Ecosystem services are very comprehensive for sustaining life and livelihoods, can be defined in various ways. Further, its payment is an important tool for the management of natural resources and sharing of its benefits to all the stakeholders (Uniyal et al., 2020). Singh (2002) defined it as the result of interactions between living and non-living components of ecosystems. According to Daily (1998), ecosystem services are the conditions and processes, which sustain and fulfill human life. They are the components of nature enjoyed, consumed/used for sustainable livelihoods. Ecosystems are natural capitals/assets that provide numerous services. These services maintain life and livelihoods, enhance the economy, control floods and diseases, and provide opportunities for recreation (MA, 2005). However, increasing demand for these services during the recent past has put pressure on natural resources and diminishes ecosystem capacity (MA, 2005). Meanwhile, ecosystem productivities are comparatively lower in plains than the mountain regions (Zobel et al., 2001) although there is still limited knowledge on managing ecosystem services (Kremen, 2005).

The ecosystems provide two types of services - tangible and intangible. They are also called goods and services, respectively, which are a total of 17 in number, identified by Costanza et al. (1998). Regulation and supportive services are intangible; they do not have an explicit market value because they do not receive due importance in policy decisions (Costanza et al., 1998; TEEB, 2010). Timber, non-timber forest products including firewood, fodder, and food are tangible services, which are directly extracted from the ecosystems. Clean water is also a tangible ecosystem service, which is obtained due to complex interactions between the ecosystem components - forests, soils, water, and microorganisms. Moreover, the benefits from the ecosystem services that people obtain are not fully understood. Therefore, the ecological and economic aspects of ecosystem services are required valuation, which may depend upon the nature of the goods and services and the type of benefits that are being measured. Further, evaluation and assessment of intangible benefits of ecosystem services is a major concern and for that, some methods can be framed and implemented (NEP, 2006). The upstream people are providers of ecosystem services and downstream people are the beneficiaries. The scheme of payment of ecosystem services will provide justice and equity to the poor mountain people. This can be done through optimal investment in conservation and management of ecosystems otherwise it will lead to deterioration of ecosystem services (MA, 2005).

The Himalayan ecosystem is diverse with the highest diversity of flora and fauna and it provides ecosystem services to a quarter of the world’s population (Chaudhary et al., 2017). Similarly, the Indian Central Himalayan Region (ICHR) is endowed with rich ecosystem services of global importance, gene pools, species, and a storehouse of biological diversity, which is a priority region in global conservation agendas. Due to varying temperatures and altitudes, Uttarakhand Himalaya obtains rich biodiversity (Sharma, 2020). Oak forests, largely found in the temperate region, have high ecological and socio-cultural significance; provide substantial ecosystem services (Naudiyal and Schmerbeck, 2021). It has eight out of the 16 forest types existing in India (Champion and Seth, 1968) and it is a part of four global biodiversity hotspots (Chettri et al., 2008). The value of these forests is 500 INR t^-1 of fuel/fodder with approximate 300000 million INR per year (INR = Indian Rupees^①(Indian Rupees (1 USD is equal to 82 INR, Dec., 2022).)) (MoEF, 2005). These forests have also altruistic and ethical values (Agrawal, 1992), which play an important role in protecting the environment and in providing livelihoods to a vast population of its neighbouring countries. Freshwater, which is used by more than 200 million people living in the region and 1.3 billion people living in downstream river basins is one of the most ecosystem services (Schild, 2008). Agro-ecosystem services are abundant, used traditionally, and sustaining the livelihoods of a large population. Similarly, livestock is the most productive livelihood option, in which productivity is dependent largely on the availability of fodder—grasses and green leaves (Verma, 2000). The Himalaya has extensive grasslands—subtropical and alpine and therefore, livestock production is substantial.

