The Earth Debate in the Hindu Kush Himalayas –
“Can we put a price on nature?”
Date:
24 February, 2012
Time:
1:30-4:00 PM
Central
Venue: ICIMOD Headquarters, Kathmandu, Nepal
Moderators:
Daan Boom, Programme Manager, Integrated Knowledge Management, ICIMOD; Mr Tek
Jung Mahat, Node Manager, Asia Pacific Mountain Network – Mountain Partnership
Guest Speakers: Dr Robert Monro, Country Director,
British Council, Nepal; Dr David Molden, Director General, ICIMOD
Panelists: Dr Madhav Karki, Deputy Director General, ICIMOD; Mr Raj
Gyawali, CEO, Social Tours; Smrity Mallapaty,
Correspondent, SciDev
Country groups present via Skype-web: Dhaka, Bangladesh; Beijing, China;
Vishakhapatnam and Kochi, India; Kathmandu, Nepal
Mr Tek Jung Mahat welcomed the guest speakers, panelists
and the country groups to the Internet debate on the topic of ‘can we put a
price on nature?’ and thanked the Natural History Museum, Stakeholder Forum,
and British Council for bringing the same to the Hindu Kush Himalayan region. Dr Robert
Monro reminded the audience that climate change is real and that the clock
is ticking. He noted that although we’ve come some way since the Kyoto Protocol
in 1997, CoP-15 in Copenhagen was a failure. He underscored that the focus of
the debate on the ‘economics of climate change’ was very apt, as it is the
vested interests backed by ‘big money’ that are holding back progress on the
climate change mitigation front. Dr
David Molden agreed that the topic is relevant to ICIMOD in the run up to
Rio+20. He acknowledged that climate change in the mountains is an issue of
global concern and that solutions to problems such as glacier/snow melting, green
house gas emissions, and changes in the monsoon
pattern need to be sought at all levels. He noted that mountain people who are
care-takers of mountain systems that provide ecosystem goods and services are
not compensated for their essential role, and called on the audience to join
hands to put mountains on the global agenda of the UNFCCC process, including Rio+20.
Next,
the 17-minute video clip of the Earth Debates, titled "Ecosystem economics
- Can we put a price on Nature?" was shown to the audience comprising mostly
the country groups and the panelists to set the tone for the two-way Skype-enabled
interactions to follow between them.
Dr
Madhav Karki
noted that valuation of ecosystem services is important since ‘that which is
not valued is often not protected.’ He admitted that cultural values and
provisioning roles of ecosystems are not easy to monetize, while likening the over
extraction of natural resources in the Hindu Kush Himalayas, which are
increasingly being recognized as a global common, to the ‘tragedy of the
commons’. Misusing this common, he said, will have implications for
intergenerational equity, so called on all to flag this issue at Rio+20. Ms Smriti
Mallapaty noted that while
monetization is important, it is only a numbers game or tool to advocate for
solutions to some of today’s protracted environmental problems. She said internalizing negative externalities
often comes at the expense of economic growth, and asked, “Who will pay for the
global ecosystem services that are valued at 33 trillion dollars?” She noted that there is a need to create
incentive structures that go beyond prices to benefit Nature ultimately. Mr Raj
Gyawali reminded everyone that in Nepal’s tourism sector, there is already price
on nature in the form of royalties and permits that visitors must pay to climb
mountains and visit protected or restricted areas. “But the big question,” he
said, “is how much of that money actually goes back to the community, since putting
money in their hands is the best way to ensure protection of the environment
and ecosystem services?” Rather than
rely on the licensing system to arbitrarily put price on nature, he opined that
is is much better to ensure that a ‘greater share of the tourism revenues’ are
captured by the local community and that they are provided with tools to do
conservation with, not to mention legislation to influence behaviors and
attitudes all around.
The
Indian Group
§ Flagged that in most countries,
Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs) are highly politicised to serve the
narrow interests of a certain group of people, so the very purpose of the EIA
has been lost in the wind. However, in India now that natural resource
accounting is going into National Account, it is an encouraging sign of the
time.
§ Noted that the climate science as reported
by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was erroneous. It retracted
the statement it had made about the Himalayan glaciers and the snow cap on Mt.
Kilimanjaro. The panel responded
that although some of the findings of IPCC were questionable, their overall
conclusion was sound: that climate change is real and happening.
§ Reminded that indigenous peoples (IPs) are
being displaced from their homeland in the name of development, with scant
regard for their rights, especially their right to the water, to the land and
to life itself, and asked what can be done to ensure that they benefit from
eco-tourism. The panel responded
that the IPs are not on the same level playing field as other groups and the
government could consider awarding be them land titles to their ancestral
domains, so they don’t lose out. It also said that IPs should come to the
forefront of ecotourism and must be encouraged to do so. However, as they
already coexist with other groups, it would not be advisable to single them out
for a preferential treatment.
§ Posed a question: how underdeveloped
countries with high unemployment and poverty will cope, if nature, which is a
public good, is subjected to pricing/valuation. The panel responded that a good majority of the poor in
underdeveloped countries are dependent on nature and natural resources for their
livelihoods and subsistence. It would help to involve them in joint forest
management and community forestry through the provision of tenure rights, and enabling
policies. It noted that is actually in the absence of such rights that
deforestation is done by external agents. The poor whose livelihoods are based
on natural resources –e.g., in medicinal and aromatic plants, horticulture,
farming, small scale resource based income generation activities –will likely
benefit more from the pricing of nature, although the same may not hold true of
the urban poor. In an ideal world, everybody should be expected to pay a fair
price for nature, irrespective of the level of employment and poverty
prevailing in the country. However, exceptions can be made for the absolute
poor in underdeveloped countries.
