14
ECOCLUB, Issue 93
Whilst sustainability requires a balancing of priorities between various stakeholders, in developing countries, the clear emphasis
must remain on the poor, who are most dependent on natural resources. The marginalized forest dependent poor, especially
women, are the target group requiring poverty alleviation through natural asset improvement. David Pearce’s Environment for
the MDGs (Pearce 2005) makes the case that the poor tend to reside in areas of stress and low-quality natural resources—such
as low soil productivity, contaminated water, steep slopes, and polluted grounds—making them increasingly prone to diseases,
water shortages, landslides, floods and other hazards. Their low productivity asset base is usually further depleted by large herds
of
livestock. The few environmental assets that the poor own are typically low quality and
rapidly depreciating. The high
discount rate of the asset base spurns the poor to
undermine the future when it comes to managing their assets. Rather than
managing for the long-term, they tend to take what they can when they can. Social capital and community cohesiveness breaks
down under environmental degradation and resource scarcity.
The H.P forest sector recognizes sustainable forest management as the path towards
increasing emphasis on social and
environmental goals believing that for poverty
alleviation and meaningful improved livelihoods, economic solutions are
required to be found through natural capital enhancement. If the H.P. Forest Department is to effectively make this shift, it must
take three important steps: a) recognize the value of
ecosystems and environmental services to halt any further decline in the
natural capital
stock, especially where it concerns life support systems such as water; b) develop
market mechanisms and
incentives that promote future development of eco-services; c)
create a more collaborative decision-making process that
recognizes the rights of a
variety of stakeholders to participate in decision-making, whether it is NGOs (Non
Government
Organizations), villages, academia, other public agencies or the private sector.
1. Valuing Ecosystem Services
The international community recognizes that the natural ecosystem and the environmental services they supply are intrinsic to
achieving sustainability. The U.N.-led Millennium Ecosystem Assessment analysis (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Panel
2005) provides a benchmark for assessing the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, and it concludes that the total economic
value from managing an ecosystem sustainably is far superior to the value associated with mere conversion of the ecosystem.
The “wild”
state is more beneficial than an extraction-based human-dominated model, with the
benefit/cost ratio as much as
100:1 (Costanza 2006). To convert natural forests to agriculture, horticulture or other development uses in the name of human
well-being comes at tremendous cost, since it means losing out on many important environmental services. The arena of eco-
services has provided (a) a platform for a facilitating dialogue among all forest stakeholders for effective adaptive manageme
nt; (b) establishment and maintenance of multiple-resource forest databases to accommodate new stimuli in trends, threats and
issues; (c) problem solving research capacity; (d) provision for new experimentation like the environmental service payments,
along with good forestry
practices and (e) healthy regulations to activate the path towards sustainability and
development
(Sayer, Maginnis et al. 2004).
Environmental losses translate into economic losses. A World Bank study has shown
that natural environmental capital is a
critical component of the asset base in most developing economies (Hamilton, Ruta et al. 2005). Millennium Development Goal
7 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Panel 2005) targets poverty eradication and points to the need to focus on environmental
resources such as soil and water resources on marginal lands, to promote agricultural productivity, thereby benefiting the poor.
A shift in policy from an income-based to an asset-based approach is clearly required. In contrast to past theory, environmental
improvement is consistent with economic development. Indeed, it is arguable that economic growth cannot be sustained without
environmental sustainability. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) is a classic contention that environmental investments
secure a lower rate of return than investments in other forms
of capital. Such theories are now being challenged and their
premises questioned (Pearce 2005). Some financially viable investments (Pearce 2005) that could be explored in Himachal and
which have a bearing to make the ecotourism venture robust are:
Improved water supply, safe drinking water and improved irrigation (e.g. drip irrigation) can increase productivity and
improve sanitation, which would reduce water-borne diseases.
Soil conservation and land tenure policies can affect productivity and biodiversity and provide incentives to farmers.
Increased access to sustainable energy services also offers higher returns on investments.
Protection (from conversion of forests to cropland) and restoration of natural
ecosystems (for ecotourism) is also a
good investment.
Any successful strategy in optimizing an ecosystems approach in Himachal, must necessarily:
Formulate an integrated land use policy, especially since fragmented land holdings are unproductive;
revise land capability classifications and land utilization according to assessments;
encourage multi-tier / multiple use natural resources management (NRM) practices, avoiding use of productive arable
land for development purposes;
provide adequate financial and technological resources for wasteland and fallow