Recently, the Himalayan ecosystems are being degraded mainly due to anthropogenic factors such as the mounting population, haphazard infrastructure development, unsustainable use and poor management, and low investment in conservation (Maharana et al., 2000; Baral et al., 2007; Baral et al., 2008; GOI, 2009; Sharma et al., 2009; Badola et al., 2010; Chen and Jim, 2010; Tse-ring et al., 2010). On the other hand, many critical conservation areas are inaccessible and dynamic where ecosystem services are unutilized largely and their valuation and assessment is a herculean task. The local communities living in these fragile areas have limited livelihood options; often receive little benefits from the ecosystem services. Further, variation in temperature and moisture is large with a high degree of heterogeneity (Ring et al., 2010; Sati, 2014). The Himalayas are highly vulnerable to natural disasters, mainly landslides, flash floods, and climate change, which have highly influenced the ecosystem services. Therefore, the challenge is to assign a value to multifunctional mountain ecosystems and to determine threshold values (Ring et al., 2010).

Very few empirical studies have been conducted on the economic valuation of ecosystem services in the Himalayan region. However, some studies have been conducted on the recreational and aesthetic value of the protected areas (Maharana et al., 2000; Baral et al., 2008). This paper examines the availability and use pattern of various types of ecosystem services mainly forests, water, farming, climate, and landscape in ICHR. It further assesses and values ecosystem services for their payments to the rural people so that livelihood sustainability can be attained.

The ICHR, also known as the Uttarakhand Himalaya, comprises of the two horizontal divisions—the Garhwal Himalaya and the Kumaon Himalaya and five vertical divisions— Doon, Tarai, and Bhabhar; the Shivalik ranges and the river valleys; the lesser or middle Himalaya; the high Himalaya and the alpine pastureland; and the snow-clad mountain peaks. All these vertical and horizontal divisions have diversity in all the aspects—natural and cultural and they provide plenty of ecosystem services. Having a 53483 km² geographical area, it stretches between 28°43°N-31°28°N and 77°34°E-81°03°E (Fig. 1). About 63% of its area is forested; obtaining rich biodiversity, and therefore, the region is one of the global biodiversity hotspots. The Ganges system—the Bhagirathi River, the Alaknanda River, the Yamuna River, and the Kali River and their numerous tributaries, which drain through the region, make the biggest river system with huge water. All these rivers are glacial-fed. The landscape is spectacular from the river valleys to the snow-clad mountains, which are the tourism destinations. Ago-climatic conditions are feasible, which vary according to the altitudes and climates and which support agro-ecosystem services substantially.

A qualitative approach was employed to conduct this study, in which, data were gathered from secondary and primary sources and through field observation. Data on water ecosystem services such as major rivers, their length, and annual drainage were obtained from the toposheets of the ‘Survey of India’ Dehradun and the ‘Central Water Commission of India’ New Delhi. Data on forest ecosystem services were gathered from the ‘Forest Survey of India’ (2017) Dehradun. Based on the data on crop races/cultivars grow in different altitudinal zones, the author divided the entire Uttarakhand into agro-climatic zones and subsequently the agro-ecosystem services obtained from each zone. Data on tourism ecosystem services were gathered from the tourism department, Dehradun, and from published literature. Furthermore, data on the valuation of ecosystem services in the Indian Central Himalayan Region were also gathered from the published literature which shows the tangible and intangible benefits and their valuation. A list of goods and services by forests was prepared by the author and presented to show the resource base of forests in the region.

Primary data were gathered through a case study of ‘Korba’ village, which lies on the way to Chakrata town in Dehradun District 10 km before it. This survey was conducted in the first week of January 2020. The household-level survey was conducted through a purposive random sampling method. A total of 60 households were surveyed, which is 48% of the total population (125 persons). A structured questionnaire was framed and questions were asked from heads of the households on the major ecosystem services available in the village. These eco-system services are forests, water, agro-ecology, and spectacular landscapes. Data on how the available ecosystem services are used and what are their prospects were also asked from the heads of each household. The questions were also asked on the role of ecosystem services on the livelihood enhancement of the rural people. Besides these methods of data collection, the author visited some other areas such as the Alaknanda River Basin, during the mid of January 2020, to observe the potentials of ecosystem services and their role in livelihood enhancement in the region.

