Field study, 2017) The average income of Nepali visitors happens to be Rs. Rs, 45000 per month. The average income of SAARC visitors is found to be Rs. 75000 and those of foreign visitors is Rs. 216666.66. 105 4.3.7.1.9 Travel duration to reach Begnas Lake Out of surveyed Nepali visitors, 54.55% has travel duration less than 12 hours to reach Begnas Lake whereas 45.46% visitors had travel duration between 12 hours to 24 hours. Among SAARC visitors 50% had travel duration of 1-2 days and 50% had travel duration of 2-3 days. Among surveyed foreign visitors, 16.66% had travel duration of 1-2 days whereas 83.33% had travel duration of 2-3 days. Table 4.56 Travel duration of visitors to reach Begnas Lake Travel duration to reach lake Nepali S.No. Duration SAARC No. of Duration visitors Foreigners No. of Duration visitors No. of visitors 1 0-12 hours 12 0-1 day 0 0-1 day 0 2 12-24 hours 10 1-2 days 2 1-2 days 1 3 More than 24 0 2-3 days 2 2-3 days 5 hours Total 22 4 6 (Source: Field study, 2017) The average travel duration for Nepali visitors is 11.45 hours i.e. 0.95 days whereas for SAARC visitors it is 2 days and for foreign visitors, their average time spent to reach Begnas Lake is about 2.33 days. 4.3.7.1.10 Travel cost of visitors to reach Begnas Lake Among surveyed Nepali visitors, 50% visitors had less than Rs. 1000 travelling cost to reach the lake whereas 36.87% had travelling cost of Rs. 1000-2000 and only 13.63% had travelling cost Rs. 2000-3000. Among SAARC visitors, half of the visitors had traveling cost less than 5000 whereas another half had traveling cost Rs. 5000-10000. 83.33% of SAARC visitors had invested Rs. 500000- 1 lakh to reach lake whereas 16.67% visitors had invested Rs. 1 lakh – 1.5 lakhs. 106 Table 4.57 Travel cost to reach Begnas Lake Travel cost (in Rs) Nepali S.No Cost SAARC No. of Cost visitors Foreigners No. of Cost No. of visitors visitors 1 0-1000 11 0-5000 2 50000-100000 5 2 1000-2000 8 5000-10000 2 100000-150000 1 3 2000-3000 3 10000-15000 0 Total 22 4 6 (Source: Field study, 2017) The average travelling expense of Nepali visitors is around Rs. 1136. The same figure for SAARC visitors is calculated to be around Rs. 5000 and average travelling expense for foreigners is around Rs. 83,333. 4.3.7.1.11 Stay duration in Begnas Lake area Out of surveyed Nepali visitors, 81.82% had stay duration less than 6 hours in Begnas Lake whereas 9.09% visitors had stay duration between 6 hours to 12 hours and 9.09% stayed for 18-24 hours. Among SAARC visitors all the surveyed visitors had stay duration less than 6 hours. Among surveyed foreign visitors, 16.66% had stay duration of 0-1 day whereas 16.66% had stay duration of 1-2 days and 66.67% stayed for 2-3 days. Table 4.58 Stay duration of visitors in Begnas Lake area Stay duration (in Rs) Nepali S.No. Duration SAARC No. of Foreigners Duration visitors No. of Duration visitors No. of visitors 1 0-6 hours 18 0-6 hours 4 0-1 day 1 2 6-12 hours 2 6-12 hours 0 1-2 day 1 3 12-18 hours 0 12-18 hours 0 2-3 day 4 4 18-24 hours 2 18-24 hours 0 Total 22 4 (Source: Field study, 2017) 107 6 The average stay duration for Nepali visitors is about 5.18 hours i.e. 0.43 days whereas for SAARC visitors it is 3 hours i.e. 0.25 days and for foreign visitors, their average stay time at Begnas Lake is about 2 days. 4.3.7.1.12 Food and accommodation expense of visitors in Begnas Lake area Out of surveyed Nepali visitors, 54.54% of Nepali visitors had expense less than Rs. 500 whereas 36.37% visitors had expense of Rs. 500-1500 whereas 9.09% had expense of Rs. 2000-2500. Among SAARC visitors, half of the visitors had expense within Rs. 500-1000 and other half had expense of Rs. 1000-1500. 16.66% of surveyed foreign visitors had expense of Rs. 3000-6000, 16.66% had expense of Rs. 6000-9000, 33.35% had expense of Rs. 9000-12000 and 33.35% had expense of Rs. 12000-15000. Table 4.59 Food and accommodation expense of visitors Stay duration (in Rs) Nepali S.No. Expense SAARC No. of Expense visitors Foreigners No. of Expense visitors No. of visitors 1 0-500 12 0-500 0 0-3000 0 2 500-1000 8 500-1000 2 3000-6000 1 3 1000-1500 0 1000-1500 2 6000-9000 1 4 1500-2000 0 9000-12000 2 5 2000-2500 2 12000-15000 2 Total 22 4 6 (Source: Field study, 2017) The average food and accommodation expense of Nepali visitors is found to be Rs. 613.63. The average of SARRC visitor‘s expense is 1000 and for foreigners the amount figures Rs. 10,000. 108 4.3.7.1.13 Willingness to pay entry fee Currently there is no provision of entry fee to enter Begnas Lake area. However, all the surveyed respondents are willing to pay entry fee if such provision is made. Among Nepali visitors, 63.64% of visitors are willing to pay Rs. 0-20 as entry fee, 31.81% are willing to Rs. 20-40, 4.54% is willing to pay Rs. 80-100. Among surveyed SAARC visitors, 75% of visitors are willing to pay less than 50 and 25% of visitors are willing to pay Rs. 50-100 as entry fee. 16.66% of foreign visitors are willing to pay Rs. 50-100, 33.34% replied Rs. 100-150, 16.66% are willing to pay Rs. 150-200 and 33.34% are willing to pay Rs. 200-250 as entry fee. The willingness to pay entry fee of visitors is summarized in the table below: Table 4.60 Willingness to pay entry fee WTP entry fee (in Rs) Nepali S.No. Amount SAARC No. of Amount visitors Foreigners No. of Amount visitors No. of visitors 1 0-20 14 0-50 3 0-50 0 2 20-40 7 50-100 1 50-100 1 3 40-60 0 100-150 2 4 60-80 1 150-200 1 2 200-250 2 5 80-100 Total 22 4 6 (Source: Field study, 2017) The average willingness to pay entry fee is found to be Rs. 25 for Nepali visitors. SAARC visitors are willing to pay Rs. 37.5 as entry fee on an average. Similarly foreign visitors‘ average willingness to pay is Rs. 158.33. 109 4.3.7.1.15 Calculation of recreational value For travel cost, Nepali visitor is assumed to visit at least Phewa Lake i.e. Lake side during their trip to Pokhara. Hence, 50% of two way travel cost is inferred to Begnas lake visit. Visitors of SAARC & foreign countries in their visit to Nepal are assumed to visit at least 3 different tourist sites in Nepal, Pokhara being one of them. Hence, the travel expense for Pokhara only is considered to be 33.33% of total travel expense. Assuming in Pokhara they visit at least two sites including Begnas Lake, the total travel expense of Begnas happens to be 16.67% of total two way travel expense to Nepal. Thus, the average total two way travel expense for Nepali visitors (as discussed in 4.3.7.1.10 segment) for Begnas only is Rs. 1136. Similarly average travel expense (two way) for SAARC and foreign visitors is Rs. 1667 and Rs. 27,783.20. For time cost i.e. the opportunity cost while visiting a site, the standard method for time cost estimation in TCM has always been controversial. However, 1/3 to ½ of normal wage rate is used to estimate time cost of visitors (Grunigen, 2016). For the purpose of this study, one third of total daily income, the visitor could have earned during his stay duration in Begnas has been used as time cost. Similarly considering Nepalese visitors visit at least two sites in Begnas during Pokhara visit including Pokhara, 50% of one third of income would have been made during two way travel duration is also added on time cost. Similarly as assumed in paragraph above, assuming SAARC and foreign visitors visit atleast 3 sites in Nepal, one side being Pokhara. Further, assuming they visit at least two sites in Pokhara, 16.67% of 1/3rd income of visitors has been used as time cost of 2 way travel duration of visitors. From information in segments 4.3.7.1.8, 4.3.7.1.9, 4.3.7.1.10 and 4.3.7.1.11, the average time cost for Nepali visitor is calculated to be Rs. 1039.37, Rs. 1562.5 for SAARC visitors and Rs. 6816.10 for international visitors. From segment 4.3.7.1.12, average food and accommodation expense of Nepali visitors in Begnas Lake area is found to be Rs. 613.63. The average of SARRC visitor‘s expense is 1000 and for foreigners the amount figures Rs. 10,000. Similarly from segment 4.3.7.1.13, the average willingness to pay entry fee is found to be Rs. 25 for Nepali visitors. SAARC visitors are willing to pay Rs. 37.5 as entry fee on an average and foreign visitors‘ average willingness to pay is Rs. 158.33. As discussed in segment 4.3.7, the average annual inflow of Nepali visitors in Begnas Lake is 65,700. A Similary average annual visitor from SARRC countries is 10,950 and total annual 110 foreign visitors are 14,600. The zonal cost approach of TCM dividing visitors from three zones i.e. Nepali, SAARC countries and foreign has been applied. However, the background data have been achieved from individual visitors‘ survey from three zones. The total recreational value of Begnas Lake has been calculated as: Table 4.61 Annual recreational and aesthetic value of Begnas Lake Figures per person in Rs Visito Total Average Average time Food & rs number travel cost zone of visitors (2 way) cost on expense fee Nepal 65,700 1136.00 1039.37 613.63 25.00 184,879,800 SAA 10,950 1667.00 1562.50 1000.00 37.50 46,723,650 14,600 27,783.20 6816.10 10000.00 158.33 653,461,398 (opportunity) accommodati WTP Total entry RC Foreig n Total 91,250 885,064,848 (Source: Field study, 2017) From the table above, the total annual visitors in Begnas Lake is found to be 91,250. And the total annual recreational and aesthetic value of Begnas Lake is calculated to be Rs. 885,064,848. 4.3.8 Willingness to pay for sustainable management and conservation (CVM) People of BWS are directly benefited by various use and non-use services of BWS. Applying the CVM techniques, beneficiaries of BWS including farmers, tourism entrepreneurs, boaters and other households were directly asked about their willingness to pay for conservation and sustainable management of BWS as well as in order to value nonuse services. While asking the WTP of respondents, in order to identify their maximum willingness to pay for sustainable management and conservation, bidding the higher amount was carried on until respondents replied they were not ready to pay after a certain amount. This gives the 111 maximum willingness to pay of individual respondents. The maximum annual WTP was recorded as in the below table: Table 4.62 Maximum WTP of respondents S.No. Maximum WTP No. of respondents Percentage per year (Rs) 1 0-1000 11 18.33 2 1000-2000 16 26.67 3 2000-3000 12 20.00 4 3000-4000 7 11.67 5 4000-5000 8 13.33 6 5000-6000 6 10.00 7 More than 6000 0 0.00 Total 60 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) All the surveyed respondents were willing to pay for sustainable management and conservation as well as for non-use values of BWS. Before asking WTP the respondents were briefed about the indirect benefits of BWS and need for better management and conservation and every one were convinced to contribute for management and conservation. The value ranged from Rs. 500 to Rs. 6000. 18.33% respondents were willing to pay less than Rs. 1000. Similarly, 26.67% respondents were willing to pay 1000-2000, 20% were willing to pay 2000-3000, 11.67% were willing to pay 3000-4000, 11.33% were willing to pay 4000-5000 and only 10% were willing to pay 5000-6000. Various factors were found to be affecting WTP of respondents. Monthly income of respondents, educational level, awareness level, proximity from Begnas Lake was some of the identified variables to influence maximum willingness to pay of respondents. The average maximum willingness to pay of individual respondent households was found to be Rs. 2550. The total number of HH in BWS is 4504. Total income generated through the maximum willingness to pay of the respondents for the better management and conservation is found to be Rs. 11,485,200. 112 Table 4.63 Total Maximum WTP for sustainable management and conservation Average maximum No. of total Total maximum willingness to pay / HH households willingness to pay per (Rs.) year (Rs) Rs. 2550 4504 11,485,200 (Source: Derived from table 4.62) 4.3.9 Total economic value of BWS 4.3.9.1 Actual economic value of BWS Table 4.64 Actual total economic value of BWS S.No. Services Annual Income (Rs) Annual Income (US$) 1 Fishing 74,619,720.00 724,463.30 2 Niuro 1,354,803.20 13,153.43 3 Fuel wood 6,112,378.40 59,343.47 4 Boating 11,340,000.00 110,097.08 5 Irrigation 10,625,880.00 103,163.88 6 Carbon sequestration 3,084,692.00 29,948.46 7 Recreation and Aesthetic 885,064,848.00 8,592,862.60 8 WTP for sustainable 11,485,200.00 111,506.80 1,003,687,521.60 9,744,539.02 management and conservation Total economic value (Source: Field study, 2017) 113 4.3.10. Potential economic value of BWS Assuming, the potentiality of hydroelectricity plant of 100MW as discussed in segment 4.3.5 as the potential ES of BWS, the potential economic value of Begnas is calculated adding Rs 8,223,750,000 as annual profit from hydropower plant with actual economic value of BWS as in 5.3.8. Hence the potential economic value of Begnas is Rs. 9,227,437,521.6 (US$ 89,586,772.05). 114 4.4 Key components of PES 4.4.1 Prioritization of ES for PES As discussed in segment 4.2.5, the prioritization of ES for PES scheme development are: i. Recreation and Ecotourism ii. Erosion control (Soil, sediment and nutrient retention) iii. Fishing and irrigation iv. Ground water recharge and discharge v. Habit for wildlife Consultation with stakeholders revealed that except for wildlife habitat, PES scheme for other four ES is feasible for which PES schemes could be designed. 4.4.2 Respondent’s perception on PES 4.4.2.1 Perception for activities of upstream affecting flow of ES 80% of upstream respondents and 60% of downstream respondents reported that they believe activities of upstream people effects the availability of ES to downstream people. However, 13.33% of upstream respondents and 16.67% of downstream respondents didn‘t believe on activities of upstream people affecting flow of ES. 6.67% of upstream people and 23.33% of downstream people replied that they had no idea about it. Table 4.65 Respondents' perception on activities of upstream people on flow of ES Upstream (n=30) Downstream (n=30) S.No. Perception No. of respondents % No. of respondents % 1 Yes 24 80.00 18 60.00 2 No 4 13.33 5 16.67 3 Don‘t know 2 6.67 7 23.33 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 115 4.4.2.2 Perception on paying and receiving compensation for use of ES 73.33% of upstream respondents believe that downstream should pay compensation for their contribution on preserving ecosystem while 16.67% replied that they don‘t need any such compensation. However, 10% of respondents didn‘t have idea about it. Regarding downstream respondents, 70% of them are ready to pay compensation for upstream people. 20% aren‘t willing to pay whereas 10% didn‘t have any idea whether to provide compensation or not. Table 4.66 Perception on paying and receiving compensation Upstream (Receive) S.No. Perception No. of Downstream (Pay) % No. of respondents % respondents 1 Yes 22 73.33 21 70.00 2 No 5 16.67 6 20.00 3 Don‘t know 3 10.00 3 10.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study 2017) 4.4.2.3 Perception on role of PES for conservation and sustainable management of watershed resources Majority of respondents believe that implementation of PES scheme could enhance sustainable management and conservation of watershed resources. 76.67% of upstream respondents and 63.33% of downstream respondents believed that PES could enhance conservation. However, 13.33% of upstream respondents and 23.33% didn‘t believe role of PES in sustainable conservation and management. Meanwhile 10% of upstream respondents and 13.33% of downstream respondents had no idea on it. 116 Table 4.67 Role of PES on conservation and sustainable management Upstream S.No. Perception Downstream No. of % No. of respondents % respondents 1 Yes 23 76.67 19 63.33 2 No 4 13.33 7 23.33 3 Don‘t know 5 10.00 4 13.33 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 5.3.2.4 Perception on type of appropriate PES scheme After elaborating the respondents about types of PES schemes i.e. public, private or publicprivate; most of the respondents favored public/private scheme. 20 (66.67%) upstream respondents and 21 (70%) downstream respondents chose public/private scheme. 7 (23.33%) upstream respondents and 4 (13.33%) downstream respondents favored private scheme whereas 3 (10%) upstream respondents and 5 (16.67%) downstream respondents favored public PES scheme. Table 4.68 Respondents' perception on type of payment scheme Upstream S.No. Perception No. of Downstream % No. of respondents % respondents 1 Public 3 10.00 5 16.67 2 Private 7 23.33 4 13.33 3 Public-Private 20 66.67 21 70.00 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 117 4.4.2.5 Respondents perception on approach of payment When asked what could be the approach of payment, half of upstream respondents reported that cash payment from the downstream people would be appropriate. However, 23.33% reported that downstream people should help in building capacity for upstream people, while 10% believed that downstream people should help in infrastructure development as compensation of using ES. However, 16.67% believed to pay for lake management. Regarding downstream respondents, majority of respondents chose to pay for capacity building of upstream people (33.33%). Other chose infrastructure development of upstream (26.67%), cash payment (26.67%) and lake management (13.33%). Table 4.69 Respondents perception on payment approach Upstream Downstream S.No Payment approach No. of respondents % No. of respondents % 1 Cash payment 15 50.00 8 26.67 2 Capacity building 7 23.33 10 33.33 3 Infrastructure 3 10.00 8 26.67 Lake management 5 16.67 4 13.33 Total 30 100 30 100 development 4 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.4.2.6 Respondents’ perception on mode of payment Majority of upstream respondents (63.33%) stated in favor of Input based payment i.e. payment for the process or initiatives of upstream conservation rather than the payment for benefit generated due to conservation attempts or investments. However, 36.67% of upstream respondents favored for output based payment. But, majority of downstream respondents i.e. 73.33% favored Output based payment scheme although 23.67% went for input based payment scheme. 118 Table 4.70 Respondents’ perception on mode of payment Upstream (n=30) S.No. Mode No. of Downstream (n=30) % No. of respondents % respondents 1 Output-based 11 36.67 22 73.33 2 Input-based 19 63.33 8 23.67 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.4.2.7 Respondents perception on who should pay 13.33% of upstream respondents stated that tourism entrepreneurs should be made liable for payment, same percentage of respondents believed DDC should pay. Only 6.67% stated fishermen should pay whereas 13.33% believed downstream farmers should pay and majority, 53.33% believed all of them should be made liable for payment. Considering downstream respondents, 30% of respondents reported tourism entrepreneurs should be made liable for payment whereas same 13.33% percentage stated DDC and farmers to be made liable. 16.67% stated payment to be made from fishermen and 26.67% believed all of them should pay. Table 4.71 Respondents perception on who should pay Who should pay S.No Upstream Downstream No. of respondents % No. of respondents % . 