The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say!

Week Three - “The New Economy and Biodiversity”
Comment / Comentario / Commentaire

Bhubaneswor Dhakal, Nepal

Moderating team: Bhubaneswor Dhakal argues that the market economy is not the panacea for people living in different settings and suggests a community model of economy that could benefit local people, and offers the example of poorly managed protected areas in Nepal. Dhakal reiterates that the demand for environmentally friendly goods and services should come from consumers, with the poorest being enabled to afford the premium.

Bhubaneswor Dhakal afirma que la economía de mercado no es la panacea para todos los habitantes de la tierra; sugiere un modelo de economía comunitaria con beneficio para los pobladores locales y ofrece el ejemplo de áreas protegidas con un manejo ineficiente en Nepal. Dhakal reitera que la demanda por bienes y servicios “verdes” debe venir de los consumidores y que la población pobre debería tener la capacidad de obtener estos bienes y servicios.

----

Environment Friendly Economy, Policy, Measurement Models: Not Available or Not Practiced

I have following comments and views on the statement from Dr. Lu Zhi particularly on the issues related to new economy, environment policy, green market promotion and measurement tools.

NEW ECONOMY MODEL: In my understanding, market economy may not be the panacea of all problems what people living in different institutional and ecological settings are facing in the world. However, this could benefit people and planet in large extent by enhancing innovation, production and distribution of environment and non-environment goods and services. Community model of economy could better benefit local people and environment though it cannot be completely isolated from markets. For example, protecting some species from population declining could be possible from community based privatization of protected areas and allowing the communities to adopt profitable conservation harmonious land use models. This vertical expansion model of protection benefits both local communities and wild species in countries like Nepal. Such land use models are economically viable, technical feasible and socially acceptable (indigenous practices). Some of the participants of this discussion forum may not aware that the protected areas in this country are poorly managed (sparse under-storey covers insufficient for species to be hidden and protected, and not enough feed to sustain wild animals) though the management are supported by international organizations (eg. WWF, IUCN, UNDP, UNEA and ICIMOD) and considerably large areas per unit species are available. As a result the wild animals go outside the protected areas and destroy crops of poor farmers. This model is well known to policy decision makers including many powerful stakeholders. This economy model has not been agreeable to the agencies who are committed for horizontal expansion of conservation (convert 30 % lands in protected areas as gift to the earth) by any means.

GOOD POLICY or BAD POLICY: In my understanding only good market policy can lead to good environmental outcomes. For example, positive environmental outcomes are expected from the Kyoto forestry payment policy. In practice, the policy (payment for governments not individual landholders) has increased frustration for landholders in some developed countries nowadays and motivated them to convert forestland to pasture production.

BOTTOM OF THE MARKET PYRAMID: In economic theory the demand should come from the consumer side to make trade environment friendly in a sustainable way. If consumers are able to pay a premium price for environmental friendly products they will certainly like to use it. Rational people always value superior quality goods and services. The social problem is that many consumers only have the ability to afford goods with bare survival quality. They cannot afford to pay the premium price. In this condition we need to make people able to pay the price of environment friendly goods and services by increasing their income. Consumers below the bare survival line are large in number and changing their income level could potentially make big positive environment outcomes. Externally induced social construction of values could change peoples’ consumption behaviors that are not changed by increasing income levels. The social construction should be selective to specific groups who over use the resources. Otherwise the people in disadvantaged positions are likely to suffer like environmentalism victimizes poor women and indigenous people now.

METHODS AND MATRICES: I agree field specific methods and matrices could give more precise measures. The more precise the measures the better the result we get. The high quality matrices and methods give good measures only if these are applied sincerely. Currently practiced methods and matrices gives considerable level of measurement of environmental shortcomings and successes and are supportive for policy decisions. In my understanding the practitioners including conservationists have often misused the methods and matrices which have affected the human well being (particularly of people in disadvantaged positions) aspect of sustainability. Therefore I do not believe that the lack of precise measurement tool is the main obstacle to making a difference in the environmental dimension of sustainability.