The Future of Sustainability: Have Your Say!

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

Vinod Tiwari, Conservator (Environment), HP State Electricity Board, India

Moderating team: Vinod Tiwari draws attention to understanding the carrying capacity of the earth (Gaia) as a whole. Other measures of wellbeing (rather than GDP) need to be explored. Vinod argues that we need to rethink systems of compensating providers of environmental goods and services irrespective of their locations and political alignments.

Vinod Tiwari alude a la capacidad de carga de la tierra (Gaia) como un todo. Otras medidas de bienestar necesitan explorarse, más allá del Producto Interno Bruto. Vinod afirma que necesitamos repensar los sistemas de compensación a los proveedores de bienes y servicios ambientales independientemente de su ubicación y posición política.

----

Here are some of my thoughts categorized in three headings.

1. Carrying Capacity:

It would be interesting to attempt to list human activities that are seen as 'unsustainable' or leading to unsustainability of the 'Gaia'. Few of the participants have hinted at consumption of natural resources like oil, gas coal and so on. And then, addressing them would be another interesting exercise.

Like any other ecosystem even the earth as a whole (Gaia) has a carrying capacity.

No one has tried to define and quantify this carrying capacity as a sum total of permissible activities of all living being on earth. I understand it would be very complex, time and resource intensive exercise.

Equally difficult would be the task of its equitable distribution (say through global permits) among nations and regions.

Finally, administering, monitoring the use (or abuse) of this carrying capacity and suggesting remedial or punitive actions.

I feel IUCN should take the lead through the MEA exercise to address these issues.

2. Poor and Poverty:

Definitions of poor and poverty are based primarily on the scale of consumption and not wholesomeness of life and how fulfilling is the life for a person. Yes, I am raising the point to maintain distinction between 'Quality of Life' and 'Standard of Living'.

One may not have very high standard of living but her/his quality of life may very fulfilling and satisfying.

The whole concept of development and that of poor and poverty as an unnatural corollary is unfortunately based on material consumption sustainable only by way of abuse of nature and mother earth.

One only need to peep into any neighborhood to find the interminable competition for material possessions fuelled by production systems to sustain themselves (the producers).

Look at the value systems that have evolved out of such a living. While people may compliment us for our latest material acquisition, seldom does anyone compliment on our sustainable ways (conservative lifestyle)! This is something to do with our education not only formal but the most effective informal education that we receive at home, at workplaces and in the society.

In this context, Bhutan's Experience of using GNH instead of GDP as an index of wellbeing needs to be studied and expanded with suitable modifications for rest of the world.

The situation has to change and no better organization than UN (with its other institutions) can lead the way.

3. Incentives for sustainability:

The present system of incentives for conservation and sustainability does not reward the continuation of what is already conserved. The CER certificate puts a pre-disqualification for the BAU. Thus, leaves no incentive for sustaining what is already conserved for the well being of humanity of this earth.

Without going into the debate as to why such a system was adopted, we need to re-examine the whole issue.

The entire world expects (and pressurizes too) the Amazonian States not to log their forests without offering any compensation for such a forfeiture of their rights that is sorely needed to ameliorate the life of people in that part of the world.

It holds true for the rest of the countries and regions so far as logging is concerned.

Not long ago, I argued for my state (Himachal Pradesh) before the National Finance Commission (responsible for devolution of financial resources between Centre & States and amongst states in India) and partly succeeded in getting compensation for a ban on logging. The premise of my arguments was that whole country (and some other neighboring ones too) benefits when we do not log our forests in the Himalayas and in the process we are foregoing our share of revenues which could support development and well being. We demanded compensation in the name of green accounts. Although the award is token but there is scope for its expansion.

Similar system needs to be evolved at the global levels not necessarily in lieu of CER certificates.

We need to rethink on this issue and rework the systems of compensating providers of environmental good and services irrespective of their locations and political alignments.