1 Tourism entrepreneur 4 13.33 9 30.00 2 DDC 4 13.33 4 13.33 3 Farmers 4 13.33 4 13.33 4 Fishermen 2 6.67 5 16.67 5 All of them 16 53.33 8 26.67 Total 30 100 30 100 (Source: Field study, 2017) 119 4.4.2.8 Perception on condition for payment to upstream When asked to downstream respondents about what upstream people should do to ensure regular flow of ES so that payment could be made, 13.33% replied that forest conservation should be the major condition. Very few, 6.67% replied that upstream should assure managed urbanization whereas 10% stated that upstream should assure about sustainable land use practices. Same 10% stressed on sustainable agricultural practices, 3.33% reported that pollution minimization should be major condition whereas 10% favored for conservation of water bodies as the major condition. However, almost half of the respondents i.e. 46.67% reported that all these factors should be the condition of regular flow of ES to downstream people. Table 4.72 Downstream respondents’ perception on conditions for payment Downstream S.No. Conditions No. of % respondents 1 Forests conservation 4 13.33 2 Managed urbanization 2 6.67 3 Sustainable land use practices 3 10.00 4 Sustainable agricultural practices 3 10.00 5 Pollution minimization 1 3.33 6 Conservation of water bodies 3 10.00 7 All of above 14 46.67 Total 30 100 (Source: Field survey, 2017) 4.4.3 Key PES actors 4.4.3.1 Sellers/suppliers To develop PES scheme, Sellers/suppliers are the crucial actors whose actions generate ecosystem services or they simply are in the position to ensure and safeguard regular flow of 120 ecosystem services. Generally, land users, individual farmers, community groups, government agencies, and even private companies are sellers of ES (Jindal and Kerr, 2007). In context of BWS, upstream area is the major supplier of ES. Land user and farmers whose land use and agricultural practices impact soil erosion, flooding, water purification, sediment and soil retention are the major suppliers of ES. Community forests and user groups, owner of private forests, orchids and garden owners are other important suppliers of prioritized ecosystem services like irrigation in downstream, erosion control, carbon sequestration, water recharge and discharge, habitat for wildlife and availability of water, sedimentation control and nutrient retention at Begnas Lake. Furthermore, community organizations and local government bodies working for local conservation attempts and environment friendly development initiatives like road construction or allocating budget for environmental conservation are also suppliers of ES. 4.4.3.2 Buyer/Beneficiaries The development of PES scheme would be waste of time and resource without the identification of buyers of certain ES. Buyers may directly consume or get benefited from the ecosystem service or may be indirectly benefiting from certain service, so clear identification of buyers of ES is crucial. In case of BWS, tourists and associated tourism entrepreneurs are the major buyers of ES of Begnas Lake. There are 165 hotels and restaurants in or around Begnas along with around 200 tea shops. Furthermore, the travel and tour operators selling Begnas packages are other major buyers. The serenity of the Lake is major tourist attraction whose beauty depends on rate of erosion and nutrient flow from upstream area. Fishermen and farmers are the potential buyers of fishing and irrigation services. Livelihood of 42 Jalari families is directly dependent on wetland resources, 5000 farmers downstream are beneficiaries of Begnas irrigation system. Begnas Lake Boat Entrepreneurs‘ Committee (BBEC) is another buyer of ES. NEA could be the potential buyer of electricity generated from Begnas Lake. Three types of service users i.e. beneficiaries could be identified in BWS. First group are the immediate final users like fishermen or farmers who use water resources for fishing or irrigation. Second group is the business group, like Begnas Lake Boat Entrepreneurs‘ Committee, Lekhnath Hotel and Restaurant Association or Nepal Electricity Authority. And the third as well as important indirect beneficiary is the government or local authorities. For instance, municipality levying tax on hotels and restaurant and DDC is collecting tax from 121 boaters or fishermen‘s association and central government collecting visa fee from the tourists. 4.4.3.3 Intermediaries Intermediaries serve as agents linking buyers and sellers and helps with scheme design and implementation. They help users and suppliers set up successful PES transactions. The potential intermediaries range from individuals, groups, NGOs, local governments, donors to private companies. They play the role of linking the service users and suppliers and taking over the implementation of the PES program (Jindal and Kerr, 2007). They help in building rapport between buyers and sellers and third party monitoring of overall PES mechanism. In context of BWS local NGOs working could take a lead as intermediary. A Pokhara based NGO called LI-BIRD working in BWS since many years has recently took a lead to establish PES like basket fund for watershed conservation. Local government could also act as intermediary to link upstream and downstream. The concerned ward officials could take a lead. The governmental departments and line agencies like DFO, DADO, DIDO, DSCWM etc. who are connected with both upstream and downstream people could act as a independent third man in design and monitoring of PES mechanism. 4.4.3.4 Knowledge providers Knowledge providers are essential to provide ideas and technical assistance regarding scheme development and implementation. They ensure the PES scheme designed is appropriate and viable. They provide advice on appropriate management practices to service providers and steps to be taken to secure long term provision of ES for trade in PES mechanisms. Knowledge providers generally includes valuation experts, land use planners, resource management experts, regulators and business and legal advises to assure PES contact abides by the national laws and regulations. In context of BWS, LI-BIRD could be a primary knowledge provider regarding PES concerning it has initiated to develop basket fund for conservation linking service users and suppliers. Similarly other NGOs and INGOs like WWF, IUCN, NTNC who have worked for PES at other places could extend their help here. Various institutions like Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Fishery Research Centre, Begnas, Regional agriculture research Station, Lumle, Regional Irrigation Directorate, Pokhara, Regional Irrigation Directorate, Pokhara and other bodies like DFO, DADO, DIDO, FECOFUN, DSCWM could also extend knowledge support in PES scheme development in BWS. 122 Table 4.73 Key PES actors in BWS Sellers/suppliers of ES        Community forest User groups Private land owners Government as public land owners Farmers in the upstream Fruit orchid owners, coffee farmers and private forest owners Community organizations and groups working for environmental conservation in upstream Local government agencies working for conservation of upstream ecosystem Buyers/ Beneficiaries of ES               Begnas Lake Fish Entrepreneurs‘ Association (BFEA) Begnas Lake Boat Entrepreneurs‘ Committee (BBEC) Water User Association (BIS) Lekhnath Hotel and Restaurants Association Begnas Rupa Tourism Promotion Committee Pokhara-Lekhnath Chamber of commerce and industry Travel agencies selling Begnas Packages National and International tourists Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) Small tea shop owners and street vendors around Begnas Lake Downstream farmers Land owners downstream Local government bodies earning revenue from tourism and related enterprises Researcher and explorers Intermediaries           District Developme nt Committee , Kaski PokharaLekhnath Municipali ty (ward 29, 30, 31, 32) Madi village council (Gau palika) Nepal governmen t DFO DADO DIDO FECOFUN NGOS & INGOS DSCWM Knowledge providers                   (Source: Field study, 2017) 123 LI-BIRD, Pokhara SEED Foundation, Panchbhaiya NGOS & INGOS (WWF, IUCN, NTNC etc.) DFO DADO DIDO FECOFUN DSCWM Department of road Fishery Research Centre, Begnas Regional agriculture directorate, Pokhara Regional Irrigation directorate, Pokhara Regional agriculture research Station, Lumle Agriculture and Forestry University Institute of Forestry, TU Business and legal advisers Academicians and researchers National College, KU 4.4.4 Existing PES mechanism in BWS There is no formal PES mechanism in existence in BWS. However, it was found that stakeholders have been investing in Begnas Lake management activities every year. As reported by Jhalak Jalari, president of BFEA around 10% of annual income of annual profit is invested in lake management which includes cleanliness campaigns, removing noxious weeds including Jal khumbhi (Pistia stratiotes) and donation to road construction activities. The income is generated from royalty generated through sell of fish i.e. 5 per kg from the fishermen. Dhaknath Kandel, president of BBEC also reported that BBEC also regularly invests in lake cleanliness and weed removal. BBEC, BFEA, Lekhnath Hotel and Restaurant Association, local government bodies and other line agencies invest in organizing Fish festival in Begnas Lake; usually in the month of Falgun. Certain percentage of profit of Fish festival is used in lake management. Recently, LI-BIRD, NGO working in BWS has initiated the development of basket fund for watershed conservation. Established in September 2016, ‗Begnas Lake Conservation Fund‘ is in due process of registration and supposed to work under Local Self Governance Act, 2055 and Local Self Governance Regulations, 2056. LI-BIRD has prepared Begnas Lake Conservation Fund Management Guidelines – 2073 and has proposed among stakeholders. This fund would be managed by a committee formed among stakeholders after extensive discussion among them. The major aim of fund is proposed to be ecosystem conservation, biodiversity and lake conservation, construction of environment friendly infrastructures, forest conservation, promote local skills on organic farming, environment friendly agricultural practices, bioengineering activities and construct water sports infrastructure. The proposed potential funding source of fund is donations from INGO/INGOS, income from festivals and celebrations, amount collected from beneficiaries like BBEC, BFEA, Hotel and Restaurants Associations, Community forests, local government bodies and other beneficiaries. Regarding, working mechanism, the management committee would receive applications from local groups or organizations and funds would be provided after detailed examination with due priority for proposals from upstream, contributing to lake conservation and intended on uplifting livelihood skills on wetland dependent minority groups (LI-BIRD, 2016a). 124 However, the fund is supposed to be officially established after election of local bodies 2017 as Mayor of Lekhnath Municipality (now Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan) is proposed to be chairman of the fund committee. Evaluating the funding mechanism, working guidelines and investing criteria and process, the initiative couldn‘t be termed as PES mechanism as there is no compulsory provision of payment by beneficiaries; it is a ‗PES like‘ mechanism. 4.4.5 Payment mechanism for ES of BWS Various payment mechanisms can be adopted in BWS for payment of its major ecosystem services. The common mechanism could be entrance fee, service charge, use fee, permit fee and channelizing the portion of royalty regenerated from sale of services for conservation activies and ecosystem management. The complete description on payment mechanism has been attached as ANNEX XXI. Table 4.74 Payment mechanism for major ES Major ES Payment mechanism Recreation and Ecotourism Entrance fee, Service fee and taxes, Use fee Erosion control (Soil, sediment Mutually agreed channel, additional charge on govt. and nutrient retention) taxes and investment on upstream Fishing and irrigation Water use fee, Additional charge and permit fee for fishing Ground water recharge and Portion of royalty generated from water distribution, discharge individual annual payment for lake management and conservation Habitat for wildlife National and international grants for conservation, trade (Biodiversity conservation) of tradable species, people‘s WTP for conservation Carbon sequestration International payment based on capacity building or infrastructure or livelihood development based on international accepted sequestration (Source: Field visit, 2017) 125 market price for carbon 4.4.6 Roles of key stakeholders in PES Discussion with various service users, suppliers, entrepreneurs groups, government line agencies, local government body, non-governmental organizations, community organizations through focus group discussion, key informant interview and stakeholder consultation helped to generalize the potential roles of key stakeholders in PES process to be designed and implemented in BWS. A complete list of roles of key stakeholders has been attached as ANNEX XXII. DDC can take a lead to implement/initiate PES in BWS with due consultation with other stakeholders and provide technical support in designing working mechanism of PES with due monitoring activities all the way. Government line agencies (DFO, DADO, DIDO, DSWCO, NTB), could help design PES scheme along with its organizational structure and funding mechanism through their input in particular ES. They can provide technical and material support to build up capacity of sellers in restoring ES and ensuring efficient flow of ES. NGOs/INGOs can also play a significant role. As LI-BIRD has initiated a PES like scheme by establishing conservation fund in BWS, similar type of assistance could be provided by other INGOs like WWF, IUCN, NTNC etc. who have experience and expertise in designing and implementing PES in other areas. However, their key roles could be raising awareness about importance of PES, provide technical and material support and help in monitoring. As local government body, Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan, village councils and concerned wards can provide consent on proposals about PES implementation in BWS and also provide legal consent to collect any type of service fee, collect and invest funds legally and help to resolve any conflicts arising in the process. They themselves can design and implement PES mechanism through legal measures. As a key party in PES scheme in BWS, service providers like CFUG, land users, farmers or community groups should involve in negotiation process and show their commitment in ecosystem conservation and show their capacity in doing so. They should commit for proper fund investment. As a major service user groups, BFEA, BBEA, WUA, BHRA, downstream farmers and downstream residents; their key roles includes their commitment in payment for use services 126 in a timely basis, involve in negotiation process as well as help in conserving ecosystem of upstream through constructive suggestions and participate in monitoring of PES fund mobilization. Local political parties could advocate for payment mechanism or influence their elected local representative to initiate such kind of scheme. However, community groups and networks might assist help in capacity building and monitoring. Local leaders of political parties could build consensus among people for need and implementation of PES scheme and mediate any conflicts arising in the process. 4.4.7 Institutional structure for PES implementation The suggested institutional structure for PES in BWS is sketched in figure below. The advisory and coordination committee should be formed including the representatives of major concerned government line agencies and local government agencies like DFO, DADO, DIDO, DSCWM, Metropolitan, wards etc. This committee should initiate and coordinate the overall process including the buyers, sellers and other intermediaries. The buyers and sellers should be made to come to a common platform for negotiation. NGO/INGOs, private sector, legal advisors and PES experts should act as intermediary and provide knowledge for effective negotiation and implementation of PES scheme. This should lead to a creation of institutional mechanism for PES implementation. A third party monitoring through individual group is suggested to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the PES scheme. The capacity building of the sellers or suppliers and conditionality by buyers remains crux of effectiveness of mechanism. 127 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Recreation & ecotourism, erosion control, fishing & irrigation, Ground water recharge Begnas watershed PES advisory and coordination committee SELLERS BUYERS Upstream farmers and land users, CFUGs, community groups Business groups, tourists, downstream farmers and residents, regional, national and global community NEGOT IATION INTERMEDIARIES NGO/INGOs, Private sector, legal advisors, PES experts Capacity Building Conditionality Agreement INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Fund from sale of services and benefit sharing and utilization Conservation Activities Sustained management and flow of ES THIRD PARTY MONITORING (throughout the process) Figure 4.1 Institutional mechanism for PES implementation 128 4.4.8 SWOT Analysis of prioritized ES as potential PES scheme Currently there are various strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats associated with various prioritized ES in BWS for formulating effective PES scheme in BWS. The SWOT analysis of these ES as potential PES scheme is carried out as below: 4.4.8.1 Enhancing Strength and Opportunities The awareness on PES has been rising in BWS. LI-BIRD has been leading the local community to aware them about benefits of PES for sustainable environment conservation and community development. The major beneficiaries groups are positive about PES implementation. BWS provides ecosystem services that have been the basis of livelihood for large number of people. It was also found tourists are also willing to pay for conservation of Begnas Lake in terms of entry fee. The existing community forests are also providing a large of regulating services to the people of BWS. Regarding the opportunities, PES holds the potential of effective natural resource management tool in BWS. Begnas Lake can attract more number of tourists if effective infrastructures could be development resulting in more payment for recreational service. The well management community forests could attract funds through carbon trade. Downstream people could have no option except paying for services like Erosion control, flood regulation, irrigation and siltation in Begnas Lake; these factors of ES show the opportunity of ES as potential PES scheme. To enhance the existing strength and opportunity, construction of tourism infrastructure and night life in Begnas lake side is must which could attract more number of tourists and generate more income. The willingness of beneficiary groups for upstream conservation should be channelized through establishment of proper PES institution. Furthermore, infrastructure like existing irrigation system should be diversified so that higher fund could be generated from increased beneficiary of ES. Migratory birds are the touristic strength of BWS; proper concern should be given to conserve their habitat. Regarding opportunity, proper study should be undertaken on carbon sequestration rates of CFs and CFs should initiate carbon trading activities. This could generate more opportunity on income generation from the sale of this particular ES. 129 Table 4.75 Strengths and Opportunities of ES as potential PES scheme Items S T R E N G T H S O P P O R T U N I T Y               Descriptions Rising awareness about PES and ecosystem conservation Initiation of PES like conservation fund by LI-BIRD Increasing number of national and international tourists visiting Begnas Lake Major beneficiaries BFEA, BBEA, WUA, BHRA are willing to contribute certain portion of their income in conservation activities Downstream residents accept the role of upstream land users in erosion control (soil, sediment and nutrient retention) in the Lake and are willing to conserve Lake Existing irrigation system and WUA Watershed is well recognized habitat for migratory birds and native species of plants to drag attention of conservation donors Large area of effectively managed community forests PES can be used as an effective resource management tool in BWS Infrastructure construction and development of night life in Begnas Lake area can attract more number of tourists Carbon trade could be potential source of income of community forest As erosion in downstream areas would impact irrigation and beauty of lake, the people dependent on lake for livelihood and downstream farmers would have no option except paying for forest conservation in upstream. Potentiality of dragging funds from various donors and conservation agencies There is potentiality of earning from sell of gene pool and establishment of genetic museum (Source: Field study, 2017) 4.4.8.2 Minimizing Weakness and Threats; covert Weakness into Strengths and Threats into opportunity No provision of entry fee in Begnas Lake area remains a weakness as it could be a good source of income from sell of recreational and aesthetic service. Entry fee