Ecosystem Services in Sacred Natural Sites (SNSs) of Uttarakhand: A Preliminary Survey Yogesh Gokhale 1* and Nazir A. Pala 2 1 The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India E-mail: yogeshg@teri.res.in 2 Department of Forestry and Natural Resources HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal Uttarakhand, India KEYWORDS Garhwal and Kumaon. Local Inhabitants. Sacred Groves. Cultural Services ABSTRACT The present work was carried with the aim to document the Sacred Natural Sites in both Garhwal and Kumaon regions of Uttarakhand to access their major ecosystem services benefiting at both regional levels to local inhabitants and globally benefiting environment. The Sacred Natural Sites (SNS) included sacred forests, sacred groves, sacred bugyals and water bodies. A total of 130 SNS were found during the present study located in different areas of Uttarakhand. The surveyed SNS included 55 groves, 44 forests, 24 meadows/bugyals/Kharks and 6 water bodies. With respect to the range of ecosystem services offered by the SNS about 24 percent share goes to the cultural services and 32 percent each for supporting and provisioning services whereas 12 percent services are of regulatory in nature. INTRODUCTION Millennium Ecosystem Assessment process has conceptualized the connection between the status of ecosystems and various goods and ser- vices provided by those ecosystems. The local people are dependent on ecosystems for variety of services such as provisioning in form of food, water, firewood. The ecosystems have been largely responsible for regulating floods, puri- fying water, maintaining the temperature, etc. The biological processes such as nutrient cy- cling, soil formation, etc. are responsible for providing the supporting services to the human society. The human societies are also culturally dependent on the ecosystems for spiritual pur- poses, aesthetic purposes, recreation, etc. (Fig. 1). To understand the fundamental meaning of life and develop moral standards towards the community and local habitats cultures have formed values and beliefs to control acceptable behaviour (Laird 1993). Sacred groves (forest) are a group of trees or a patch of vegetation pro- tected by the local people through religious and cultural practices evolved to minimized estruc- tion (Isreal et al. 1997).The sacred groves / for- ests may consist of multi-species, multi-tier, primary forest or a clump of trees in a near natu- ral condition of vegetation being managed ac- cording to local taboos and sanctions that entail spiritual and ecological values (Malhotra et al. 2007). The sacred groves are thought to be rich source of medicinal, rare and endemic plants, as refugia for relic flora of a region and as cen- ters of seed dispersal (Whittaker 1975; Jeeva et al. 2007; Malhotra et al. 2007). Plant wealth and self conservation potential of sacred groves are impressive enough for them to be acknowl- edged as “mini biosphere reserves” (Gadgil and Vartak 1975). A number of human societies in Asia, Af- rica, Europe, America and Australia had long preservation sections of their natural environ- ment as sacred groves (Hughes and Chandran 1998). Historically, attitudes and behaviour to- wards the environment and sustainable use of resources have been greatly affected and deter- mined by nature worship and spiritual values (Khumbongmayum et al. 2004; Byers et al. 2001).Sacred groves, protected over centuries are often located in regions rich in biodiversity (Bhagwat and Rutte 2006). Consequently they are of great ecological significance and have the potential to provide a variety of ecosystem ser- vices (Mourato and Smith 2002). Regulatory functions such as carbon sequestration, nutri- ent retention, biodiversity, soil conservation, pollination and hydrological cycling can be ben- eficial not only to local communities but also at national and international levels. Economic valuation of the environment has many uses (Pearce et al. 2002). It has been argued (Adger et al. 2002) that failing to demonstrate economic values of the environment has led to the sys- tematic loss and degradation of the world’s eco- © Kamla-Raj 2011 J Biodiversity, 2(2): 107-115 (2011)