Data were interpreted and described using mainly qualitative methods and observations. A location map of ICHR and a village ecosystem model were digitalized using Geographical Information System (GIS). Further, Geographical Positioning System (GPS) was used to collect information on latitude, longitude, and altitude of the case study villages. An evaluation of per day fuelwood and fodder requirement at the household level of Korba village was carried out by weighing scale. Suggestions for policymaking were given to the sustainable use of ecosystem services and sustainable livelihoods.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) has identified four main categories of ecosystem services as provisioning services, regulating services, cultural services, and supporting services. The provisioning services include food (fruits, vegetables, trees, fish, and livestock), drinking water, timber, and fuelwood. The regulating services make the ecosystem clean, sustainable, functional, and resilient to change, which include pollination, decomposition, water purification, erosion and flood control, carbon storage, and climate regulation. Cultural services are non-material benefits, which contribute to the development and cultural advancement of people. The last ecosystem service is supporting services such as photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, the creation of soils, and the water cycle (Adams et al., 2000). In this paper, provisioning services and cultural services in ICHR are described.

Although the ICHR region has abundant ecosystem services as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the use pattern is poor. On the other hand, most of the ecosystem services are unused. For example, water ecosystem services are plenty however the people who are providers face acute water scarcity mainly during the dry season. In the meantime, the beneficiaries are the people of downstream basins where ample water is used. Forest ecosystem services are also unused because of their inaccessibility in the high mountainous areas. The other reason is the forest act of India 1982, which has restricted the use of accessible forest resources to the native people. The region also provides a high environmental sustainability index and fresh air. Agro-ecology is suitable and a rich agro-biodiversity is found, however, production and yield of crops are less and many people are facing food insecurity. People could not use ample eco-tourism services and therefore their livelihoods are fully dependent on practicing traditional farming. Many hydroelectricity power projects are located in the entire ICHR however about 20% of villages are without electricity and in the other villages electricity supply is not proper. The rivers inundate over danger marks during the monsoon season, as the whole region receives heavy downpours. It leads to the occurrences of debris flows and flash floods. Rainwater directly runs off to the rivers, erodes, and carries huge soils and deposit it in the Ganges plain. This has led to a large population (15.6%) living below the poverty line. In rural areas, people living below the poverty line are 17.9%.

Forests provide two types of benefits—tangible (goods) and intangible [(services) (Fig. 6)]. Timber and non-timber forest products are tangible whereas ecological function, eco-tourism, and carbon storage are intangible benefits of forests. The highest economic benefit is drawn from the ecological functions, which have INR 100000 ha^-1, followed by carbon store (INR 50000 ha^-1), and eco-tourism (INR 10000 ha^-1). The lowest economic benefit is drawn from non-timber forest products, which is INR 1747 ha^-1. Timber has INR 5985 ha^-1 economic value (Manoharan, 2000). SFRI (2005) estimated that IHR (Indian Himalayan Region) provides INR 943 billion per annum from the forest ecosystem services whereas ICHR provides INR 104 billion per annum from the same.

Water ecosystem services need to be evaluated. The huge water (2.667×10¹⁰ m³ yr^-1) runs off through river channels to the plain region, erodes plenty of alluvial soil, and deposit it in the Ganges plain. In the upstream areas, water scarcity prevails. Further, soil fertility is very less. This is also the case with agroecosystem services and eco-tourism services. Valuation of these eco-system services is inevitable that will lead to sustainable livelihoods for the rural people.

Table 6 shows the valuation of ecosystem services in ICHR. Intangible benefits obtain the highest ecosystem valuation among which watershed benefits are the highest (INR 1247610 million), followed by carbon stock and flux (INR 279780 million), and biodiversity (INR 69890 million). Benefits from ecotourism services are the highest among the tangible services (INR 8180 million), followed by grazing (INR 6520 million). Other ecosystem services have comparatively fewer benefits.

The rich faunal and floral diversity, ample water, suitable agro-ecology, and spectacular landscapes are a natural wealth and major ecosystem services of the ICHR, which provide ample livelihoods to the inhabitant of both upstream and downstream areas. Meanwhile, these ecosystem services are underutilized in the remote and inaccessible areas and over-utilized in and surroundings of the rural habitation where they are easily assessable. Further, they are used as raw materials and their valuation and assessment have not been calculated scientifically so far.