system should be development with its proper channelizing mechanism to transfer fund collected for conservation activities in order to convert it into strength. Concerned agencies, especially the government line agencies should take a lead to initiate PES mechanisms for particular ES of their working areas. Infrastructure development activities that alter the flow of ES should be stopped. For instance, road construction activities in upstream have lead to erosion in 130 downstream. Also, CFUGs should be aware about the potential of carbon trade in their CFs and should be provided with information regarding the process of carbon trade. Natural calamities like earthquake remains major threat to tourism in BWS. To address this, emergency response and relief plan should be made to minimize the effect of disaster. Steep slopes remain threat for erosion control and landslide; proper actions should be taken for stabilization of these steep slopes. Furthermore, these steep slopes can be attraction for tourism. For this, home-stay could be developed in villages in or around steep slopes. Mechanisms should be developed for Illegal trade, theft and personal use of timber, medicinal herbs and wildlife. And regarding transparency of established PES mechanism in near future, a strong third party monitoring team should be formed to keep an eye upon corruption of PES fund. This could create an opportunity for effective management of fund and investment in proper conservational and developmental activities. Items W E A K N E S S E S T H R E A T S Table 4.76 Weakness and threats of ES as potential PES scheme Descriptions                No entry fee system to enter the lake area No efforts from government to channelize PES mechanism as a tool for effective ecosystem conservation Mainly the seller (CFUGs upstream) are unaware about whom to ask fund in turn of their conservation efforts Haphazard road construction activities in upstream leading to soil erosion Erosion in upstream in the form of gullies was observed and deteriorating condition of check dams Difficulty in pricing of services Reduced number of migratory birds Lack of information about carbon trade process Natural calamities like earthquake and political problems like blockade, strikes could impact on flow of tourists in BWS Lack of legal provisions and nationally accepted pricing schemes could bring conflict on buyers and sellers on pricing the services Increasing haphazard road construction activities in upstream leading to soil erosion, flooding and siltation in Begnas Lake Fragile landscape; steep to very steep slopes in upstream leading to landslides Illegal trade, theft and personal use of timber, medicinal herbs and wildlife Increasing haphazard use of water from boring in downstream could reduce dependency on irrigation system thereby reducing its importance Chances of corruption and unfair distribution of PES funds (Source: Field study, 2017) 131 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMANDATION 5. Conclusion and recommendation 5.1 Conclusion 5.1.1 Identification of ES in BWS Wetland ecosystems are regarded as the most productive ecosystem of all types. The diversity of ecosystem services can be found in BWS. BWS secures the provision of all major types of ecosystem services i.e. provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services. Regarding provisioning services, most provisioning services are extracted from forest, aquatic and agricultural ecosystems in BWS. Food is prominent provisioning service of BWS. Various wild fruits like ainselu, kaphal, kimmu, lapsi, sati bayer etc. are found in wild in BWS, but there is decreasing concern among new generations on identification and importance of such fruits. Various high value and delicious varities of rice like Ekle, Anadi, Pahele, Jethobudho, Basmati, Birimphul are cultivated in BWS. Paddy (Barkhe and Chaite), Wheat, Maize, Potato, Millet, Buck Wheat, Soybean, Finger Millet, Black Gram are the major food crops cultivated. However, local varieties of paddy are in the verse of extinction because of fewer efforts in its conservation. Farmers are also facing impacts of climate change and rainfall pattern on agriculture. Begnas Lake is famous for fish species and fishing is source of livelihood of wetland dependent jalari community. The importance of fishing as an important ecosystem service is also reflected in its high economic value. But the overexploitation of Begnas Lake for fishing activities should be controlled which could hamper the aquatic ecosystem of the lake. There should be definite time allocated for fishing activities. Other provisioning services include fuel-wood, fodder, water for drinking and irrigation, medicines and biochemical. Less concern towards conservation and commercialization of medicinal herbs has led underutilization of this resource as potential source of income of community forests. Moreover, wetlands provide significant regulating services. BWS provides a range of regulating services. However, increasing population growth followed by unplanned urbanization and road construction in upstream areas has resulted in increasing air pollution and soil erosion in downstream resulting in siltation in Begnas Lake. The forest and water resources play an important role in local climate regulation and air quality regulation of 132 BWS. The forest conservation activities under community forests program has significant role to minimize soil erosion downstream. However, increasing conversion of sloppy areas into agricultural lands and use of chemical fertilizers may enhance soil erosion and increase nutrients into Begnas Lake leading to eutrophication. This may also impact the aquatic lives of Begnas Lake. Other regulating services of BWS include flood control, disease and pest regulation and also pollination. However, a detailed scientific study is necessary to analyze the rate, intensity and depth of these regulating services. Regarding supporting services of BWS, BWS provides terrestrial and aquatic habit to a large number of floral and faunal species. Some of the species found here are enlisted in threatened categories. Furthermore, begnas Lake and associated wetland is good habitat for migratory birds. BWS alone with Rupa watershed is habitat to 520 species of vascular plants including 128 tree species, 85 herbaceous plants and shrubs, 80 species of plants and shrubs with religious importance and 40 species of fodder trees and shrubs. 14 species of Reptiles, 34 species of mammals, 104 species 104 species of birds; among which 14 are migratory and 90 species are endemic are found in BWS. However, human encroachment in wetland area has threatened the habitat of wetland dependent species. Furthermore BWS can also be linked with soil formation services because of its good forest coverage. Water cycling and nutrient cycling may also be counted as potential ES of BWS. Again, a detailed scientific study is required to analyze the rate, intensity and depth of these supporting services. BWS is rich in terms of cultural services. Thousands of domestic and international tourist visits Begans Lake every year. Tourism has been a source of income to many people residing around the lake. The recreational service of BWS is also reflected in its high economic value. However, various tourism infrastructures like water sports, good star hotels, tourist security mechanisms, publicity and promotion strategies is required to enhance tourism further. BWS is also rich in festivals and local celebrations. Festivals like ‗Begnas fish festival‘ and ‗Lekhnath Festivals‘ are tourism attractions of BWS. Furthermore, BWS is productive area for various types of research activities including biodiversity, watershed management and community forestry among others. However, a detailed study should be carried on BWS to record and verify the old stories and folk tales related with the place. Recreation and ecotourism has been prioritized as the most important ES of BWS. This may be because Begnas Lake is an international tourist site and thousands of domestic and international visitors visit lake every year. Also, high revenue is generated from tourism. 133 Erosion control (soil, sediment and nutrient retention) ES ranks second important ES of BWS followed by ‗fishing and irrigation‘. Ground water recharge and discharge service is ranked as fourth whereas habitat for wildlife service has been least prioritized. This may be because of lack of awareness among local respondents about importance of biodiversity and lack of knowledge about availability of high variety of biodiversity in BWS. 5.1.2 Economic value of BWS The economic valuation conducted on BWS reveled its actual economic value to be US$ 9,744,539 per year based on its current use. Hydropower is the potential source of income of BWS. As potentiality of 100 MW pumped storage type hydropower has been identified in Bgnas-Rupa Lakes, it could add potential economic value to BWS. Adding the estimated annual income from hydropower generation, the potential economic value of BWS happens to be US$ 89,586,772. There existed gap on the value of BWS because studies weren‘t conducted to estimate BWS‘s total economic value. This study helps to fulfill this gap by estimating the total actual economic value and potential economic value of Begnas Lake Watershed. Various methods were used to estimate the total economic value of BWS. The methods used include Market Price Method (MPM), Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), Benefit Transfer Method (BTM) and Travel Cost Method (TCM). Various services were included in valuation. The consumptive use value of watershed resources included fishing, Niuro and fire-wood harvest. Income from boating, irrigation and carbon sequestration was also evaluated. MPM was used for valuation of these services. To value recreational and aesthetic service of BWS, TCM was applied. CVM method was used to estimate service users i.e. the people of the watershed who are beneficiaries of various services WTP for conservation and sustainable management of BWS resources. The total value of fishing alone was recorded to be US$ 724,463. Fishing is carried both for subsistence and commercial purpose. But main motive of fishing of wetland dependent Jalari community is for commercial purpose. The value of Niuro harvest is found to be US$ 13,153. Similarly, the economic value of fuel-wood harvest figures to be US$ 59,343. The annual income from boating is US$ 110,097. Boating is the most famous recreational activity on Begnas Lake. 134 Based on productivity approach, the total surplus production due to irrigation generates the annual income of US$ 103,164. The area irrigated by BIS was considered to estimate this value. Similarly, based on total community forest area, the total economic value of carbon sequestration in BWS is US$ 29,948 inferred from Benefit Transfer Method. Individual beneficiaries‘ maximum willingness to pay for conservation and sustainable management of BWS is US$ 111,507. The most valued ES of BWS is found to be recreation and aesthetic service, which amounts US$ 8,592,863. This is because Begnas Lake being a Ramsar site is a major tourist attraction of Pokhara attracting thousands of domestic and international tourists every year. This gives the total economic value of Begnas to be US$ 9,744,539. Adding the potential income from hydropower, the total economic value is US$ 89,586,772. The study carried by Chand (2009) to estimate the total economic value of Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal found the TEV of wetland to be $ 265,255 per year. She included direct use values of wetland, boating, recreational and aesthetic services, WTP of beneficiaries to estimate the value of wetland. The TEV of Ghodaghodi wetland is very low compared to BWS. This may be because very few international tourists visit Ghodahhodi Lake and harvest of other wetland products is also very low. Also, there is significant gap in WTP for conservation i.e. beneficiaries of Ghodaghodi wetland is Rs. 1100 per household but that of BWS is Rs. 2550. However, value of carbon sequestration wasn‘t included in TEV of Ghodaghodi wetland. A study on TEV of Jagadishpur reservoir of Nepal by Baral et. al. (2016) estimated the TEV of reservoir to be NRs 94,578,613. The TEV of BWS is Rs. 1,003,687,552. The recreational and aesthetic value of BWS is way greater than TEV of Jagadishpur reservoir. The income from tourism is calculated to be Rs. 9,076,950 but for BWS it is Rs. 885,064,848. This may be because tourists from all over the world visits Begnas Lake making high expense on travelling, accommodation and have high opportunity cost. But for Jagadishpur reservoir, it is not even a priority visiting site for domestic tourists. The economic value of Lake Chiuta Island in Zimbawa as recorded by Zuze (2013) was $17.2M. He used Market Value Method and Contingent Valuation Method to measure the economic values of wetland services. He measured values of various services like pasture, birds hunting, water, firewood, fishing, water transport etc. The economic value of Chitwa Island is almost double of BWS i.e. $ 9.74M. In case of Lake Chiuta Fishing and farming 135 contribute the highest economic value; each has an economic value of $9.6M and $4.7M respectively. But in BWS fishing being the service with one of the highest economic value has been estimated to be worth of $ 7.2 lakhs approximately whereas increase in agricultural productivity due to irrigation accounted for $1.03 lakhs. However, recreational value wasn‘t measured for Lake Chiuta. However, resources and services in BWS are found to have much higher economic value compared to other valuation studies undertaken in other wetlands of Nepal. This may be because of high value services of BWS. Being an international tourist site, the recreational service has significantly raised its TEV. The figures calculated in the study represent the average actual worth of BWS. Considering other services in calculating regarding the regulating services like; air quality regulation, micro climate regulation or the soil formation would further raise the value of BWS. The other services like flood control, nutrient trapping, habitat for biodiversity could also be included in the valuation to cover the overall estimate of wide range of services provided by BWS. 5.1.3 Key PES components for BWS There are various entrepreneurs group in Begnas Lake area that are making notable income from the ecosystem services of BWS. Particularly, Begnas Fish Entrepreneurs‘ Association, Begnas Boat Entrepreneurs‘ Committee, Water User Association of BIS, Lekhnath Hotel and Restaurants Association, Various travel agencies, small street vendors around Begnas Lake and tourists visting the lake are the direct beneficiaries of ES services of BWS. They depend on boating, fishing, tourism entrepreneurship; which is primarily derived from the water regulation and recreational services of Begnas Lake i.e. BWS. So, they should be liable to pay for the suppliers of those services who are bearing some trade-offs for watershed conservation i.e. the upstream land users, farmers and conservationists. Moreover, all the downstream residents of the watershed are beneficiaries of ES of watershed. But these beneficiaries are playing negligible role in watershed conservation. Their role is limited to conducting some sorts of Begnas Lake cleanliness campaigns and organizing Begnas Fish Festival. The major actors who are trading off some cost for generating the flow of ES aren‘t getting the returns for their efforts. For this development of PES mechanism would be best 136 practice to ensure sustainable management and conservation of watershed as well as upliftment of livelihood of upstream people. The consultation with major stakeholders revealed that they are ready to work for the environment conservation in the watershed. This could be the portion of their income to be invested for conservational activities as well as fund for developmental initiatives in the upstream. Moreover, all the surveyed respondents, as a beneficiary of various ES are willing to pay for the sustainable management and conservation of the watershed. The average WTP for sustainable management and conservation per household in BWS is found to be Rs. 2550. But there needs to be mechanism for sustainable financing the conservation activities and channelize the fund collected from entrepreneur groups and other beneficiaries. For this, development of PES mechanism could be the best option. A Pokhara based NGO has initiated development of PES like scheme where various stakeholders have committed some amount on to be established basket fund for BWS conservation, called as ‗Begnas Conservation Fund‘. But lack of proper leadership and lack of binding mechanism to bind beneficiaries into the payment scheme would be obstacles to achieve the goal of such initiatives. So, various governmental agencies like DFO, DIDO, DADO, locally elected people‘s representatives on wards and Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan who could act as intermediary and other NGOs/INGOs who have played vital role in development of PES schemes in other places should take a lead to establish sustainable financing mechanism for watershed conservation through development of PES mechanism. For this in initial stage, these stakeholders could form a ‗Begnas Watershed PES advisory and Coordination Committee‘, make strategies, and bring upstream and downstream communities, entrepreneurs‘ groups and other beneficiaries into the payment mechanism. However, the general discussion with the stakeholders favored ‗voluntary‘ type of payment mechanism in BWS. As there are many beneficiary groups and it is hard to bring all the groups into ‗payment‘ agreement during the initiation phase, ‗agreement‘ basis of PES scheme as implemented in Kulekhani is hard to implement. NEA as a single buyer of ES in Khulekhani has made it easy to implement it but which is not the case with BWS. Furthermore, PES practice of nearby Rupa Lake watershed could be referred for lessons to design and implement PES in BWS. 137 5.2 Recommendations  Various genetic resources like many native varieties of rice, wild fruits and medicinal herbs are in the verge of extinction because of lack of conservation and use. They are the important ES of BWS. Concerned stakeholders like DFO, DADO etc. should take a lead on conservation and spread awareness about its importance.  The potential of 100 MW pump storage hydropower has been identified in BegnasRupa lakes. In order to benefit from this ES, NEA should focus on initiation of preliminary feasibility studies like DPR and EIA.  Very few information is available regarding regulating services of BWS. Detailed research on these services might aware people about importance of healthy watershed and enhance conservation efforts.  Entry fee should be levied to enter Begnas Lake. All the visitors were willing to pay entry fee to enter Lake. This could generate payments for sustainable management of Lake.  PES mechanism should be developed for sustainable management and conservation of BWS. For this ‗BWS PES Advisory and Coordination Committee‘ should be formed. The profit making groups through the use of ES of BWS should be made liable for payment.  This study found the increasing awareness on PES and its benefits. Suppliers of the ES like community forests and upstream farmers should be able to monetize their trade-off for conservation attempts. NGO/INGOs working in Pokhara and surrounding areas should provide their expertize in this area.  The basket fund named ‗Begnas Conservation Fund‘ initiated by LI-BIRD with due collaboration with service providers, beneficiaries and other government line agencies; should be operationalized under the leadership of local government as proposed. This could strengthen base for establishment of actual and comprehensive PES scheme in future. 138 5.3 Areas of further research  The valuation of regulating services of BWS like air quality regulation, water purification, ground water recharge, erosion control, flood control, disease and pest control etc. hasn‘t been included in this study. Therefore, estimation of value of these services could be considered.  Regarding the cultural aspects; various old stories, folk tales and beliefs were found in BWS. But the stories differed from places to places. A scientific study could be commenced to record those tales and verify their authenticity.  