§ Posed a query: As far as low carbon
economy goes, what will be the role of energy in terms of improving quality of
life? The panel responded that Green
Economy actually means following low-carbon pathways to sustainable development
as well as growth. As such the world is already moving into renewable
energy slowly but surely although not everybody is happy with the pace. As the
price of fossil fuel rises, development of alternative energy becomes more
feasible. Lots of innovations are happening in the area of solar technologies
and prices are also coming down – and this will continue. Indeed the future
looks bright.
§ Proposed that green accounting should
start at micro level, say beginning from a unit of 500 hectares of land. The panel responded that green
accounting could start at micro watershed level, and cumulatively go up. However,
the question must be asked: who is going to compensate the watershed managers –for
examples, mountain farmers and community forestry user groups – for maintaining
watershed services? Unless green accounting is linked to compensation or
payments for ecosystem services, the exercise will be useless.
§ Posed a query: Is it feasible for companies
and organizations to go for green auditing? The panel responded that because of the economies of scale, it is not
economically feasible for small companies to go for green auditing. However,
big companies, especially industry leaders, should go for green auditing to set
an example for other s to follow. Green auditing is an idea whose time has
come.
The
Nepali Group
§ Noted that nature is priceless, and
wanted to know how Nepal can learn from Bhutan and put a premium on tourism and
also promote culture and its appreciation at the state level. The panel responded that Nepal has not
had a stable government for over a decade. Nepal is not Bhutan and cannot be
like Bhutan. Bhutan is a special case in
that it has a small, manageable population, and constitutionally ensures that
70% of its territory is under forest cover at all times. Nepal cannot do that. Instead it should focus
on getting its house in order, and catalyze actions at local level by
mobilizing its citizens– such as making the Everest and Annapurna regions
plastic free.
§ Posed a question: what role can the
youth and media play in advocating for a Green Economy at Rio+20. The panel responded that the biggest
concern of the youth today is jobs, jobs, jobs, so they must advocate for
‘green jobs’ and join the green sector to bring about positive changes from the
inside. At Rio+20, they should advocate for a sustainable world where the youth
has a future. As the youth has a very high level of energy and awareness, they
need to hold projects, institutions and the higher authority to account by
playing the role of a watch dog as well as a pressure group. The media can help
§ Posed a question: what role can private
sector play to bring about a Green Economy through corporate social
responsibility (CSR). Probably the corporate social responsibility should be renamed
as “corporate ecological responsibility”? The
panel responded that the eco-tourism industry should add value to their
green credentials and charge a premium for their services; use local guides and
porters; promote local handicraft, products and produce; encourage the use of
locally available materials in construction; thereby ensuring that a large
share of the tourism revenues are captured by the local economy. This is the
kind of work that private sector can do with a nod to CSR to help ‘green’ the
local economy.
§ Posed a question: As there are many
definitions of ‘ecosystem services’ and of ‘payment for ecosystem services’,
what definitions will we take to Rio+20? The
panel responded that it is not wise to get stuck on definitions, be they
official definitions or provisional ones. It is better to make a case for the protection
of mountain ecosystems at Rio+20 by contextualizing the examples of ecosystem
services at all levels, and how they actually benefit humanity.
The
Chinese Group
§ Noted that the policies made in
1950-1960 created serious environmental problems over the next several decades
in China and wanted to know how to ensure that the government makes the right
policy that puts the local community at the centre of conservation. The panel responded that policy is
important, and that Rio+20 must aim to achieve actionable political commitments
by avoiding the mistakes of the past, and. At the national and local levels,
policy has to be informed and inspired by science and ground reality. This
means the environment has to be monitored constantly. The ombudsperson and the
right to information need to be institutionalized so as to hold the government
to account. When nature is put in the market framework of prices, there has to
be regulation in place, otherwise it will invariably lead to overexploitation. It
is not advisable to push for economic growth without putting a regulatory
system in place for the same reason. There is no win-win in this, as every
policy choice involves a trade off. Penalizing ‘polluters’ is necessary but not
sufficient.
The
Bangladeshi Group
§ Noted that putting price on ecosystems
will only widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The panel responded that although the market is not perfect, it has
a role to play in pricing nature. However, the interests of the poorest of the
poor have to be protected from the vagaries of market forces so that they do
not get ‘priced out’ of nature, so to speak. It also said that attaching a
premium to conservation is probably the way to go, as maximum people can potentially
benefit. This entails ensuring that ‘polluters pay’ and ‘consumers pay’ their
fair share.
Mr Daan Boom thanked the country groups from China,
Bangladesh, India and Nepal as well as all the three panelists - Dr Madhav Karki,
Mr Raj Gyawali, and Ms Smriti Mallapat - for enriching the debate. He thanked Ms
Smrity Dewan, Programme Manager, British Council-Nepal for the support as well
as Mr Tek Jung Mahat, Mr Basudev Upadhaya and Mr Utsav Maden for organizing the
Earth Day Debate. He expressed deep satisfaction that the web-conference style
debate left very little carbon footprint, if any, while contributing to the
process leading up to Rio+20, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 20
to 22 June 2012.