The tangible ecosystem services such as timber and non-timber forest products—fodder, firewood, and wild fruits are used by the local people for sustaining their livelihoods. However, their use pattern is dependent on various factors such as accessibility and availability. The forest act of India 1982 was rigorously implemented in the state of Uttarakhand, which has limited the use of these ecosystem services largely. Further, water ecosystem services are abundant however, they are largely unused. The reason is that the settlements are mainly located in the middle altitudes and the highlands and the major river flows along the valleys. The construction of canals is not suitable due to rugged and fragile terrain. The inhabitants are dependent on the natural springs’ water for their daily needs however, during the summer, most of the natural springs dried up and the inhabitants face water scarcity. The intangible ecosystem services such as landscapes, climate, and fresh air are abundant however their benefits do not go to the people who are providing these services. The per capita annual consumption of dry wood in the Himalaya is ranging between 500 kg and 1200 kg. At the household level, Singh et al. (2004) observed that firewood consumption in the Garhwal Himalaya ranges from 20 kg to 25 kg per day.

The downstream inhabitants, on the other hand, are the beneficiary of both tangible and intangible ecosystem services. Water and soils are the most tangible ecosystem services they are being benefitted. The Ganges Valley is the most fertile alluvial plain because of the deposition of sediments brought by the rivers from the ICHR region. In the meantime, the ICHR region has the lowest crop production and yield, although agro-climate is very suitable. Recently, due to large-scale variability and change in precipitation and temperature, ecosystem services have subsequently been influenced. They are critical in the face of natural disturbances, anthropogenic activities, and climate change. Changes in structure, functions, patterns of disturbance, and the increased dominance of invasive species have further influenced ecosystem services.

The Indian Himalayan region has 51 million populations out of which about 70% of populations live in rural areas and mostly dependent on natural resources for sustaining livelihoods (Badola et al., 2010). Agriculture is subsistence in nature, landholdings are less than 1 ha (Singh et al., 1995), practiced in fragile ecosystems although known as the backbone of the economy. Therefore, the dependency on forest ecosystem services for fodder, firewood, and wild fruits is comparably higher. Forests are intricately linked with the livelihoods of the people. Carbon sequestration and hydrologic regulation are considered the most valuable processes of forest ecosystems (Singh, 2002).

The valuation of ecosystem services in the Himalayan region has become a priority to benefit the local inhabitants (GOI, 2009). The Government of India has made special provisions through a National Mission for Sustaining Himalayan Ecosystem. Forest productivity can be increased through proper management and plan interventions of protected areas. Ecological value-added tax should be levied at the state level in the downstream basins and the money should be used for giving subsidies to the marginal farmers and other poor people for enhancing livelihood. Economic valuation of biomass for fuel, fodder, recreation, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and catchment area protection for hydropower projects can be carried out and the benefits may be given to the rural poor people. Raising awareness, creating a market for ecosystems, improving management mechanism, providing a framework for decision making, and extending justice and equity are the major roles of economic valuation of ecosystem services (Daily et al., 2000; Kumar, 2005; Huang and Upadhyaya, 2007; TEEB, 2009; UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2010).

Water, forest, and land are the ecosystem services, and the major source of livelihood of the people in the Himalayan region. However, most of these services, either unused due to their inaccessibility, or the people cannot use them because of restrictions imposed by the forest departments. So, there is always a fight for forest rights (Haq and Hukook) between the government authority and the local people. Natural constraints such as terrain and remoteness further make them unavailable. The location of the settlements and ecosystem services availability are the other issues. For example, water is available along the river valleys meanwhile settlements are concentrated mainly in the middle altitudes, which are dry areas. In the highland areas, the forests’ ecosystem services are unused because of their inaccessibility. Agro-ecosystem services are not utilized fully due to several reasons. And finally, eco-tourism services are not valued properly. Lacking infrastructural facilities is another hindrance to utilizing these services. It is therefore suggested that a proper and suitable methodology should be adapted to the assessment, valuation, and payment of the ecosystem services. Green bonus and share of ecosystem services (intangible) should be given to the native people of the upstream regions. Environmental taxes should be levied on the beneficiaries of the downstream river basin and its share should be given to the rural people of the mountainous region. Eco-tourism services can be used by the local people by providing logistic services. Employment in the infrastructural development projects including hydropower projects should be given adequately to the local people. The benefits of intangible ecosystem services and rights of optimum use of forests should equally be given to the local people. A suitable model for the sustainable distribution of drinking water can be developed through people’s participation. It will enhance the livelihood of the rural mountainous region and will help in controlling out-migration.