There are very few literatures available on floral and faunal diversity of BWS. Genetic resources are the significant ES of BWS. One of significant study on enumeration of plants and animal species found in Begnas-Rupa Lake watershed was conducted by Oli, 1996 which is more than two decades old. Community Forest Operational Plan documents include the topic, but information available is too much general. A detailed in depth study in this topic is an urgent need. 139 REFERENCES Adamowicz, W.L. (1991). Valuation of environmental amenities (Staff paper). Edmonton, Canada: Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta. Retrieved from http://mn.gov/frc/documents/council/landscape/SE%20Landscape/MFRC_Economic_Valuati on_EcosystemServices_SE_2003-10-01_Report.pdf [Accessed 26 December 2016]. Adekola, O., Sylvie M, de Groot, R. and Grelot, F. (2006). The economic and livelihood value of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa. Wageningen, UR: Environmental Systems Analysis Group. Adhikary, A. P., Bhandari, B., Pyakuryal, B. (1998). Environmental Economics in Nepal. Nepal: IUCN, pp 42-61, 62-65. Adhikari, B. (2009). Market-Based Approaches to Environmental Management: A Review of Lessons from Payment for Ecosystem services in Asia (ADB Institute Working Paper no. 134), Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Alpizar, F., Blackman, A., & Pfaff, A. (2007). Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why Precision and Targeting Matter. Resources, 20-22. Amatya, N. (2008). Investing in Ecosystem Services: Opportunities and Challenges for Shivapuri National Park, Nepal (Graduate Thesis) Lund, Sweden: Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies. Ansari, A.S. (2003). Influence of forests on environment. Paper submitted to XII World forestry congress, Quebec city, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/1018-B2.HTM [Accessed 04 July 2017] Arifin, B., Swallow, B., Suyanto, S., & Coe, R. (2009). A conjoint analysis of farmer preferences for community forestry contracts in the Sumber Jaya Watershed, Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2040-2050. Bakker, M., & Matsuno, Y. (2001). A framework for valuing ecological services of irrigation water. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. Pp. 99-115. Baral S., Basnyat B., Khanal R., & Gauli K. (2016). A Total Economic Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services: An Evidence from Jagadishpur Ramsar Site, Nepal. The Scientific World Journal. 2016. Baral, S.k., Malla, R. & Ranabhat, S. (2009). Above-ground carbon stock assessment in different forest types of Nepal. Banko janakari. 19(2), 10-14. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/banko.v19i2.2979 [Accessed 12 July 2017]. 140 Baro, F., Chaparro, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Langemeyer, J., Nowak, D.J., & Terradas, J. (2014). Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality and Climate Change Mitigation Policies: The Case of Urban Forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio. 43(4): 466–479. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3989519/ [Accessed 01 July 2017] Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., & Turner, K. (2010). Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(2), 177-218. Betts, R.A. (2000). Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature, 408, 187–190. Bhatta, B. (2011). Forest Resources and their Management in Begnas Watershed. Integrated Management of Water and Other Natural Resources in Himalayan Watersheds: Case of Begnas Lake, Nepal. Kathmandu: Jalshroat Vikas Sanstha. Bhatta, L. D., Van Oort, B. E. H., Rucevska, I., & Baral, H. (2014). Payment for ecosystem services: possible instrument for managing ecosystem services in Nepal. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. 10(4), 289-299. Bingham, G., Bishop, R., Brody, M., Bromley, D., Clark, E., Cooper, W., Costanza, R., Hale, T., Hayden, G., Kellert, S., Norgaard, R., Norton, B., Payne, J., Russell, C., & Suter, G. (1995). Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making. Ecological Economics, 14, 73-90. Birol, E., Kontoleon, A., Smale, M. (2006). Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens (EPT Discussion Paper 156). Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Black and Veatch. (2012). Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies. Black and Veatch Corporation: Kansas. Blackman, A., & Woodward, R.T. (2010). User Financing in a National Payments for Environmental Services Program: Costa Rican Hydropower. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Swait, J., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1996). A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 18(3), 243-253. Boyd, J. (2011). Economic Valuation, Ecosystem Services, and Conservation Strategy. Ecosystem Services Seminar Series. Moore Foundation: Gordon and Betty. Boyles, J., P. Cryan, G., McCracken, & Kunz, T. (2011). Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science, 331(6025), 41–42. Braüer, I., 2003. Money as an indicator: to make use of economic evaluation for biodiversity conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 98, 483-491. 141 Brander, L., & Schuyt, K. (2010). The economic value of the world’s wetlands. Retrieved from TEEBweb.org [Accessed on 29 December 2016]. Brown, K., Pearce, D., Perrings, C., & Swanson, T. (1993). Economics and the Conservation of Global Biological Diversity. Washington, D.C: Global Environmental Facility. Retrieved from http://mn.gov/frc/documents/council/landscape/SE%20Landscape/MFRC_Economic_Valuati on_EcosystemServices_SE_2003-10-01_Report.pdf [Accessed on 26 December 2016]. Chaffin, B., Mahler, R., Wulfhorst, J., & Shafi, B. (2012). Collaborative Watershed Groups in Three Pacific Northwest States: A Regional Evaluation of Group Metrics and Perceived Success. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 113-122. Chand, P. (2009). Economic Valuation of Ghodaghodi Ramsar Site, Kailali, Nepal (A Master Thesis). Kathmandu: Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University. Christopherson, R.W. (1997). Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography. Upper Saddle River, USA: Prentice Hall Inc. Retrieved from http://www.pakbs.org/pjbot/PDFs/44(SI2)/01.pdf [Accessed 27 December 2016]. Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 1(44). Colavito, L.A. (2001). Hail Haor Wetland: Estimation of Economic Value (summary Report). Dhaka Bangladesh: Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry (MACH) Project. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadk117.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2016]. CSUWN. (2011). An economic valuation tool for wetlands of Nepal. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation of Nepal. Costanza, R., d'Arge R., De Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, K., O'Neill R.V., Paruel J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton P., & Van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem service and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260. Daily, G. C. (1997a). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Daily, G.C. (1997b). Valuing and safeguarding Earth’s life support systems. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C: ed. Island Press, pp. 365-374. De Groot, R.S. (1992). Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management, and Decision Making. Amsterdam: Wolters-Noordhoff. De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., & Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description, and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393-408. Retrieved from 142 http://mn.gov/frc/documents/council/landscape/SE%20Landscape/MFRC_Economic_Valuati on_EcosystemServices_SE_2003-10-01_Report.pdf (Accessed on: 27 December 2016). DEFRA. (2013). Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide London. London: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/financial/pes/unitedkingdom-bestpractice.pdf [Accessed 26 December 2016]. Department of environmental conservation. (n.d.). Wetland functions and values: Erosion control (online). Retrieved from http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wetlands/functions/erosion-control [Accessed 03 July 2017]. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2007). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Defra Publications, London. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/valuing_ecosystems.pdf (Accessed on: 26 December 2016). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. (2009). Ecosystem Services: Key Concepts and Applications (Occasional Paper No 1). Canberra. Edwards, P.J., & Abivardi, C. (1998). The value of biodiversity: where ecology and economy blend. Biological Conservation, 83(3), 239-246. Environmental Concern Inc. (n.d.). Wetlands and People. Retrieved from http://www.wetland.org.za/ckfinder/userfiles/files/2_6-%20Wetlands%20&%20people.pdf [Accessed 02 July 2017] Environment Protection Agency. (n.d.). Wetland functions and values. Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/modules/wetlandsfunctions.pdf [Accessed 04 July 2017]. FAO. (2017). FAO SOILS PORTAL (Online). Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/soilsportal/soil-management/soil-carbon-sequestration/en/ [Accessed 03 July 2017] Farber, S.C., Costanza, R. & Wilson, M.A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, 375–392. Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Comin, F.A. & Javier, E.R. (2014) A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. Ambio, 44, 308-318. Ferraro, P., & Kiss A. (2002). Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 17181719. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making, Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653. Fisheries Research Centre. (2007). Physico-chemical characteristics of the lakes (online). Nepal Agriculture Research Council. Khumaltar, Kathmandu. Retrieved from http://narc.gov.np/org/fisheries_pokhara.php [Accessed 04 July 2017]. 143 Foster, N.W. & Bhatti, J.S. (2006). Forest ecosystems: Nutrient cycling. Encyclopedia of soil science. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006. p.718-21. Retrieved from http://nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/bookstore_pdfs/26204.pdf [Accessed 04 July 2017]. Freeman, A.M. III. (2003). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future. Fripp, E. (2014). Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): A practical guide to assessing the feasibility of PES projects. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. GIZ. (2012). Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Retrieved from https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloads/giz2013-en-biodiv-economic-valuation-ecosystemservices.pdf [Accessed 27 December 2016]. Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L. , & Montes, C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics. 69(2010), 1209–1218. Retrieved from http://www.cepal.org/ilpes/noticias/paginas/7/40547/the_history_of_ecosystem.pdf [Accessed 27 December 2016]. Goulder, L.H., & Kennedy, D. (1997). Valuing ecosystem services: philosophical bases and empirical methods. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C: G.C. Daily, ed. Island Press. pp. 23-47. Gowdy, J.M. (2001). The monetary valuation of biodiversity: promises, pitfalls, and rays of hope. In Managing Human-Dominated Ecosystems: Proceedings of the Symposium at the Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Loius, Missouri.V.C. Hollowell: ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, pp 141-149. Greeson, P.E., Clark, J.R. & Clark, J.E. (1979). Wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding. Minneapolis, MN, American Water Resources Association. Haefele M., Collins F., Loomis J., Bilmes L.J. (2016). Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of The American Public. Cambridge: MA. Retrieved from https://www.nationalparks.org/sites/default/files/NPSTEV-Report-2016.pdf [Accessed on 28 December, 2016]. Hanley, N & Spash, C. L., (1993), Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. London: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 1243-1248. Hawkins, K. (2003). Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services. University of Minnesota, Available from https://mn.gov/frc/documents/council/landscape/SE%20Landscape/MFRC_Economic_Valuat ion_EcosystemServices_SE_2003-10-01_Report.pdf [Accessed 20 July 2017] 144 Heywood, V.H., & Watson, R.T. (1995). Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Houdet, J., Trommetter, M., & Weber, J. (2012). Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 37-46. Huang, M., & Upadhyaya, S.K. (2007). Watershed-based payment for environmental services in Asia (Working paper No. 06-07). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, OIRED, SANREMCRSP. Retrieved from http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/documents/researchthemes/pes/Sept.2007.PESAsia. pdf [Accessed 26 December 2016]. IEA. (2010). Energy Technology Perspectives 2010. OECD/IEA: Paris. IUCN. (2005). Can Lao PDR afford not to invest in conserving its biodiversity; Exploring the need for innovative financial mechanisms. Vientiane, Laos: The World Conservation Union (IUCN). IUCN. (2009). Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) Policy Briefing (Fifth session of the UNFCCC Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA). Bonn. IUCN. (2013). Payment for Ecosystem Services in Nepal Prospect, Practice and Process. Kupondole, Lalitpur: IUCN Nepal. Available from https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/payment_for_ecosystem_services_in_ nepal__prospect__practice_and_process.pdf [Accessed 17 July 2017]. Kakuru W., Turyahabwe N., & Mugisha, J. (2013). Total Economic Value of Wetlands Products and Services in Uganda. The Scientific World Journal, 2013 (2013), 13 pages. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/192656 [Accessed 28 December 2016]. KC, B., Kandel P.N., & S. Adhikari (2012 ). Economic valuation of ecosystem services in protected areas: A case study from Nepal. Banko Janakari, 23(1). Retrieved from http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/BANKO/article/view/9466/7806 [Accessed 30 December 2016]. Kemkes, R. J., Farley, J., & Koliba, C. J. (2010). Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecological Economics, 2069-2074. King, D.M., & Mazzotta, M.J. (2000). Ecosystem Valuation. http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/ [Accessed 27 December 2016]. Retrieved from leidon, A., Fraedrich, K. & Heimann, M. (2000). A green planet versus a desert world: estimating the maximum effect of vegetation on the land surface climate. Climatic Change, 44, 471–493. Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystems services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics, 1228-1236. 145 Kumar, P. (2005). Market for ecosystem services. Manitoba, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Kumar, P. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Washington, TEEB Foundations. Kunwar, K.J. (2008). Payment for Environmental Services in Nepal (A Case Study of Shivapuri National Park, Kathmandu, Nepal). Available from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.692.8684&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 24th july 2017]. Lawton J. (2010). In Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide (a report to DAFRA), DAFRA. LI-BIRD. (n.d.) Sundaridanda View Tower and Information Centre (Booklet). Available from https://www.google.com.np/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact =8&ved=0ahUKEwjU7ZXuxufUAhUHv48KHR6lASoQFgg5MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2F www.libird.org%2Fapp%2Fpublication%2Fstreamfile.aspx%3Fname%3DView%2Btower_E nglish_web.pdf%26record_id%3D223%26structure_id%3D4456%26top_parent%3D221%26 parent_record_id%3D-1&usg=AFQjCNGRbZh2Q1i52Hh3lQmGbFhrNmzXjg [Accessed 01 July 2017] LI-BIRD (2016). Medicinal plants found in Rupa Begnas area (unpublished). Pokhara: LIBIRD. LI-BIRD (2016). Begnas Lake Conservation Fund Management Guidelines 2016. Pokhara: LI-BIRD. Mahat T.J., (2004). Economic Valuation of environmental resources: A case study of central zoo of Nepal (A Master Thesis). Kathmandu: Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University. Maltby, E. (2012). Wetland Ecosystem Services-Experience of The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/intecol/presentations/131/0220%20E%20Maltby.pdf [Accessed 04 July 2017]. María R., Francisco A.C., & Javier E.R. (2015). A framework for the social valuation of ecosystem services. Ambio, v44(4), 308–318. Reterived from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392016/# [Accessed 27 December 2016]. McGrory Klyza, C., & Sousa, D. (2008). American Environmental Policy, 1990-2006. Cambridge: MIT Press. Meffe, G.K., & Carroll, C.R. (1997). Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc. Publishers. Retrieved from http://mn.gov/frc/documents/council/landscape/SE%20Landscape/MFRC_Economic_Valuati on_EcosystemServices_SE_2003-10-01_Report.pdf [Accessed 27 December 2016]. 146 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Moberg, F and Folke, C. (1999). Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29, 215–233. Moore, R., Williams T., Rodriguez E., & Hepinstall-Cymmerman J. (2011). Quantifying the value of non-timber ecosystem services from Georgia’s private forests. Athens, GA: Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia. Mullon, C., Fréon, P., & Cury, P. (2005). The dynamics of collapse in world fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6(2), 111–120. National Lake Conservation Development Committee (2010). Conservation of Begnas Lake, Nepal: A case of conflict to collective action in resource sharing (multiple water use) [online]. Retrieved from http://rcse.edu.shiga-u.ac.jp/gov-pro/plan/2008list/06-020504.pdf [Accessed: 02 February 2017] New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (2008). The Economic Significance of Lake Hopatcong (Discussion Draft). New Jersey: Division of Science, research and technology. Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G., Nunes, P.A.L.D. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study. Ecological Economics, 67, 217–231. Norberg, J. (1999). Linking Nature‘s services to ecosystems: some general ecological concepts. Ecological Economics, 29, 183–202. OECD. (2010). Paying for Biodiversity Enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services (Executive summary). Paris, France: Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation. Oli, K.P. (1996). Environmental study of Nepal’s Begnas and Rupa Lakes. IUCN. Kathmandu : NCS Implementation Project Paccagnan, V. (2007). On combining stated preferences and revealed preferences approaches to evaluate environmental resources having a recreational use (IEFE Working Paper n. 4). Milan,Italy: Bocconi University, IEFE. Retrieved from http://portale.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/Centro_ IEFEen/Home/Working+Papers/WP_Paccagnan_CdR_iefe [Accessed 26 December 2016]. Pagiola, S., Ritter K.V., & Bishop, J. (2014) Assessing the Economic Value of Ecosystem Conservation (Environment Department Paper No. 101). The world Bank Environment Department . Pagiola, S., & Platais, G. (2007). Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice. Washington: World Bank. 147 Parajuli, U.N. (2011). Watershed Based Natural Resources and their Uses in Begnas Lake. Integrated Management of Water and Other Natural Resources in Himalayan Watersheds: Case of Begnas Lake, Nepal. Kathmandu: Jalshroat Vikas Sanstha. Pearce, D. (2001). Valuing biological diversity: Issues and overview. In Valuation of biodiversity benefits: Selected studies. Paris: OECD. Poudel, I., upadhyay D., Sherpa L., Dhakal R. & Parajuli A. (2016). Local varieties of rice and vegetables found in Begnas and Rupa watershed area. Pokhara: LI-BIRD. Ramsar. (2016). Ramsar Sites Information Service https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/2257 [Accessed 02 February 2017] [online]. Retrieved from Ramsar. (2009). Factsheet 5: Water purification. Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Rai, R.K., Shyamsundar P., Bhatta L.D. & Nepal, M. (2016). Designing a payment for ecosystem services for the Shardukhola Watershed in Nepal (SANDEE working paper No. 108-16). Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. Reis, M., Yuksel, A., Erdas, O., Tonguc, F. & Abdullah, A.E. (n.d.). Afforestation practices in preventing erosion in watersheds of Turkey. Retrieved from http://www2.dsi.gov.tr/english/congress2007/chapter_1/10.pdf [Accessed 03 July 2017]. Schneck, J.D., Murray, B.C., Galik, C.S. & Jenkins, W.A. (2009). Demand for REDD carbon credits: a primer on buyers, markets, and factors impacting prices. NI Working Paper 11-01, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, 2011. Retrieved from https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/demand-for-redd-carboncredits-paper.pdf [Accessed 12 July 2017]. Sherpa L., Poudel, I. & Sthapit S. (2015). Working Across Sectors To Address River Erosion At The Source (online). Pokhara, Nepal: LI-BIRD. Retrieved from http://www.libird.org/app/news/view.aspx?record_id=31 [Accessed 03 July 2017]. Shrestha, S. (2015). Payment for Environmental Services in Begnas Lake: Exploring the potential. A thesis submitted for the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara Campus, Pokhara Nepal. Sing, L., Ray, D. & Watts K. (2015). Ecosystem services and forest management. Forestry Commission, UK. Available from https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCRN020.pdf/$FILE/FCRN020.pdf [Accessed 01 July 2017] Smith C., Sherpa L. & Neupane S. (2016). Butterflies of Begnas and Rupa Watershed Area. Pokhara, Nepal: LI-BIRD. 148 Swinton, S.M., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K. & Zhang, W. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Science Direct, 64, 253-260. Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284-307. Retrieved from http://www.pakbs.org/pjbot/PDFs/44(SI2)/01.pdf (Accessed 27 December 2016]. TEEB. (2008). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (an interim report). Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from www.teebweb.org/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u2fMSQoWJf0%3d&tabid [Accessed 26 December 2016]. TEEB. (2009). TEEB for policy makers – Summary: responding to the value of nature. Bonn: TEEB. Retrieved from www.teebweb.org/Portals/25/ Documents/TEEB%20for%20National%20Policy%20Makers/TEEB%20for%20Policy%20e xec%20English.pdf [Accessed 26 December 2016]. TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations. London: Earthscan. Turner, R.K., Adger, W.N., & Brouwer, R. (1998). Ecosystem services value, research needs, and policy relevance: a commentary. Ecological Economics, 25, 61-65. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. (2010). Progress and steps towards delivery. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC UK National Ecosystem Assessment. (2012). Retrieved from http://uknea.unepwcmc.org/EcosystemAssessmentConcepts/EcosystemServices/tabid/103/Default.aspx [Accessed 27 December 2016]. UN. The Value of Forests Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Green Economy (Timber and Forest Study Paper 34). Geneva. UNEP-CBD. (2000). The ecosystem approach: description, principles and guidelines (Decisions adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity at its fifth meeting). Nairobi. US Department of Agriculture (n..d.). An Introduction to Wastewater Treatment in Wetlands. Retrieved from http://leachate.co.uk/main/wastewater-treatment-in-wetlands/. [Accessed 02 July 2017] US Department of Agriculture. (1977). How trees help clean the air. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 412. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/naldc/download.xhtml?id=CAT87209983&content=PDF [Accessed 01 July 2017] Verma, M., Bakshi, N., & Nair R.P.K., (2001). Economic Valuation of Bhoj Wetland for Sustainable Use. Mumbai, India: Ministry of Environment and Forest. Retrieved from http://earthmind.net/values/docs/valuation-wtland-bhoj.PDF [Assessed 28 December 2016]. 149 Willis, A.J. (1997). The ecosystem: an evolving concept viewed historically. Funct. Ecol, 11, 268-271.Retrieved from http://www.pakbs.org/pjbot/PDFs/44(SI2)/01.pdf [Accessed 27 December 2016]. Wunder, S. (2005). [quoted on CIFOR website]. Retrieved http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/about/index.htm [Accessed 27 December 2016]. from Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 48-58. Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental sercies programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics. Zuze, S. (2013). Measuring the economic value of Wetland Ecosystem Services in Malawi: A case study of Lake Chiuta Wetland. MSc. Thesis submitted to university of Zimbawe. Available from http://ir.uz.ac.zw/bitstream/handle/10646/1401/UZ_IWRM_ZUZE_20122013_Final%20Thesis%20Document_Dec_12-8-13.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 22 July 2017]. 150 ANNEXES ANNEX I: Questionnaire I Survey questionnaire for Identification of ES Demographic Information Name ………………………….. …………….. Education: Illiterate___ Below SLC____ Ethnicity: Occupation: Sex: SLC____ M____ F____ Plus two ____ Above +2 ____. Family size: Agriculture ____ Hand holding: Yes ___ Private job ____ Age: …………… Monthly income _______ Family head: Daily wage ____ No ____ Business ___ Land size _________ Others ____ Land type _____________ Distance from the lake (for downstream) _____________ Residence status: Permanent ______ Migrated _____ Ecosystem services 1. Do you use the resources from forest, water bodies and agricultural land for your survival and well being? a. Yes 2. What are the major agricultural crops cultivated in your area? 3. What are the major livestock reared in your house? (Poultry also) 151 b. No 4. Please mention the following provisioning services you extract from Begnas catchment area (based on use): Services Food (fruits, tuber and roots, wild fruits, wild foods mushroom, spices, game hunting) Fresh water (Drinking Description (species) Location (source) for human & livestock) Raw materials (timber, skins, fuel wood, fodder, fertilizer, sand & gravel) Biomass fuel (charcoal, fuel wood) Biochemical, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals Ornamental resources (jewelry, pets, worship, decoration and souvenirs 152 Quantity/Amount Ecosystem Use 5. Please elaborate your perception on the role/impact of ecosystem (forest, water bodies and agricultural land) on following services: Services Availability (Yes/No) Associated Ecosystem type Climate regulation (temperature, precipitation) Water regulation (Ground water recharge/discharge) Flood control (flood control, storm protection) Erosion protection (soil, sediment and nutrient retention) Water purification (water purification, waste removal) Disease and pest regulation (Birds, insects, scavengers that eat insects harmful to crops) Pollination (Birds responsible for pollination) 153 Explain the role/impact (positive, negative) 6. What are the major festivals, celebrations, gatherings, puja and mela you observe around the year? Occasion Timing Place of event No. of people attend Belief attached 7. Do people visit your place for educational and research purpose? a. Yes b. No Could you mention the sector of education and research?: ……………………………….. 154 Other information 8. How do you see the extent of Ecosystem services flow over the last five years? a. Highly increased e. Highly decreased b. Increased c. Stable d. Decreased 9. Based on your knowledge, use, perception and importance, please score the following ecosystem services on the scale of 1-10. Ecosystem Services Recreation and ecotourism Erosion control (soil, sediment, nutrient retention) Habit for wildlife Fishing and Irrigation Ground water recharge and discharge 155 score ANNEX II: Survey questionnaire for economic valuation of ES Economic valuation Fishing 1. Do you harvest fish from Begnas Lake? a.Yes b. No 2. Do you harvest fish for subsistence, commercial purpose or both? a. Subsistence b. Commercial c. Both 3. Do you have to pay the charges for fishing? If yes specify 4. How much fish do you harvest daily (in kg)? Species of fish Amount (kg) Summer Winter Sahar & Katle Bam Fageta, Rewa & Others Bhyakur Rahu, Naini, Common & Grass carp Silver carp & Bighead carp Tilipia, Mahur & Bhurluk Sano Bhitta 5. Is the availability of fish same now and some years before? a. Yes b. No Specify what happened: Fuel wood 6. Do you harvest fuel wood from the areas near to Begnas Lake? a. Yes No 7. How many bunch of fuel wood do you collect in a month? 8. Do you have to pay for the fuel wood? 156 b. 9. Do you harvest fuel wood for subsistence or commercial purpose or both? 10. How much time is required to collect a bunch of fuel wood? Other traded products 11. Do you collect any other plants/water species/fruits etc. from Begnas wetland area? a. Yes b. No 12. If yes, what do you harvest? Please remember every harvested product. Harvested products a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Amount (kg/month) Price(per kg) Use 13. Are these products harvested for commercial or subsistence purpose or both? a. Commercial b. subsistence c. both Irrigation 14. Do you use water from Begnas Lake for irrigation? 15. How much land is irrigated from Begnas irrigation system? 16. Do you pay for the irrigation? If yes, Specify how much is paid per ropani. 17. For which crops do you irrigate the land? Crop Total land area a. b. c. 157 Months d. e. 18. Please elaborate the difference in productivity with or without irrigation? Crop irrigation) a. b. c. d. Productivity (with irrigation) Productivity (without WTP for sustainable management and conservation 19. Do you want to pay for the sustainable management and conservation of Begnas watershed?? a. Yes b. No If yes, do you want to pay 1000 per month? Now, bid the amount more and more until respondent says ‗no‘. This gives the maximum WTP of respondents. 20. How much maximum amount do you want to pay in a year? (Based on bidding above) Less than 1000 ____ 4000-5000 ____ 1000-2000 ____ 5000-6000 _____ 158 2000-3000 _____ 3000-4000_____ ANNEX III: Survey questionnaire for PES Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) 1. Do you believe the activities of upstream people affect the availability of ecosystem services of downstream people? a. Yes b. No c. Don‘t know 2. Do you believe there should be compensation for the upstream people for the use of ecosystem services? a. Yes b. No c. Don‘t know 3. Do you believe the compensation mechanism enhance the conservation and sustainable management of wetland resources? a. Yes b. No c. Don‘t know 4. Is there any PES like or other payment mechanism currently? a. Yes b. No If yes; …………………………………………………………………………………… 5. Are you satisfied with existing payment mechanism? a) Not at all satisfied b) slightly satisfied c) moderately satisfied Mention d) very satisfied 7. What type of PES scheme would be appropriate for implementation? a. Public b. Private c. Public/Private 8. How do you want to compensate for ecosystem services to upstream? a. Cash payment b. Capacity building c. Infrastructure development e. Lake management 9. What could be the scale of PES? a. Watershed b. National d. indirect payment c. International 10. What could be the mode of payment? a. Output based b. Input based 11. What could be the appropriate timing of payment? a. Yearly b. Half Yearly c. Monthly 12. In your opinion who should pay? a. Tourism entrepreneur b. DDC c. Farmers 159 d. Fishermen e. All of them 13. What should upstream people do to guarantee the regular flow of ecosystem services? a. Conserve forests b. Managed urbanization c. Sustainable land use practices d. Sustainable agricultural practices e. Minimize pollution f. Conserve water bodies 14. Do you believe PES would contribute to improve livelihood of upstream people? a. Yes b. No c. To some extent 160 ANNEX IV: Visitors questionnaire This is a survey questionnaire for the study ‗Identification of Ecosystem Services and Economic Valuation of Begnas Lake watershed‘ being carried out for the final work project work of the course ‗Bachelor in Development Studies‘ offered by the Kathmandu University. As a visitor, your response on the following questions would be very much useful to value the recreational services of this lake. Thank you for your cooperation. Personal Information Name: Sex: Age: Occupation: Address: Education: Family size: 1. Are you enjoying the natural beauty of Begnas Lake? a. Yes b. No 2. What is your main motive to visit this lake? a. Recreational b. Educational c. Spiritual 3. How long does it take to reach Begnas Lake from your place? 4. What is your mode of transport to reach the lake? a. Airplane b. Bus c. Taxi d. Foot e. Airplane and other 5. What is your transportation cost to reach here? 6. Where are you staying here? 7. Is this trip only to visit Begnas or other sites also? 8. If other sites too, what is your total duration of stay in your visit to Begnas only? 161 9. How much are you paying for your overall accommodation per day in Begnas area? 10. Can you please tell your daily/monthly income? 11. How many times have you visited the lake? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. More than 3 12. Did you pay entry fee to enter the lake area? a. Yes b. No 13. If no, are you willing to pay entry fee to the lake? a. Yes b. No 14. How much are you willing to pay? 15. Would you like to visit the lake again? a. Yes b. No 16. What did you like the most about the lake? a. Nature/landscape b. boating 17. Any suggestions for better management of lake? Thank you!! 162 c. People ANNEX V: Observation sheet Checklist for identification of ecosystem services SERVICES P Food R Fresh Water O V Fiber, Fuel I and timber S Biochemical I N Genetic G materials DESCRIPTION Fish, mollusks, grains, fruits R E G U L A T I N G Climate influence local and regional regulation temperature, precipitation etc Air quality Pollutants absorption Water Maintenance of ground water Regulation recharge discharge, purification Flood flood control, storm protection Drinking and Irrigation logs, fuel wood, peat, fodder, timber Extractions of medicines genes for resistance to plant pathogens, ornamental plants Control Erosion Soil, sediment and nutrient Protection retention Pollination Purification of water/Removal of waste S Biodiversity U (habitat) plants, animals, microorganisms C U L T U R A L Recreational opportunities for recreational (tourism) activities Spiritual and source of inspiration; spiritual and inspirational religious values Educational education and training Aesthetic beauty or aesthetic value 163 AVAILABILITY COMMENTS ANNEX VI: KII/FGD checklist Availability of Ecosystem Services a. Provisioning Food Water Irrigation b. Regulating Climate regulation quality Water purification Fiber and timber Biochemical Water Regulation Flood control Soil formation Disease and Pest regulation c. Supporting Habitat water cycling d. Cultural Recreational (tourism) Educational (Research Nutrient cycling Genetic materials rosion protection Pollination Soil formation Inspirational and spiritual (festivals, celebrations) Aesthetic Economic Valuation a. Major tradable products of the wetland and quantity b. Major consumptive products and quantity c. Total land irrigated by the outlet of the lake d. Difference in productivity of irrigated and non-irrigated land e. Total boats in Begnas lake f. Per day income of a single boat g. Total operating days of boat in a month h. Total forest cover in watershed and types of forest (species) i. Total number of community forests in watershed j. Time and limit of fuel wood, fodder and timber extraction from community forests k. Any idea on carbon the wetland and forest sequestrate? l. Is carbon trading being practiced in CF? m. No. of tourists visiting Begnas Lake. n. Total expenditure of tourists in Begnas o. Is there provision of entry fee in Begnas? 164 Air PES a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. Is there any PES or PES like mechanism in practice? If yes; explain. What are the major sources of revenue generation? {Ecosystem services in particular} Who could be the potential buyers, sellers and intermediaries? What could be the appropriate PES mechanism? (Collection – Distribution model) What are potential threats to ecosystem degradation? Is there any policy drafted to facilitate the payment/management scheme at present? Explain What is the context of land ownership in the upstream? Downstream? What could be the conditions to be set to be fulfilled by upstream people for the receiver of funds? What could be the feasible payment type? Cash? Kind? What type of FES scheme could be appropriate? Public, Private, Public-private What could be the scale of PES? What could be the mode of payment? Output based or Input based? What could be mode of packaging ecosystem services? Bundling; Layering; Piggy Bagging What could be the appropriate timing of payment? Yearly Half Yearly Monthly What could be the challenges in PES implementation? Who are the key stakeholders in design of PES process? What could be their roles? DDC, Line agencies, NGOs, civil society and other people‘s networks, Media, community user groups What are the opportunities and challenges linked with PES scheme? What could be funding mechanism and distributional channels What could be institutional setup for PES mechanism What are upstream people doing to generate ecosystem services downward? VDC? Farmers? CFUGs? Are fishermen, boaters and tourism entrepreneur aware of role of upstream people and are ready to pay for ecosystem conservation in upstream? 165 ANNEX VII: People and organizations consulted FGD FGD 01 Participants 1. Bishwa Raj Kandel 2. Puspa Raj Pandey 3. Buddhi Sagar Kandel Bio Ex- Vice President, Boaters Association Executive member, Boaters Association Byabasthapak, Boaters Association Date/Location Boaters Association Office, Begnas Lake 7th June 2017 FGD 02 Participants 1. Murari Koirala 2. Bhoj Raj Timsina 3. Dhak Nath Kandel 4. Karna Bahadur Dura 5. Som Raj Kandel Bio/Address Local politician, Pokhara Lekhnath Ward no. 31 Aguwa Krishak, Khudi, PL ward no. 30 President, Boaters Association Ex- Chairman, PL Municipality ward 9 Businessman, PL Municipality ward 31 Farmer, PL Municipality ward 31 Ex-president, Boaters Association (2064/68) Date/Location Taal chowk Local café 10th June 2017 People/Organizations consulted S.No. Name 1 Akkal Bahadur Karki Bio President, Water Management Committee, Begnas Ward chairman, PL ward 32 Date 11 June 2017 (phone contact) th 2 Damodar Bhakta Thapa Secretary, Begnas and Rupa Tourism Promotion Committee President, Hotel and Restaurant Association, Lekhnath President, SEED Foundation (NGO) 11th June 2017 3 Dhak Nath Kandel 10th June 2017 4 Durga Prasad Adhikari President, Ghatako Pakho CGUG, PK ward 31 Ex- President, Hotel and Restaurant 166 8th June 2017 S.No. Name 5 Bio Date Association, Lekhnath Er. Gobinda Prasad Bhurtel Head, Planning and Implementation 12th June 2017 Department Irrigation Development Division, Kaski 6 Jagannath Lamichane Operator, Begnas Irrigation System 14h June 2017 7 Jhalak Jalari President, Fishers Association 8th June 2017 8 Lakpa Sherpa 7th June 2017 9 Nabin Bishwakarma 10 Narayan Jung Khatri Senior Program Coordinator LI BIRD (NGO) Head, Planning and Development Department (Ranger), District Forest Office, Kaski Yojana Adhikrit, District Agriculture Development Office, Kaski 11 Prakash Sapkota President, Paurakhe Kalimati Sundari Danda CFUG Ex- vice president, Boaters Association (2064/2068) President, Bhanjyang Tole Management Committee 9th June 2017 12 Ramchandra Poudel Sisuwa Ilaka Forest Office, Sisuwa 13th June 2017 13 Shankar Jalari Accountant, Fishers Association 6th June 2017 167 13th June 2017 13th June 2017 ANNEX VIII: List of community forest in BWS S.No. NAME OF COMMUNITY FOREST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Alainchibari Almara Samakhoriya Ammal Danda Andhari Khola Tin Simle Bhar Archal Pakho Arghakopakho Badpakho Banpala Bhaguwa ghari and Ghari Bhekh Bhir Pani Bhurtel Gaun Bilaune Ghari Puranthar Chainpur Chhatiwan Chhokyo Danda Chipleti Dhopahara Kahara Gampani Bhirpani Sapkota Majthana-1 Majthana-5 Majthana-5,8 Majthana-1,9 Begnas-2,3 Majthana-6 Majthana-5 Majthana-1 Majthana-9 Begnas-3,4,5 Majthana-6 Begnas-3 Sishuwa-8 Begnas-2 Begnas Majthana-5,8,9 Begnas-4,5 Begnas-3 AREA (ha) 37.00 14.00 0.53 14.50 5.60 18.56 11.65 8.50 4.68 113.06 46.60 10.06 34.39 8.00 2.10 6.81 59.62 11.60 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Begnas-2,3,5,6 Sishuwa-7 Majthana-9 Begnas-5,7 Begnas Begnas-2 Majthana-9 Majthana-4 Majthana-7 Sishuwa-7 Sishuwa-6 Begnas-3,4,5 21.43 6.73 4.86 20.90 25.00 9.08 2.21 40.25 9.27 24.51 39.50 28.49 31 Ghatako Pakho Kandel Gokuldas Katunga Jukapani Arukhsrka Kalo Mudha Adhikari Kapase Chhahare Kulbandh Macchhapuchre Mahaban Dhalsa Makai Khoriya Parilo Pakha Malepatan Pariban Malmul Odar Thumki Sirani Danda Thuli Dgunge Sinkauli Swar Maru Ghairo and Lapsibat Okhala Bhir Aangko Swaro Majthana-7 9.77 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Pachbhaiya Paranga Pari Pakha Paripakha Samakhoriya Paurakha kalimati Pragatishil Samkhoriya Bam Dhunga Begnas-8,9 Majthana-5 Majthana-5 Majthana-5 Begnas-5,7 Sishuwa-6 Begnas-3,6 328.80 7.00 27.00 8.50 44.12 48.87 7.71 168 ADDRESS 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Saunapani Jura Thumki Saunipani Barali Sepilo Parilo Pakha Shaakhudi Simle Shambhu Bansghari Sherako Pakho Simala Kamara Khola Simalpata Mahaldanda Golthapani Suklagandaki Mahila Tangtunga Madhav Bhir 49 50 51 Thulo Pakha Uttish Ghari Aarukharka Vhirbhari Begnas-1 Begnas-1 Majthana-9 Majthana-6 Majthana-5 Majthana-7 Begnas-1 Begnas-3 Sishuwa-5 Majthana-6 11.50 40.49 17.11 19.75 27.75 22.28 20.00 13.29 8.009 20.35 Begnas-2 8.00 Majthana-9 3.25 Begnas-3 187.79 Total 1520.82 (Identified with due consultation with DFO, Kaski & Ilaka Ban Office, Sisuwa) 169 ANNEX IX: Enumeration of plants of Begnas-Rupa Watershed An Enumeration of the Plants of Begnas and Rupa lake Watershed Area S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 SCIENTIFIC NAME Abelmoschus crinitus Wall. Abrus precatorius L. Acacia catachue, wild Acampe rigida Hunt Achyranthes aspera L. Achyranthes bidentata Bhume Aconogonum molle Hara Adiantum capillus-venerias L. Adiantum capillus-veneris L. Adiantum edgeworthii Hook Adiantum edgeworthii Hook Adiantum philippense L. Adiantum philippense L. Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa Aequineta indica=Monotropa uniflora L. Aerides odorata lour. Aesandra butyracea (Roxb.) baehni.= Bassia butyracea Roxb. Aeschymanthus parviflorus (D.Don) Spreng. Agave Americana Ageratum conyzoides L. Ageratum houstonianum Miller Albizia procera Albizzia chinensis (Osbeck) Merr. Albizzia lebbeck (l.) Benth. Alnus nepalenis D. Don Aloe barbadensis Mill. Alstonia scholaris (L.) R. Br. Altermanthera sessile (L.) DC. Amaranthus spinosus L. Amomum sublatum Roxb. Anemone vitifolia Buch-Ham. ex. DC Angiopteris crassipes Wall Angiopteris crassipes Wall. Anogeissus latifolius (Roxb. exDC) Bedd. Anthocephaius cadamiba Miq. Ardisia solanacea Roxb. Ardisia thyrsiflora D. Don. Areca catechu Argyreia hookeri C.B. Clarke Argyreia nasirii D. Austrin. Argyrolobium roseum Jaub & Spach 170 LOCAL NAME Khyar Chirchita Datiun Pakale unue Pakale unue Kani unue Kani unue Bel Indian pipe plant Churi Kettuke Gandhe Kalo siris Utis Chhatiwan Sarranchisag Banlunde Alainchi Kasam Supari S.No. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 SCIENTIFIC NAME Artemisia dubia Wall DC. Artemisia indica Willd Arthraxon quartinianus (A.Rich) Nash Arthromeris wallichiana (Spr) Ching Artocarpus integra (Thunb.) Merr. Artocarpus lokoocha Wall Arundinella nepalensis Trin. Asclepias curassavica L. Asparagus racemosus Willd. Asplenium ensiforme Wall ex. Hook Asplenium laciniatum D.Don Asplenium normale D.Don Aundinella bengalensis (Sp.) Druce Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Azolla microphylla Baehmeria rugalosa Wedd. Bambusa balcoba Barleria cristata L. Bauhinia purpurea L. Bauhinia vahlii Wight et Arn Bauhinia variegate L. Begonia megaptera A.DC. Begonia rubella Buch. Han ex D.Don Belamecanda chinensis (L.) Red. Benicassa hispida Berberis asiatica Roxb. Bidens pilosa L. Bischafia Javanica Blume. Blechnum orientale L Blumea fistulosa (Roxb.) Kurz. Blyxa japonica (Mig.) Maxm. Boehmeria macrophylla D.Don Boenninghausenia albiflora (Hook.) Meisn. Boerhavfia difusa L. Bombax ceiba L. Bougainvillea glabra Choisy Brassaiopsis hainla (Bach-Ham.) seem. Brassica comprestris Bridelia retuas (L) Sprerg Brunfelsia uniflora D.Don. Bryonopsis laciniosa L. Buchanania latifolia Roxb. Buddleja asiatica Lour. Buddleja paniculata Wall. Bulbophyllum affine Lindl. Caesalpinia cucullata Roxb. Caesalpinia decapetala (Roth.) Alston 171 LOCAL NAME Titepate Titepate Chhepare unue Rukha katahar Badahar Kurilo Neem Dhanu bans Tanki Bhorla Koeralo Magar kanche Magar kanche Kubhindo Chutro Kurkure Tori Goyo Shivalingi Bhimsenpati Narayanpati S.No. 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 SCIENTIFIC NAME Caesalpinia pulcherrima (L.) Swartz Callicarpa arborea Roxb. Callicarpa macrophylla Vahl. Callistemon Lanceolatus Sweet Calotropis gigantean (L.) Dryand Canabis sativa L. Capsella bursa-pastoris Capsicum annum Cardamine hirsute Carex atrata L. Carica papaya L. Carpinus viminea Lindl. Cassia floribunda Cav. Cassia tora L. Castanopsis indica (Roxb.) A.DC. Castemopsis tribuloides (Sm.) A.DC. Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don Celosia argentea L. Celtis australis L. Centaurea cyanus Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. Ceratopteris siliquosa (L.) Copel Ceratoptetris siliquosa (L.) Cestrum noctarnum L. Cheilanthes albomarginata C.L, Cheilanthes albomarginata C.L. Cheilanthes anceps BI. Cheilenthes anceps BI. Chirita pumila D.Don Choerospondias axillaris (Roxb.) Walp. Chrysanthenum indicum L. Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retz.) Trin. Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Sieb. Cinnamomum tamala Nees-Eberm. Cipadessa baccifera (Roth) Miq Cirsium verutum (D.Don) Spreng. Cissus javana DC. Citrus medica L. Clematis acuminate DC Clematis goewiiflora DC. Clematis graveolens LindI. Clematis grurina Roxb. Cleome speciosa Rafin Cleome viscose L. Clerodendron fragrance Vent. Clerodendron indicum (L.) Kutze Clerodendron infortunatum L. 172 LOCAL NAME Kalkiphool Ankh Bhanga Chamsur Chamsur Mothe Mewa Kale katus Musure katus Sadabahar Khari Make phool Ghodetapre Hasina Kani suka Kani suka Rani unue Rani unue Lapsi Godavari Kapur Bhogate Banbeli Raipadi S.No. 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 SCIENTIFIC NAME Clerodendron japnicum (Thunb.) Sweet Coclogyne ochracea Lindl. Coelogyne cristata Lindl. Coffea bengalensis Roxb. Coix lacryma-jobi L. Coleus barbatus Benth. Colibrookea oppositifolia Sm. Colocasia antiquorum Schott. Colocasia esculenta Schott. Colocasia sp. Commelina bengalensis L. Commelina paludosa Blume Coriaria nepalensis Wall Crotalaria alata Buch-Ham Crotalaria calycina Schrank Cryptomeria japonica Cucumis pepo L. Cucumis sativa L. Cucurbita maxima L. Cupressus tosulosa Curcema longi Cuscuta reflexa Roxb. Cyathea spinulosa Wall ex. Hook Cyathula prostrate (L.) Blume Cymbidium aloifolium (L.) Swartz Cymbidium pendulum (Roxb.) Swartz Cymbopogon flexuosus Wats. Cymbopogon stracheyi Raizda & Jain Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Cynoglossum zeylanicum Thunb. Cynotis cristata Don. Cynotis vaga (Lour.) J. Cypenus distans L. Cyperus articulates Cyperus compressus L. Cyperus rotundus L. Dahlia hybrid Dalberaia sissoo Roxb. Datura metal L. Datura stramonium L. Datura suaveolens Humb. Debregeasia wallichiana Wedd. Dendrobium amoenum Wall. Ex Lindl. Dendrobium longicornu Lindl. Dendroculumus hamiltonii Nees & Arn. Dendroculumus hookenrina Dennstaedtia appendiculata (wall.) J. Sm 173 LOCAL NAME Coffee Dhushre Bankarklo Dassanpipal Kane Machhaino Kankro Pharsi Besar Amrbeli Bhate nigro Dubo Mothe Sissii Kalo dhaturo Seto dhaturo Dhaturo Tamu bans Tama bans S.No. 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 SCIENTIFIC NAME Dennstaedtia appendiculata (wall.) J. Sm Deomodium triflorum (L.) DC. Desmodium Confertum DC Desmodium gangeticum (L.) DC. Desmodium heterocarpon (L.) DC. Desmodium laxiflorum DC. Desmotachya bipinnata (L.) Trin Dicranopteris glauca Dicranopteris glauca Dicranopteris linearis ( Burm) Dicranopteris linearis (Burm) Digitaria abludens (Roe. & Sch.) vel. Digitaria ciliaris (Retz) Koeler Digitaria setigera Roth. Dioescorca deltoidea Wall. Dioescorca esculenta (Lour) Burale Dioescorca pentaphylla L. Dioescorea bulbifera L. Diospyrus Montana Roxb. Diplazium esculentum (Retz.).Sw Drynaria mollis Bedd Drynaria propinqua (Wall. Ex Mett.) Sm. Drynaria quercifolia (L.) J.Smith Dryneria cordata Dryneria diandra Blume Dryopteris cochleata (D.Don) C. Chr Duranta repens L. Echinacanthus attenuatus Nees Eclipta prostate L. Eichhornia crassipes Solms Elaeocarpas sphaericus (Gaert.) K. Schum. Rudrashya Elecharis congesta D. Don. Elescharis sieboldina Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn. Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn Elsholtzia blanda Benth. Engelhardia spicata Lesch. Entada phaseoloides (L.) Merr. Epilobium hirsutum L. Equisetum arvense L. Equisetum arvense L. Equisetum debile Revb.ex. Vancher Equisetum debile Rexb. ex. Vancher Equisetum diffusum D. Don Equisetum diffusum D. Don Eragrostis tenella (L.) Beauvios 174 LOCAL NAME Kash Hade unue Hade unue Bonso Bhyakur Tusit Kurkurtarul Tinju Arijalo Nigro Nik Kanda Bangraiya Mothe Mothe Kodo Kodoghans Mauwa Pangra Kurkure Kurkure Ankhe jhar Ankhe jhar Kurkure jhar Kurkure jhar S.No. 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 SCIENTIFIC NAME Eriocaulon oryzotorum Mart. Eriocaulon staintonii Satake Erythrina arborescens Roxb. Erythrina stricta Roxb. Eucalyptus amygdalina Labill. Euphorbia heterophylla L. Euphorbia hirta L. Euphorbia milii Desm. Euphorbia pulcherrima Willed Euphorbia royleana Boiss. Eupotorium adenophorum Spreng Eupotorium odoratum L. Eurya cerasifolia (D.Don) Kobuski Ficus auriculata Lour. Ficus benghalensis L. Ficus benjamina L. Ficus clavata Wall. Ficus cunia L. Ficus globerrima BI. Ficus glomerata Roxb. Ficus hispida L.f. Ficus lacor Buch.-Ham Ficus nemoralis Wall ex. Miq. Cor Ficus roxburghii Wall. Ficus sernicordata Buch.-Ham Flascopa scandens Lour. Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Merr Flemingia strobilifera (L.) Ait Fraxinus floribunda Wall. Galinsoga parviflora Cav. Gasttrochhilus calceolaris (Smith) D. Don. Gaultheria fragrantissima Wall. Geranium ocellatum Camb. Girardinia diversifolia (L.) Friis Glochidion velutinum Wight Gomphrena globasa L. Gonstegia hirta (Blume) Miq. Gossypium arborea Gossypium hirsutum L. Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex. R. Br. Grewia hilictrifolia Wall. Grewia oppositifolia Grewia optiva J.R. Drumm. Hedychium gardneriaum Shep. Hedychium thyrsiforme Buch.-Ham Hedyotis lineate Roxb. Hedyotis scandens Roxb. 175 LOCAL NAME Phaledo Dudhe Dhude Lalpate Siundi Banmara Banmara Anjir Bar Sami Berulo Khanayao Pakuure Dumari Karseto Bantimico Dudhilo Khamari Khanayo Lankuri Chitlange jhar Ghusingare Allo Makhmali phool Kapas Kangiyophool Fasro Syal phusro Fasro Kemeraphool S.No. 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 SCIENTIFIC NAME Hedyotis verticillata (L.) Lam Helianthus annus Heteropogan contortus (L.) Beauvois Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. Hibiscus schizopetalus Hook Holarrhena pubescens Wall ex G Don. Hordeum vulgare Hydrilla verticilliata (L.f.) Royle Hygrophilla auriculata Heine Hyoscyamus insanus Stocks Hypericum cordifolium Choisy Hypericum japonicum Thunb Impatiens jurpia Buch-Ham Imperata cylindrical (L.) Beauvois Imperta cylindrical Incarvillea emodi Indigofera linifolia (L.f.) Retz. Indigofera pulchella Roxb. Inula cappa DC. Ipomoea aquatic Forsk Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth. Jacaranda mimosifolia D.Don Jasminum humile L. Jasminum multiflorum Andr. Jatropha curcas L. Juglans regia L. Juniperus indica Justicia adhatoda L. Kalanchoe spathulata DC. Kydia calycina Roxb. Lagerstroemia indica L. Lantana camara L. Leea aspera Edgew Leea crispa L. Legerstroemia parviflora Roxb. Lepisorus loriformis (Wall) Ching Leucas indica (L.) R. Br. Leucas lanata Bonth. Ligustrum confusum Dec. Ligustrum indica (Lour.) Merr. Lindenbergia grandiflora Benth. Lindera nacusua Merr. Lippia nodiflora (L.) L. Lobelia pyramidalis Wall. Loxogramme involuta (D.Don)Press. Luculia gratissima (Wall.) Sweet Ludwigia adscendens (L.) Hara 176 LOCAL NAME Suryamukhi Japa puspi Kurchi Jan Panighans Kodoghans Siru Karmaiya Dhwangphool Pahelojai Chameli Bangandi Okhar Asuro Hattikane Asare phool Galen Budhyaro Ruk unue Guimpati Kanike Jahrikath Ban phanda Akalebir S.No. 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 SCIENTIFIC NAME Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacq.)Raven. Ludwigia perennis L. Ludwigia prostrate Roxb. Lycopodium clavatum L. Lycopodium clavatum L. Lycopodium hamiltonii Spring Lycopodium hamiltonii Spring Lycopodium japonicum (Thumb) S. Lycopodium scandens (L) S. Lycopodium squarrosum Forest Lycopodium squarrosum Frost. Lygodium flexuosum (L) S. Lygodium flexuosum (L) S. Lygodium japonicum (Thumb) S. Lygodium scandens (L) S. Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) drude Machelia champaca L. Maclura cochinchinensis (Lour.) Cor. Maesa chisia Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don Maesa macrophylla (Wall.) DC. Magnifera indica L. Mallotus philipensis (Lam.) Muell. Marsilea quadrifolia Mazus delavayi Bonati Mazus pumilus (Burm.) Van Steenis Mazus surculosus D.Don. Melastoma normale D.Don. Melia azedarach L. Meliosma simplicifolia (Roxb.) Walp. Microcarpaea minima (Koenig) Merr. Microlepia speluncae (L.) Moore Microlepia speluncae (L.) Moore Microsorium buergerianum (Miq) Ching Mimosa pudica L. Mimosa rubicaulis Lam Minulus strictus Benth. Mirabilis jalapa L. Mohonia nepalensis DC Morus macroura Miq. Mucuna macrocarpa Wall. Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack Musa paradisiacal Myrica esculenta Buch.-Ham. Nasturtium officinalis Natsiatum herpeticum B.-H. Arn. Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn 177 LOCAL NAME Nagbeli jhar Nagbeli jhar Angeri Champ Damaru Bilaune Bhogate Anp Bakaino Jhapre drew Lajwati Jamanimandro Kimmu Kera Kaphal Simsag Kamal S.No. 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 SCIENTIFIC NAME Nephrolepis cordiflolia (Linn) presl. Nerium indicum Miller. Nicotiana tabacum L. Numphoides indica (L.) O. Kuntze Nyctanthes arbor-tristis L. Nymphea stellata Wild. Nymphean alba Nymphoides hydrophyllum (Lour) O. Oberonia rufilabris.Lindl Ocimum gratissimum L. Ocimum sanctum Ocimum tenuiflorum L. Oenentha aquatica Oleandra neriiformis Cav Onychium contigaum (Wall) Hope Onychium contigaum (Wall) Hope Onychium japonicum (Thunb) Kunze Onychium japonicum (Thunb) Kunze Oplismenus burmannii (Retz.) Beauvrois Oroxylum indicum Oryza rufipogon Oryza sativa L. Osbeckia nepalensis Hook Osbeckia nutans Wall ex. C.B.CL Osbeckia rostrata D.Don. Oxalis corniculata L. Oxalis corymbosa Pandanus nepalensis St. Panicum notatum Retz. Panicum psilopodium Trin. Paspalum distichum L. Paspalum flavidum Persiaria perfoliata H. Gross Persicaria capitata H. Gross. Persicaria chinensis (L.) H. Gross Persicaria hydropiper (L.) Spach Persicaria pubescens (Blume) Hara Persicaria viscosum Nakai Phaseolus lanatus L. Pholidota imbricate Hook. Phragmites karla (Retz.) Trin. Phyllanthus amarus Schum. Phyllanthus emblica L. Pilea glaberrima Blume Pinus patula Pinus roxburghii Sarg Piper nepalensis Mig. 178 LOCAL NAME Pani amala Karvir Kanchapt Parijat Seto kamal Tulsi Tatelo Nabo dhan Dhan Chariamili Chariamili Tarika Basno Banso Ghumauro kane Pirre Seto pirre Ratopire Naskat Bhunamala Amala Patula salla Khote Salla S.No. 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 SCIENTIFIC NAME Piper suipigua Buch.-Ham. Pisium sativum L. Plantago major L. Plumbago zeylanica L. Plumeria rubra L. Pogostemone auricularis (L.) Hassk. Polygala furcata Royle Polygala longifolia Poiret Polygonim plebejum R. Br. Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Polystichum obliquum (D.Don) Moore Populus new Americana Populus tremala Porana paniculata Roxb. Porana racemosa Roxb. Portualaca oleracea L. Premna bengalensis C.B. Clarke Premna intergrifolia Roxb. Premna longifloia Roxb. Prinsepia utilis Royle Prunus cerasoides D.Don Prunus Persica (L.) Batsch. Psidium guajava L. Pteridium quailinum (L.) Kunze Pteridium quailinum (L.) Kunze Pteris cretica Linn. Pteris cretica Linn. Pteris quadriaurita Retz. Pteris quandriaurita Retz. Punica granatum L. Pyrrosia beddomeana (Gies) Chig. Pyrrosia mannii (Gies) Ching Pyrus pashia Buch.-Ham. ex. D. Don Rabdesia coetsa Hara Rabdosia rugosus Hara Rabdosia ternifolia Hara Randia fasciculate (Roxb.) DC. Raphanus sativus Reinwardtia indica Dumort. Rhamnus nipalensis (Wall.) Lawson Rhododendron arboreum Smith. Rhus javanica L. Rhus parviflora Roxb. Rhus succedanea L. Rhus wallichhii Hook. Rhynchhostylis retusa (L.) Bl. Ricinus communis L. 179 LOCAL NAME Kerao Chhoyaphool Ratnule Kalo ginderi Ginderi Seto ginderi Painyu Aru Amba Anar Mayal Moola Lali gurans Satibayar Ranibhalayo Ander S.No. 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 SCIENTIFIC NAME Rosa macrophylla Linall. Rubia manjith Roxb. Rubus acuminatus Smith. Rubus ellipticus Smith. Rubus foliolosus D.Don. Rumex nepallensis Spreng. Rungia parviflora (Retz.) Nees Saccharum Officinarum L. Saccharum spontaneum L. Salix babylonica Salvia plebeian R. Br. Samecarpus anacardium L. Sapindus mukorossi Gaertn. Sapium insigne (Royle) Benth. Ex. Hook Sarcococca coriacea (Hook). Sweet Saurauia nepalensisn DC Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth Sciegesbeckia orientalis Scripus mucronatus L. Scutellaria discolor Colebr. Scutellaria repens Buch.-Ham. ex D Don Sehefflera impressa Harms Selaginella chrysocaulos Spring Selaginella chrysocaulos Spring Sesamum indicum L. Sesbania cannabina L. Setaria pallidefusca stapf & C.E. Seurrula scurrile L. Shorea robusta Goertn. Sida rhomb ifolia Smilax aspera L. Smilax orthoptera A. Dc. Smilax ovalifolia Roxb. Smilax perfoliata Lour. Solanum nigrum L. Solanum xanthocarpum Wendl. Sonchus arvensis L. Sphenomeris chinensis (L) Maxon Sphenomeris chinensis (L.) Maxon Spiranthes sinesis (Pers.) Ames. Stellaria monosperma Buch.-Ham. Stephania elegans Hook Stephania glandulifera Miers. Strobilannthes atropurpureus Nees Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeeds Tagtes erceta L. Tectaria macrodonta (Fee) C. Chr 180 LOCAL NAME Gualf Majtho Bhainsikanda Pahelo ainselu Kalo ainselu Halhale Ukhu Kans Ritha Khirro Gogan Kregandhe Dhencha Ban kauni Lisso Bariyar Kukurdino Jungali bihin Kantakari Banrayo Jamun Sayapatri S.No. 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 SCIENTIFIC NAME Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn) Roxb. Terminalia chebula Retz. Tetrastigma bracteolatum (Wall.) Planch. Tetrastigma hookeri (Lawson) Planch. Thalictrum rotundifolium DC. Themeda anathera Hackel Themeda caudate A. Camus Thespesia lampus (Cov.) Dalz. Thuja sp. Thunbergia coccinea Wall Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. Thunia alba (Lindl.) Reichb. Thysanolaena maxima O. Kuntze Tithonia diversifolia Gray Tonna cilliata. Roem Torenia asiatica Lam. Torenia cordifolia Roxb. Trapa quadrispinosa Roxb. Tridax procumbers L. Triflolum repens L. Triichosanthes wallichiana (Ser) Wight. Triticum sativum Triumfetta bartramia L. Urena lobata L. Urtica dioica L. Vanda cristata (Wall.) Lindl Veronica aagallis-acqutica L. Viscum album L. Viscum articulatum Burm. Vitex negundo L. Voila serpens Walsura trijuga Kurz. Wendlandia pendula (Wall) DC. Xanthium strumarium L. Xylosma longifolia Clos. Yocca gloriosa Linn. Zanthoxylum armiatum DC. Zea may L. Zingiber chrysanthum Roscoe Zizyphus incurve Roxb. Zizyphus mauritiana Lam. (Source: Oli, 1996) 181 LOCAL NAME Barro Harro Putaliful Tooni Singara Hashre Indrayani Genhu Nalukuro Sishnu Hodchur Simali Ankha taruwa Makai Hadebayar Bayar ANNEX X: Common tree species of Begnas-Rupa watershed Common tree species in Begnas-Rupa Lake watershed area S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 SCIENTIFIC NAME Acacia catechu Acer oblongum Aegle marmelos Aesandra butyracea Albizia chinesis Albizia lebek Albizia procera Alnus nepalensis Alstonia scholoaris Anogeissus latifolia Artocarpus integra Artocarpus lakoocha Azadirachta indica Bambusa balcoba Bauhinia purpurea Bauhinia vahlii Bauhinia variegata Bischofia javanica Boehmeria rugulosa Bombax ceiba Brassaiopsis hainla Buchanania lotifolia Buddleia asiatica Buddleia paniculata Callicarpa macrophylla Callistemom citrinus Cassia fistula Castronopsis hystrix Castronopsis indica Castronopsis tribuloides Celtis australis Cinnamomum camphora Cinnamomum tamala Citrus medica Cleyera ochanacea Coriaria nepalensis Cryptomeria japonica Cupressus torulosa Dalbergia sissoo Dendrocalamus hamiltonii Dendrocalamus hookeri Diospyros Montana Erythrina stricta Eucalyptus sp. Eurya acuminate 182 LOCAL NAME Khair Phirphire Bel Chiuri Siris Siris kalo Siris seto Utis Chhatiwan Bajhi Rukh katahar Badahar Nim Dhanu bans Taanki Bhorla Koiralo Daar Simal Seto chuletro Bhimsenpati Narayanpati Kalki phool Rajbrikshya Patle katus Dhale katus Musure katus Khari Kapur Tejpat Bakle pate Machhaino Dhupi salla Rajsalla Sissoo Choya bans Tama bans Teju Phalendo Masala Jhingane S.No. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 SCIENTIFIC NAME Eurya cerasifolia Ficus auriculata Ficus bengalensis Ficus benjamina Ficus clavata Ficus cunia Ficus glaberrima Ficus glomerata Ficus hispida Ficus lacor Ficus nemoralis Ficus neriifolia var, menoralis Ficus religiosa Ficus roxburghii Ficus sarmentosa Ficus semicordata Fraxinus floribunda Gossypium arborium Grevillea robusta Grewia optiva Hibiscus arborea Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Jacaranda mimosifolia Juglans regia Juniperus indica Lagerstroemia indica Lagerstroemia parviflora Leuceana leucocephala Ligustrum confusum Ligustrum indicum Lindera nacusua Litsea monopetala Lyonia ovalifolia Machilus gamblei Maclura cochinchinensis Maesa chisia Maesa macrophylla Magnifera indica Melia azedarach Michelia champaca Morus alba Myrsine semiserrata Nerium indicum Nyctanthes arbor-tritis Pandanus nepalensis Phyllanthus emblica Pinus patula Pinus roxburghii Plumeria rubra Populus new amerocana Populus tremule Premna bengalensis 183 LOCAL NAME Jhingane Nimaro Bar Sami Berulo Khanayo Pakhure Dumri Khar seto Kabro Dudhilo Dudhilo Pipal Khamari Bantimilo Khanyu Lankuri Kapas Kangiyo Bhimal Japa puspa Chakhoonda Okhar Dhupi Asare phool Buddhyaro Ioil Ipil Kanike Kanike Jhankri kath Kutmero Angeri Kathe kaulo Damaru Bilaune Bhogate Aap Bakaino Chanmp Kimbu Kali kath Karbir Parijat Tarika Amala Patula Salla Khote salla Choya phool Lahare pipal Lahare pipal Kalo gideri S.No. 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 SCIENTIFIC NAME Premna granatum Premna integrifolia Premnsa longifolia Prunus cerasoides Prunus persica Psidium guajava Pyrus communis Pyrus pashia Quercus incana Rhamnus nepalensis Rhododendron arboretum Rhus javanica Rhus succedanea Rhus wallichii Salix babylonica Sapindus mukorossi Saurauia nepaulensis Schima wallichii Semicarpus anacardium Shorea robusta Stranvaesia nussia Syzygium cumini Terminalia bellerica Terminalia chebula Thuja sp. Toona ciliate Trichilia connaroides Woodfordia fruticosa Ziziphus incurve Ziziphus mauritiana LOCAL NAME Anar Gideri Seto gideri Painyu Aaru Amba Naspati Mayal Banjh Chille kath Laligurans Bhaki amilo Rani bhalayo Bhalayo Bains Rittha Gogan Chilaune Bhalayo Sal Juremayal Jamun Barro Harro Dhupi Tooni Ankha taruwa Dhanyaro Hade bayar Bayar (Source: Oli, 1996) 184 ANNEX XI: Herbaceous plants and shrubs of Begnas-Rupa watershed Herbaceous plants S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 SCIENTIFIC NAME Achyranthes aspera Ageratum conyzoides Alternanthera sessilis Alternanthera spinosus Bidens pilosa Cambrosoides sp. Cannabis sativa Capsella bursa-pastoris Cardamine hirsute Cassia tora Centella asiatica Chenopodium album Commelina bengalensis Cynodon dactylon Cyperus aristatus Cyperus articulates Cyperus rotundus Desmostachya bipinnata Digitaria setigara Drymaria cordata Eclipta prostrate Eleusine indica Eupatorium adenophorum Euphorbia hirta Euphorbia microphylla Galinsoga parviflora Imperata cylindrica Ipomoea purpurea Leucas cephalotes Lippia nudiflora Mimosa pudica Oxalis corniculata Oxalis corymbisa Paspalum flavidum Paspalum sidtichon Phyllanthus niruri Polygonum plebejum Rumex nepalensis Rungia parviflora Saccharum spontaneum Sida rhombifolia Solanum nigrum Solanum xanthocarpum Sonchus arvensis COMMON NAME Prickly-chaff flower Goatweed Spiny pigweed Begger‘s stick Ragweed Indian hemp Lady‘s purse Cuckoo flower Round-leaved senna Pennywort Lamb‘s quarter Day flower Bermuda grass Sedje Matrush Nutsedge Kushgrass Crabgrass Lightningweed Daisyweed Goose grass Crofton weed Snakeweed Spurge Gallant soldier Gogon grass Morning glory Spiderwort Toadstool Sensitive plant Wood sorrel Wood sorrel Knot grass Knot grass Wild emblic Prostote joint weed Hastate dock LOCAL NAME Chirchinta Gandhe Layte Lunde Kurkur Ganlhe bethe Bhang Chamsur Chamsur Tapre Ghodetapre Bethe Kane Dubo Mothe Mothe Mothe Kush Bonso Avijalo Bangraiya Kodeghans Banmara Dudhe Dudhe Chitlange Siru Dhwang phul Gumpati Kurkur Lajwanti Chareamili Chareamili Banso Basno Bhuinamala Ratnuale Halhale Thatch grass Broom sida Black nightshade Indian salamin Sow-thistle Kans Bariyar Bhukul Kantkari Banrayo 185 45 46 47 48 49 50 Stellaria media Tithonia diversifolia Tridax procumbens Trifolium repens Urena lobata Urtica dioica Chickweed Mexican sunflower Tridas daisy White clover Cadillo Stinging nettle Putaliphul Hushre Dauli Nalukuro sisnu Common shrubby plants S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SCIENTIFIC NAME Archyranthes bidentata Berberis aristata Cestrum nocturnum Clebrrokia ospositifolia Clerodendron fragrance Euphorbia royleana Jatropha curcus Justicia adhatoda Lantana camara Rhus parviflora Ricinus communis Rubus ellipticus COMMON NAME Caff flower shrub Berberry Willow-leaved cestrum Bhusure Wild jasmine Cactus Physicnut Malbarnut Wild saga Nepal sumaoh Castor Yellow raspberry LOCAL NAME Datiun Chutro Gandhe hasina Dhunshre Ban beli Siundi Begandi Ashuo Ban phanda Setibayar Ander Ainselu COMMON NAME Sweet flag Sedge Water hyacinth Spike rus Club rush LOCAL NAME Bajho Mothe Talkumbhi Mothe Mothe Panighas Karmaiya Aquatic plants S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SCIENTIC NAME Acorus calamus Cyperus articulates Eichhornia crassipes Eleocharis congesta Eriocaulon siboldiaan Hygrorhiza ariztata Ipomoea aquatic Lemna minor Marsilea quandrifolia Nastrutium officinale Persicaria hydropiper Swamo cabbage Duck weed Water clover Water grass Hydropiper 186 Jal pyauli Sim rayo Pirre Parasitic plants S.No. 1 2 3 4 SCIENTIFIC NAME Cuscuta reflexa Loranthus scurrula Viscum album Viscum articulatum COMMON NAME Dodder Strapflower Mistletoe Mistletoe LOCAL NAME Amrbel Lissu Hadchur COMMON NAME Bryony Mader Taro Nilgiri nettle Cow-sedge Oleander Castor Stinging nettle LOCAL NAME Siblingi Ank Ban karkalo Allo Kauso Karvir Ander Sisnu Poisonous plants S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SCIENTIFIC NAME Bryonia lasciniosa Calotropis gigantean Colocasia antiquorum Gigardinia palmate Mucuna macrocarpa Nerium indicum Ricinus communis Urtica dioica (Source: Oli, 1996) 187 ANNEX XII: Religious plants and trees of Begnas-Rupa watershed Trees S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 SCIENTIFIC NAME Achyranthes aspera Aegle marmelos Aesandra butyracea Albizzia labek Anthocephalus cadamba Areca catechu Artemisia indica Artocapus integra Azadirachta indica Bambusa sp. Bauhinia purpurea Bombax ceiba Calotropis gigantean Cannabis sativa Castronopsis tribuloides Centaurea cyanus Chrysanthemum indica Cinnamomum camphora Curcuma longa Cynodon dactlyon Datura stramonlum Desmotachya bipinnata Elaeocarpus sphericus Erythrina stricta Euphorbia pulcherrima Euphorbia royleana Ficus bengalensis Ficus benjamina Ficus glomerata Ficus locar Ficus religiosa Gomphrena globosa Gossypium arboreum Hedychium gardeneriaum Helianthus annuus Hibiscus rosasinensis Jasminum humile Asminum sp. Juglans regia Leucas cephalotes Magnifera indica Michelia champaca Musa paradisiaca Nelumbium nuciferum Nerium indicum Nyctanthes arbror-tritis NEPALI NAME Apmarga Bel Chyuri Shrish Kadam Supari Titepati Rukh Kathar Nim Bans Koiralo Simal Arka Bhang Katush Corn flower Godavari Kapur Beasr Dubo Dhatura Kusha Rudraksha Faledo Lalpate Sihundi Bar Sami Dumari Kabro Pipal Makhmali phool Kapas Kemaraphool COMMON NAME Chaff flower Wood apple Butter fruit Parrot tree Suryamukhi Japa puspi Chameli Malti Okhar Gumpati Anp Champa Kera Kmal Karvir Parijat Sunflower China rose Nepali jasmine Tree jasmine Walnut Draun pushpa Mango 188 Betal nut palm Wormwood mugwort Jack fruit Bamboo Silk cotton tree Swallow sart Indian hemp Chestnut Bachelor‘s button Camphor Turmeric Bermuda grass Thorn apple Kush grass Ultrasum bead holy seed Coral tree Poinsettia Cactus spurge Banyan tree Chaunker Bodhi tree Globe amaranth Cotton Ginger lily Banana Lotus Oleander Night jasmine S.No. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 SCIENTIFIC NAME Ocimum sanctum Pandanus nepalensis Phyllanthus emblica Prunus cerasoides Prunus persica Psidium guajava Punica granatum Rhododendron arboreum Rosa indica Rubus ellipticus Sachharum officinarum Saccharum spontaneum Shorea robusta Syzygium cumini Tagetes erecta Terminalia chebula Trapa bispinosa Zizyphus mauritiana Some grains S.No. SCIENTIFIC NAME 1 Brassica campestris var. tori 2 Eleusine corocana 3 Hordeum vulgare 4 Oryza sativa 5 Phaseolus aureus 6 Phaseolus mungo 7 Pisum sativum 8 Seasmum indicum 9 Triticum sativum 10 Zea mays Some vegetables S.No. SCIENTIFIC NAME 1 Benicasa hispida 2 Colcasia esculanta 3 Cucumis sativus 4 Curcubita maxima 5 Curcubita peop 6 Ruphnus sativus NEPALI NAME Tulasi Tarika Amala Paiyaun Aru Amba Anar Lai gurans Gulaf Ainselu Ukhu Kans Sal jamun Sayapatri Harro Singara Bayer COMMON NAME Holy basil Screw pine Emblica myrobalan Himalayan cherry Peach Guava Pomegranate Rhododendron Rose Golden raspberry Sugar cane Thatch grass NEPALI NAME Tori COMMON NAME Indian rape seed Kodo Jau Dhan Mung Mans Kerao Til Genhu Makai African millet Barley Rice Golden gram Black gram Pea Sesame Wheat Maize NEPALI NAME Kubhindo Karkalo Kankro Pharsi Louki Moola (Source: Oli, 1996) 189 Blackberry Marigold Black myrobalan Water chestnut Chinese date COMMON NAME White gourd Co-coyam Cucumber Pumpkin Gourd Radish ANNEX XIII: Fodder trees and shrubs of Begnas-Rupa Lake watershed S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 SCIENTIFIC NAME LOCAL NAME Artocarpus integra (Thunb) Merr. * Katahar Artocarpus lakoocha Roxb Badahar Arundinaria raccm Malinge Nigalo Bambusa balloca Dhanu bans Bambusa spp. Taru bans Boehmeria rugulosa Wedd. Githi Cleyera ochanacea D.C. Bakle pat (kalo) Dendrocalanus hamiltonii Tama bans Erythrina stricta Roxb. Faledo Eugenia jambolana Lam Jamuna Eurya acuminate D.C. Jhingane (thulo) Ficus auriculata Lour. Anjir Ficus bengalensis L Bar Ficus benjamina L Gular Ficus clavata Wall ex Mig. Gedilo Ficus clavata Wall, wx Mig Berulo Ficus clavata Wall. ex. Mig. Ankha pakuwa Ficus cunia Buch.-Ham ex Roxb Khanayo Ficus infectoria Roxb Kabro (kalo) Ficus lacor Buch Kabro (seto) Ficus nemoralis Wall ex. Mig Dudhilo Ficus roxburghii Wall Khamari Grewia helictrifolia Wall Fasro Grewia optiva J.R. Drumm. Fasro Machilus gamblei King Kathe kaulo Magnifera indica L.* Anp Melia azedarach L Bakaina Mucuna macrocarpa Wall. Ex Baker Baldyangro, kauso Myrsine sesmiserrata Wall Kali kath Premna bengalensis Clarke Ginderi (kalo) Premna integrifolia Ginderi Premna longifolia Roxb. Var Ginderi (seto) maucronata 33 Quercus incana Roxb. Banjh (sano) 34 Salix babylonica L Baina 35 Saurauia nepaulensis DC Gogan 36 Terminalia bellerica C.B Clarke Barro 37 Terminalia chebula Retz Harro 38 Woodfordia fruticosa (L). S. Kurz Dhanyaro 39 Zizyphus incurve Roxb Hade bayer 40 Zizyphus mauritiana Bayer * Not exclusively used as food (only during very scarce season) (Source: Oli, 1996) 190 ANNEX XIV: Edible wild fruits of Begnas-Rupa Lake watershed S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 SCIENTIFIC NAME Actinidia callosa Lindl. Aesandra butyracea Roxb. Berberos asiatica Roxb. Castanopsis indica A.Dc. Castanopsis tribuloides A.Dc. Choerospondias axillaris Roxb. Duchesnea indica (Andre) Focke. Eriobetrya dubia Decne Ficus bengalensis Linn. Ficus carica Linn. Ficus sarmentosa Buch. Ham. Ficus semicordata Buch. Ham. Gaultheria fragrantissima Wall Lantana carrara Linn. Lwwa aspera Edgew. Lindera nacusua (D.Don) Maclura cochinchinensis lour. Maesa macrophylla Wall. Mahonia napulensis Dc. Morus australis Poir. Myrica esculenta Buch. Ham Myrsine semiserrata Wall Phyllanthus emblica Linn. Persicaria perfoliata (Linn) H. Gros Prunus cerasoides D. Don. Punica granatum Linn. Pyracantha crenulata Roem. Pyrus pashia Buch. Ham (vari) Rhus parviflora Roxb. Rosa macrophylla Lindl. Rubus acuminatus Smith. Rubus ellipticus mith Rubus foliolosus D.Don Sageretia parviflora D.Don Sarcococca coriacea Hook Schisandra grandiflora Hook Scurrula elata Edgew. Solanum nigrum Linn. Stravaesia nussia Decene LOCAL NAME Thekiphal Chiuri Chutro Dhale Katus Musure katus EDIBLE PART WF P WF S S SEASON September-October June-August May-June October-November October-November Lapsi P September-October Bhuin Kaphal WF May-June Jure kaphal Bar Anjir Ban timilo WFeS WF WF WF April-May August-September August-September June-September Khanayo WF May-September Dhasingari WFeS September Ban phanda Galen kanda Jharikath Damaru WFeS WFeS WFeS WF September-October September-October September October-November Bhogate Jamanimandro Kimmu Kaphal WF WF WF WFeS June June April March-April Kalikath Amala Ghumauro WFeS WFeS WFeS February September-October September-October Painyu Jungali Anar Ghangaro WFeS PS WF December-January September-October June-August Sano mayal WFeS July-October Satibayer Bhainsi kanda Rato Ainselu Pahelo Ainselu Kalo Ainselu Kharpane Pretbir Singato WFeS WF WF WF WF WFeS WfeS WFeS September-October December-January September-October September-October September-October September-October August September-October Ainerjeru Jungali Bihin Jure mayal WFeS WF WFeS October-November August-November September-October 191 S.No. SCIENTIFIC NAME LOCAL NAME EDIBLE PART SEASON 40 Syzygium cumini Linn. Kainyu WF November-December 41 Tetrastigma serrulatum Chayarchare WFeS March Roxb. 42 Viburnum coriaceum Blume Masiono kanike WF September-October 43 Viburnum mullaha BuchMalo WFeS September Ham. 44 Zizyphus incurve Roxb Hadi bayer WFeS September S=seed; P=pulp; PS=pulp of seeds; WF=whole fruit; WFeS=whole fruit except seed (Source: Oli, 1996) ANNEX XV: Amphibians recorded in the Begnas-Rupa lake watershed S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 SCIENTIFIC NAME Bufo andersoni Bufo melanostricutus Rana limnochoris Rana pipens Rana swami Rana tigrina COMMON NAME Toad Toad Frog Leopard Frog Frog Bull Frog (Source: Oli, 1996) LOCAL NAME Bhyaguto Bhyaguto Bhyaguto Bhyaguto Bhayguto Bhyaguto ANNEX XVI: Reptiles recorded in the Begnas-Rupa lake watershed S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SCIENTIFIC NAME Agma tuberculata Amphisesma platyceps Amphisesma stolta Calliophis macclellandi Calotes versicolar Elaphae hodsoni Lyfosoma indicum Mabuya carniata Pseudoxenodon macropus Pytas mucosus Trichischum tenuiceps Trimerserus alborostris Trimerserus monticola Trimerserus stejnegeri COMMON NAME Agma Keel back St.keel back Coral snake Comm.gd.lizard Karait Common shink Hill shink St.keel back Rat snake Rat snake Green pit viper Mountain pit viper Mountain pit viper (Source: Oli, 1996) 192 LOCAL NAME Cheparo Thukre Thukre Cheparo Karait Cheparo Vanmungree Thukre Dhaman Dhaman Karait Viper Viper ANNEX XVII: Mammals recorded in begnas-Rupa watershed S.No. 1 SCIENTIFIC NAME Callosciurs pygerythrus 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Canis aureus Cynopterus sphinx Felis bengalensis Felis chaus Funambulus palmarum Gounda ellioti Herpestes auropunctatus Herpestes edwardsi Herpestes urva Hystrix indica Lepus nigriocollis Lutra lutra Lutra perspicillata Macaca mulatta Manis crassicaudata Martes flavigula 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Muntiacus muntjak Mus booduga Mus musculus Neofelis nebulosa Paguma larvata Panthera pardus Pipistrellus coramandra Pteropus giganteus Rattus rattus Rhinolophus luctus Rousettus leschenaulti Selenarctos thibetanus Suncus murinus Tatera indica Viverra zibetha Vulpes bengalensis COMMON NAME Horny billed Himalayan squirrel Jackal Short nosed fruit bat Leopard cat Jungle cat Three striped palm squirrel Bush rat Small Indian mangoose Common mangoose Carb-eating mangoose Indian porcupine Blacknaped hare Common otter Small Indian otter Rhesus monkey Pangolin Himalayan yellow throated martin Barking deer Indian field mouse House mouse Clouded leopard Himalayan palm civet Leopard Indian pipistrelle Indian flying fox bat House rat Great eastern horseshoe bat Fulvous fruit bat Himalayan black deer House shrew Indian gerbil Large Indian civet Indian fox (Source: Oli, 1996) 193 LOCAL NAME Lokharke Shyal Chamero Chari bagh Jungali biralo Lokharke Salak Dhaunse chituwa Niaurimusa Kanthe niaurimusa Dumsi Kharayo Ott Ott Bandar` Salak Malsapro Ratuwa Salak Salak Dhaunse chituwa Lampuchre Chituwa Bhalu Chamero Salak Sano chamero Chamero Bhalu Chuchundro Musa Neer biralo Phyauro ANNEX XVIII: Birds recorded in Begnas-Rupa watershed S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCIENTIFIC NAME Accipter nisus Acridotheres fuscus Acridotheres tristis Aegithina tiphia Alcedo atthis Amaurornis akool Amaurornis fuscus Anas acuta Anas crecca Anthopyga siparaja 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Anthus hodgsoni Anthus novaeseelandiae Apus affinis Ardeola grayii Bulbulcus ibis Butorides striatus Calidris temminckii Capella gallinago Ceryle rudis Chrysolates lucides 21 22 Cissa chiensis Cissa erythrorhyncha 23 Clamator coromandus 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Collocalia brevirostris Copsychus saularis Coracios benghalensis Coranica melaschistos Coranica novaehollandiae Corvus macrorhynchos Culicicapa ceylonensis 31 32 33 34 Delichon nepalensis Dendrocitta formosae Dendrocitta vagabunda Dicaeum agile 35 Dicaeum concolor 36 37 38 39 40 Dicrurus adsimillis Dicrurus aeneus Dicrurus hottentottus Dicrurus leucophaeus Egretta garzetta COMMON NAME Sparrow hawk Jungle myna Common myna Lora Eurasian kingfisher Brown crake Ruddy crake Pintail Common teal Scarlet-breasted sunbird Hodgson‘s tree pipit Paddyfield pipit House swift Pond heron Cattle egret Little green heron Temminck‘s stint Fantail snipe Small pied kingfisher Lg.Gd.-Backed woodpecker Green magpie Red billed blue magpie Red-winged cristed cuckoo Edible nest swift Robin dayal Indian roller Dark cuckoo-shrike Large cuckoo-shrike MIGRATORY/RESIDENT R R R R R R Mi Mi Mi R Jungle crow Grey-headed flycatcher Nepal house martin Himalayan tree pie Indian tree pie Thick-billed flowerpicker Plain-coloured flowerpecker Black drongo Little bronze drongo Hair-crested drongo Ashy drongo Little egret R R 194 R R Mi R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Mi R R R R R R R R R S.No. 41 42 43 44 45 SCIENTIFIC NAME Egretta intermedia Enicurus immaculatus Gallicrex cinerea Gallus gallus Garrulax leucolophus 46 Garrulax pectoralis 47 48 Glaucidium cuculoides Halcyon smyrenensis 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Hirundo smithii Lanius schach Lonchura punctulata Lonchura striata Lophura leucomelana Megalaima asiatica Megalaima haemacephala Megalaima virens 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Micropternus brachyurus Milvus migrans Motacilla alba Motacilla caspica Motacilla citreola 64 Motacilla maderaspatensis Nettapus coromandelianus Nyctyornis arthertoni 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Oriolus traillii Orthotomus sutorius Pandion haliaetus Parus major Parus xanthogenys Passer domesticus Passer montanus Pellorneum ruficeps Pericrocotus flammeus Phylloscopus collybita Picus canus 76 Picus chlorolophus 77 Picus flavinucha 78 79 Podiceps ruficollis Pomatorhinus 63 COMMON NAME Intermediate egret Black-headed forktail Water cock Red jungle fowl Wt.-crested laughing thrush Lg. necklaced laug.thrush Barred owlet Wt.-breasted kingfisher Barn swallow Black-headed shrike Spotted munia Sharp-tailed munia Kalij pheasant Blue-throated barbet Crimson-breasted barbet Great Himalayan barbet Brown woodpecker MIGRATORY/RESIDENT R R R R R Dark kite Pied wagtail Grey wagtail Yellow-headed wagtail Large pied wagtail Mi Mi R R Cotton teal R Blue-bearded beeeater Maroon oriole Tailor bird Osprey Gray tit Yellow-cheeked tit House sparrow Tree sparrow Spotted babbler Scarlet minivet Brown leaf warbler Black-naped woodpecker Sm.Yl.-naped woodpecker Lg.Yl.-naped woodpecker Little grabe Rusty-cheecked Mi 195 R R R Mi R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R S.No. 80 81 82 83 SCIENTIFIC NAME erythrogenys Pomatorhinus schisticeps Psittacula alexandrii 85 Pycnonotus cafer Pycnonotus melanicterus Pycononotus leucogenys Rhipidura albicollis 86 Rhopodytes tritis 87 88 89 90 91 Riparia paludicola Rostratula benghalensis Saroglossa spiloptera Saxicola caprata Sitta castaenea 92 Sitta frontalis 93 94 95 Spilornis cheera Spizaetus nipalensis Stachyris pyrrohops 84 96 Streptopelia chinensis 97 Streptopelia orientalis 98 Sturnus malabaricus 99 Torgos calvus 100 Treron phoenicoptera 101 Turdoides nipalensis 102 Upupa eops 103 Yuhina zantholeuca 104 Zosterops palpebrosa R = resident, Mi = migratory COMMON NAME babbler Slaty hd.scimitar babbler Rose-breasted parakeet Red-vented bulbul Black-headed yellow bulbul White-cheeked bulbul MIGRATORY/RESIDENT Wt.-throated flycatcher Lg.green-billed malkoha Sand martin Painted snipe Spot-winged stare Pied bush chat Chestnut-bellied nuthatch Velvet-fronted nuthatch Crested serpent eagle Mountain hawk eagle Black-chinned babbler Spotted dove Rufuos turtle love Grey-headed myna Black vulture Bengal green pigeon Spiny-babbler Hoopoe White-bellied yuhina White eye R (Source: Oli, 1996) 196 R R R R R R R R R R R R Mi R R R Mi R Mi R R Mi R R ANNEX XIX: Some varieties of rice found in Begnas Lake watershed S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 LOCAL NAME PRODUCTIVITY (ropani/kg) Aangaa 50-75 Aapjhutte 150-180 ahare gurdi 140-160 Akle 160-200 Baasmati 130-150 Bale 130-160 Bayarni 130-160 Birimphul 100-150 Chobo jhinuwa 130-160 Daape jarneli 150-150 Dudhe anadi 90-130 Gaajale gurdi 130-150 Gauriya 110-150 Jetho budho 150-200 Junge 140-180 Juya Bayarni 130-150 Kalo jhinuwa 110-140 Kathe gurdi 100-150 Krishna Bhog 150-190 Lamo jhinuwa 90-130 Manamuri 130-150 Mansara 90-100 Naltumme 100-150 Naulo madhese 150-180 Pahele 150-180 Pahelo jhinuwa 130-150 Pakhe jarneli 90-130 Pakhe tuned 90-150 Palungtare 130-160 Pankhe ramani 130-150 Raate 140-180 Ramani 140-180 Rato anadi 100-150 Sano madhese 150-180 Seto anadi 130-160 Seto gurdi 140-180 Seto jhinuwa 90-130 Tarkaaya jhinuwa 130-150 Thapachini 150-190 Thulo gurdi 160-200 Thulo madhese 140-190 Tunde 130-150 Tunde jhinuwa 130-150 (Source: Poudel et. al., 2016) 197 ANNEX XX: Medicinal plants found in Begnas-Rupa area S.No. LOCAL NAME 5 6 7 SCIENTIFIC NAME Achyranthes bidentata Acorus calamas Aegle marmeles Aeschynanthus parniflorus Aesculus indica Allium sativum Aloe vera 8 Alstonia scholaris 9 10 11 12 Alternanthera sessilis Alternanthera sessilis Amaranthus spinosus Ananas comosus 13 14 15 16 17 18 Antidesma acidum Areca catechu Artemisia indica Artocarpus lakoocha Azadirachta indica Bambusa vulgaris Chhatiwan ko Bokra Viringe jhar Aankhle jhar Lunde ko Jara Bhuin katar ko Jara Archal Supari Pati Badar ko bokra Nim patta Baans ko jara 19 20 21 Bauhinia variegate Begonia picta Benincasa hispida Koiralo Magar Kanchi Kubhindo 22 23 Berberis chitra Bergenia ciliate Chutro Pakhanbed 24 25 26 27 28 Betula Alnoides Bixa orellana Boehmeria platyphylla Boehmeria ruglosa Bombax ceiba Saur ko bokra Sindure ko bokra Chalne Sisnu ko Jara Daar ko bokra Simal ko bokra 29 30 Brassica juncea Calotropis gigantea Rayo Aank 31 Capsicum annum 32 33 Carica papaya Cassia fistula Jire Khursani Ko Jara Mewa Rajbrikshya 34 35 36 Castanopsis indica Catharanthus roseus Centella asiatica Katus ko bokra Barhamase Phul Ghortapre 1 2 3 4 I USE Datiwan Tooth problem, urine problem Bojho Belpatra Thirchu Common cold, gastric Control high blood pressure Fracture, bone related problems, weakening of muscles Jaundice, boils, wound, scabies Stomach problem Control high blood pressure, sugar, urine problem, weakness Loss of appetite Pangro Lasun Gheu Kumari 198 Allergy, wound Hands and leg pain Sugar, pressure, control body heat Treat excessive body heat Stomach problem, cure stomach parasites Remove burn scars Sugar, knee pain, treat ringworm Back ache, gastric Fever, sugar, typhoid Backache, nerve pain, promotes blood circulation Gastric Common cold, sinusitis Sugar, Women reproductive problem, High blood pressure, aid abortion Sugar, high blood pressure Backache, body pain, fracture also used to treat animal problems Backache Backache Control body heat Backache, muscle weakness Reduce body temperature in summer, urine problem Makes bones and muscle strong Vitamin, help to conceive (religious belief) Gastric Stone Control high blood pressure,urine problem Gastric, throat problem High blood pressure Typhoid 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Cheilanthes albomargi nata Chenopodium album Cinnamomum tamala Cissampelos pareira Cissampelos pareira Citrus aurantifolia Cleistocalyx operculatus Clerodendrum indicum Cleronderum serratum Coriandrum sativum Crateva unilocularis Kal sinkha Gastric Bethe Tejpat Chillo batulpate Dhakyauli/ dhakani Kagati Kyamuna ko bokra Eklebir Gastric Female reproductive disease Fever, typhoid, common cold Typhoid Ghantosari / Ghatisaro Dhaniya Siplegan Common cold, provide vitamin C Common cold, gastric Loss of appetite, in animals helps in artificial insemination Cure indoparasite/ stomach worm Crotalaria albida Cuminum cyminum Curcuma angustifolia Curcuma domestica Cuscuta reflexa Cuscuta reflexa Cynodon dactylon Dactylorhiza hatagirea Dalbergis sisso Daphniphyllum himalense Dhatura metel Dichroa febrifuga Drymaria diandra Drynaria propinqua Dryopteris cochleata Elaeocrpus sphaericu Elettaria cardamum Erythrina strica Eulaliopsis binate Euphorbia royleana Eurya acuminata Ferula assafoetida Kose Jira Kalo haledo Besar Aakashe beli Sikari lahara Dubo Panchaule Control vomiting Sugar, stomach problems, high blood pressure Paralysis, nerve problem Backache Fever, Cancer, High blood pressure Body ache Jaundice, Sugar Fracture, backache, wound, insomnia Menstrual problem Piles, nutritious Sisso ko paat Chandan Eye irritation, menstrual problem Cure scares, skin problems Dhatura Basak ko Jara Abijalo Kammaru Sete Rudrakshya Sukmel Faledo Babiyo ko Jara Siudi Bilaune Hing Ficus benghalensis Ficus racemosa Ficus religiosa Ficus semicordata Foeniculum vulgare Fraxinus floribunda Halenia elliptica Holarrhena pubescens Hypericum cordifolium Bar ko bokra Dumri ko Jara Peepal Khanyu Sonf Lankuri Tite Madise khirro Knee pain (Bath disease) Vomit, Headache Common cold Backache Earache, common cold, headache Heart problem Weakness Gastric Backache, fracture Loss of appetite, Heart problem Urine problem, fever Weakening of muscles, High blood pressure, maintain body heat Backache, nerve problem Fever, typhoid Piles, gastric Urine related trouble Back ache, body pain Backache Gout, knee pain of animal Bone problem, painkiller Areli ko jara Back ache 199 79 80 81 82 Imperata cylindrical Ipomoea carnea Jasminum gracile Jatropha curcas Siru Ajambari Chameli ko ful Kadam bokra 83 84 85 Jatropha curcas Juniperus indica Justicia adhatoda Sajiwan Dhupi Asuro 86 Kaempferia rotunda Bhaichampa 87 88 Lindera naesiana Magnifera indica Siltimur Aap ko bokra 89 90 91 92 Mahonia acanthifolia Marsdenia roylei Melia azedarach Mimosa pudica Lwangkesari Jogi lahara Bakaino Namaste jhar 93 94 Malati Karela ko Jara 95 96 97 Mirabilis jalapa Momordica Charantia Morus autralis Morus serrate Mucuna nigricans 98 99 100 101 Musa paradisiaca Mussaenda frondosa Myrica esculenta Nelumbo nucifera 102 Pani amala 103 104 105 106 Nephrolepis cordifolia Ocimum basilicum Ocimum tenuiflorum Oroxylum indicum Oxalis corniculata 107 108 109 110 111 112 Oxyria digyna Parnassia nubicola Phyllanthus emblica Piper mullesua Piper nigrum Plumeria rubra 113 114 115 116 Psidium guajava Raphanus sativus Rauvolfia serpentina Rhododendron arboreum Rhus javanica Rosmarinus officinalis Banbare Nirmasi Amala Chabo Marich Golaichi ko bokra Belauti ko paat Mula Sarpa gandha Guransko Phul 117 118 Kutsimal Kimbu ko Jara Kause/ Kause simi Kera ko Bunga Dhobini ko jara Kaphal Kamal ko Jara Bawari Tulsi Maltata Chari amilo Bhakiamilo Rosemary 200 Backache, knee pain Stone, high blood pressure Sugar Headache, reduce body heat in summer, backache Wound, Jaundice Nose bleed, asthma Asthma, cough, sugar, high blood pressure Common cold, bone problem, womb pain in women Stomach problem Swelling hand and legs, gastric, constipation Female reproductive problems Female reproductive problems, backache Gastric, sugar Contains vitamin, cure laziness, increase milk content in animals Female reproductive problem Sugar Cure tetanus, wound Stomach parasites and worms, Jaundice Insomnia, vitamin, nutritious Cough Mouth wound Enhance blood content in body, tonic Jaundice, maintain body heat, sweating problem Heart problem Maintain body heat in summer Common cold, gastric Sugar, backache Female reproductive disease, irritation of eye Control body heat Stomach problem, animal bite Gastric To remove addiction of tobacco, cigarette Common cold, Reduce blood pressure Toothache, pneumonia, typhoid, weakness, loss of appetite Gastric, constipation Loss of appetite Snake bite, high pressure, sugar Stomach ache, extract fish bone when stuck, wound of mouth Diarrhea, Dysentery Consumed as organic tea 119 120 Ainselu ko jara Ukhu Fever, poisonous animal bite Jaundice Ritha Simrik Ground apple Kanthakari Heart problem, Dandruff, lice control Bone dislocation, fracture Control high blood pressure, improve water content of body Gastric, constipation, tooth decay Kali kuiyan Golkankri Marati Sano Marathi Amara ko bokra Jethi madhu Fever, typhoid Stomach problem, increase body weight Reproductive problem of women Gastric Vomiting, burn in feet Throat problem Gujurgano Sugar, high blood pressure, gastric Stevia Chiraito Lwang 135 136 137 138 139 Rubus ellipticus Saccharum officinarum Sapindus mukorossi Selaginella involvens Smallanthus sonchifolius Solanum aculeatissimum Solanum nigrum Solena heterophylla Spilanthes paniculata Spilanthes paniculata Spondias pinnata Stellaria monosperma Stephania glandulifera Stevia rebaudiana Swertia angustifolia Syzygium aromaticum Syzygium cumini Syzygium cumini Terminalia bellirica Terminalia chebula Tinospora sinensis 140 Tribulus terrestris Gaikhare 141 Trigonella foenumgraecum Triumfetta rhomboides Urtica dioca Verbena officinalis Vernonia cinerea Vitex negudo Woodfordia fruticosa Zanthoxylum armatum Zephyranthes carinata Zingiber officinale Methi Beneficial to sugar patient High blood pressure, sugar Tooth ache, gastric, swelling of hands and legs Common cold, asthma, gastric Gastric Gastric Common cold, gastric Sugar, high blood pressure, urinary problem, control body heat Bone problems, fracture, dysentery, female reproductive problem Sugar, reduce body heat, sweat Lahare balu Swelling body part, wound Sisnu Pittamari Musaledi Simali Dhainra Akhe timur Sugar, stomach problem, constipation Gastric, Headache, Weakness Female reproductive problems, fever Gastric Gastric Gastric, stomach problem Hade lasun Ziziphus mauritiana Bayer Chausal Jhasemgol Gastric, stomach problem, also useful to treat animal stomach problem Common cold, swelling of body due to cold Fever, measles, wound in mouth Backache yphoid, maintain body heat, sweating problem Female reproductive problems, contains vitamin, used as tonic Fever, digestive problem Pneumonia, fever, loss of appetite, 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Jamuna ko bokra Jamun 2 Barro Harro Gurjo Aduwa 154 Chautajor 155 156 Sarsajari Khadkadari 201 157 158 159 Bundhaira ko bokra Kopila phul Bijaysal 160 Balyauro (Seto) 161 162 163 Kukurdaino Bircauli Ban kawase 164 Baad ko bokra stomach problem Gastric, insomnia, knee pain Sugar Heart problem, beneficial to cancer patient Urine and stool related problem, maintain body heat Enhance lactation, cures mastitis of cattle Worms and parasites in stool Controls body temperature, high blood pressure, headache Foot ache, knee pain (Source: LI-BIRD, 2016a) 202 ANNEX XXI: Payment mechanism for major ES of BWS Payment mechanism for ES S.No Major ES . 1 Recreation and Ecotourism 2 3 4 Erosion control (Soil, sediment and nutrient retention) Scheme type Focus Market Area based, product based: boating, site seeing, hospitality sector Watershed level, area based, permanent Local, national Entrance fee, Service and fee and taxes, Use fee international level Tourism promotion, livelihood enhancement, infrastructure development Financing conservation upstream, implementation of conservative land use patterns, capacity and livelihood development Fishing and Watershed Financing land irrigation level, area users and based community forest groups upstream, lake management Ground water recharge and discharge Payment mechanism Relationship between upstream land users and downstream residents Mutually agreed channel, additional charge on govt. taxes and investment on upstream Cooperative relationship between forest user groups, land users upstream wetland dependent indigenous groups and farmers downstream Watershed Financing land Mutually level, area users, forest agreed based, user groups and relationship permanent other between conservation upstream attempts farmers, land upstream users, conservation groups and organizations and downstream residents Water use fee, Additional charge and permit fee for fishing 203 Portion of royalty generated from water distribution, individual annual payment for lake management and conservation 5 Habitat for wildlife (Biodiversi ty conservatio n) Area based, product based: pharmaceuti cals, tourism, research opportunity, genetic conservation Land users and forest user groups that protect species, ecosystems or genetic diversity 6 Carbon sequestrati on Forests (community, national and protected), area based (boundary fixed) Financing based on atmospheric carbon reduction calculation, financing based on carbon credits and offsets around wetland area Local, national and international scale based on products and use. For instance pharmaceutica ls company, decoration companies. Tourists, conservation agencies, sell of seed of genetically important species Particularly global market, donors and conservation agencies funding for carbon reduction, developed and industrial nations and international environment forums National and international grants for conservation, trade of tradable species, people‘s WTP for conservation International payment based on capacity building or infrastructure or livelihood development based on international accepted market price for carbon sequestration (Format adopted from Mayrand and Paquin, 2004 as in IUCN, 2013) 204 ANNEX XXII: Roles of key stakeholders in PES in BWS Roles of key stakeholders S.No. 1 Key stakeholders DDC     2 Government agencies (DFO, DADO, DIDO, DSWCO, NTB)     3 INGOs/NGOs      Roles/Activity Conceptualize and operationalize PES Advisor/intermediary Technical support and monitoring Help in negotiation and conflict resolution Advisor in overall PES mechanism from planning, designing, implementation, financing, investment and monitoring Technical and material support to implement conservational activity and prioritize working areas Assist in capacity building Assist as neutral representative in PES scheme Raise awareness about importance of PES mechanism Help/Assist in overall PES scheme development and valuation Provide fund/donations during initial phase of PES implementation Social mobilization for successful implementation of PES scheme Monitor PES mechanism and help in efficient implementation of PES 205 Remarks DDC can take a lead to implement/initiate PES in BWS with due consultation with other stakeholders and provide technical support in designing working mechanism of PES with due monitoring activities all the way. Government line agencies could help design PES scheme along with its organizational structure and funding mechanism through their input in particular ES. They can provide technical and material support to build up capacity of sellers in restoring ES and ensuring efficient flow of ES. As LI-BIRD has initiated a PES like scheme by starting conservation fund in BWS, similar type of assistance could be provided by other INGOs like WWF, IUCN, NTNC etc. who have experience and expertise in designing and implementing PES in other areas. However, their key roles could be raising awareness about importance of PES, provide S.No. Key stakeholders 4 Local government bodies (PL Metropolitan, village councils and concerned wards) 5 Service providers (CFUG, land users, farmers, community groups upstream)           6 Beneficiaries (BFEA, BBEA, WUA, BHRA, downstream farmers and downstream residents)     Roles/Activity Assist sellers to prioritize their investing areas regards to environment conservation and livelihood enhancement Provide consent for PES implementation Authorize to collect entry fee, use fee, service fee or other type of charge Mediate any conflicts arising in the process Identify the ES generated by their efforts Involve in negotiation process Assure in efficient long term flow of ES Commitment in ecosystem conservation and proper land use and capacity development for this Provide details of proper fund investment Proper monitoring of fund investment Involve in negotiation process Commitment in timely payment Assist in ecosystem conservation activities and provide suggestions for upstream Participate in monitoring of PES mechanism. 206 Remarks technical and material support and help in monitoring. As a authorized government body, it can provide consent on proposals about PES implementation in BWS and also provide legal consent to collect any type of service fee, collect and invest funds legally and help to resolve any conflicts arising in the process. As a key party in PES scheme in BWS, CFUG, land users, farmers or community groups should involve in negotiation process and show their commitment in ecosystem conservation and show their capacity in doing so. They should commit on proper fund investment. As a major service user groups, their key roles includes their commitment in payment for use of those services in a timely basis, involve in negotiation process as well as help in conserving ecosystem of upstream through constructive suggestions and participate in S.No. Key stakeholders 7 Local political parties and community groups (women‘s group, FECOCUN, youth networks) Roles/Activity        8 Media (Local newspapers and FMs)     Advocacy Lobbing for better policy formulation Aware members about PES through their network Help in capacity building Resolve conflict and build consensus Assist ethically and technically in design and implementation of PES Monitoring Promote public discussion about PES implementation Raise awareness about PES system and how people can get benefit from it Act as watchdog in entire PES process and disseminate information Share similar PES success stories from anywhere in Nepal and world. (Source: Field study 2017) 207 Remarks monitoring of PES fund mobilization Local political parties could advocate for payment mechanism or influence their elected local representative to initiate such kind of scheme. However, community groups and networks might assist help in capacity building and monitoring. Local leaders of political parties could build consensus among people for need and implementation of PES scheme and mediate any conflicts arising in the process. Medias in BWS and Pokhara city can play a key role in raising awareness about PES, its benefits and advantages of conserving ecosystem. However, journalists can act as a watch dog in entire process and ensure the fund mobilization is efficiently used. ANNEX XXIII: Photographs Picture 1 Survey with local resident Picture 2 Survey with local Jalari (fishermen) community 208 Picture 3 FGD with President of BBEC and other stakeholders Picture 4 Interview with Mr. Jhalak Jalari, president of BFEA 209 Picture 5 Interview with Damodar Bhakta Thapa, President of LHRA Picture 6 Interview with foreign visitor 210

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

IDENTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BEGNAS LAKE WATERSHED IN POKHARA LEKHNATH METROPOLITAN CITY

IDENTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BEGNAS LAKE WATERSHED IN POKHARA LEKHNATH METROPOLITAN CITY

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS