kanchan chopra formerly director and professor institute of economic growth delhi visiting professor...
TRANSCRIPT
Ecosystem Services from Forests: Valuation and Policy
issuesKanchan Chopra
Formerly Director and ProfessorInstitute of Economic Growth Delhi
Visiting Professor TERI University
The concept of ecosystem services is now firmly placed in policy contexts in India
Questions that are raised : 1. What are ecosystem services?2. How are these to be valued? Can a single
value be placed on them?3. How is this value to be made part of
policy?4. What institutional and constitutional
changes are required for this to happen?
Ecosystem Services: the issues
Extension of the Concept of Capital to Natural Capital took place in the last two decades or so
Traditionally, economists recognized only Human made capital
The extension to include natural capital occurred when, simultaneously, ecosystems were becoming part of the social science vocabulary
Capital also results in a flow of services: ecosystem services (defined to include goods)
Natural Capital (embodied in ecosystems) leads to a flow of services
Provisioning: Goods produced or provided by ecosystemsRegulating: Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processesCultural: Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystemsSupporting: Services that maintain the conditions for life on earth andBiodiversity
Ecosystem goods and services have significant economic value, even if some of these goods and most of the services are not traded by the market and carry no price tags to alert society to changes in their supply or in the condition of the
ecosystems that generate them
Agricultural Lands
CoastalZones
ForestLands
FreshwaterSystems
Arid Lands & Grasslands
Biodiversity underlies the goods and services provided by ecosystems that are crucial for human
survival and well-being.
Trading ecosystem services across land use categories in forests:ecologists’ classification
Dense Natural Forest Dense Lopped forest Open Tree Savanna Grassland Single Species Plantation Strip and Roadside Forests Coffee/Tree/ Rubber Plantation
Land Use and Ecosystem Services
PRODUCT, SERVICE or BENEFIT
Timber
Fuel-wood
Leafy Matter
Fodder
“Minor” Produce
Hydro-logical Benefit
Soil Conser-vation
Bio-Diver-sity
Carbon seques-tered
Dense “Natural” Forest
0 ++ ++ 0 +++ +++? +++ +++ +++
Dense, Lopped Forest
++ +++ +++ + ++ +++ +++ + ++
Open Lopped Forest
+ ++ ++ +++ + ++ ++ + +
“Pure” grassland
0 0 0 +++ 0 ++ ++ + +
Monoculture Plantation
+++ + + + 0 ++ + 0 +++
Paddy Cultivation
0 0 0 ++ 0 ++? ++? ? 0
LAND USE TYPE
Barren land 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0
FROM Lele ( 2004) EXTENT OF BENEFIT +++ = high; ++ = medium; + = low; 0 = none; - = negative TYPE OF BENEFICIARY Local Regional Global
Market driven economies often promote ecosystem services with high market value to the detriment of other services that are less obvious but equally important. e.g. timber production to the detriment of hydrological services
Unsustainable use of one service (e.g. water) can cause the entire ecosystem to degrade and the loss of other important ecosystem services. Once the ecosystems are heavily degraded. Restoration is very costly, takes long time and is impossible in some cases.
Economic valuation of ecosystem services is an additional argument – it cannot replace other motives for protecting nature.
Why value ecosystem services
Only anthropocentric values are estimated Stated Preference Methods and Revealed Preference
Methods Revealed Preference: linked to market based valuation1. Replacement Cost: Value of Watershed protection to
provide ppppure drinking water approximated by cost oft water purification plant down stream
2. Avoided cost: Value of soil conservation service equal to avoided cost of downstream dredging
Economic Valuation of ecosystem services
3. Enhanced Income: e.g. from fisheries due to improved water quality
4. Travel cost: value of biodiversity in a national park partly captured by what tourists spend to visit it
5. Hedonic pricing: value of coastal view from increased value of houses facing coast
STATED PREFERENCES: Contingent valuation: what people say they will pay
Valuation Methods: ctd.
NPV, as in the case of physical capital, refers to “the discounted sum of values of eco-system goods and services from a forest over a period of time net of costs incurred “
Note that: it includes services and goods accruing to all the
stakeholders associated with it All values should be NET of any costs associated with
them in fetching, collecting or enjoying them (Concept of Opportunity value)
Difference between two periods’ NPV (NPV1-NPV0) is the depletion cost of the resource
From individual services to forest land: What is Net Present Value of Services from a Forest?
Supreme Court Committee (2006) Estimating NPV per hectare of forest
land : Steps
Estimate NPV per hectare of land with Forest Cover not forest department owned land
Consider products and services for which there are available studies and secondary sources of data and information e.g. Timber, Carbon sequestration, Eco-tourism, NTFP, Fuelwood, Fodder, Watershed services
NPV estimated by forest circles; discount rate of 5% for a time period of 20 years (based on current work on parameters for planning at IEG)
Do not value biodiversity (except to a very limited extent through eco-tourism); Protected Areas are thereby excluded from the area for which NPV per hectare has been estimated
Services such as biodiversity support life on earth: biodiversity hot spots and protected areas need to be inviolable. How do we ensure it? Law? Or joint management or both?
A mix of policy instruments is indicated Putting a value implies accepting the
equivalent of the “ polluter pays” principle and accepting “pay and convert principle unconditionally.
Why biodiversity not valued ? and effect on choice of policy instruments?
Services accruing from forest ecosystems may have market or non-market value
Examples: timber market watershed services: non market
Both add to welfare and need to be estimated
Methodology and Data inputs needed to allow for complete valuation
For ecosystem services included:Market or non-market value of the service
All costs incurred by extractors or users: Forest department, collectors, contractors
etc Issues relate to splitting of joint costs Also to opportunity costs versus non market
costs
Cost Estimation
Should it be market/ Non-Market value of output?
How should cost of service be estimated? Can sustainability of flow of services over
time-period be assured? What rate of discount and over what time
period? Can we assume simple additivity of values of
services? Distribution of amount collected among
stakeholders at local, state and national levels
Methodological Details in estimation for ecosystem goods and services
Conversion of land : FCA (1980); Compensatory Afforestation
Recognition of forest as an ecosystem provide services of all the above types to stakeholders at all levels
NPV of forest land diverted to be collected from parties to constitute CAMPA placed in a centralized fund
Supreme Court Expert Committee on NPV recommended, among other things three levels of funds for distribution of NPV
Evolution of Policy on Forests, forest land and its diversion in India: CA,CAMPA and others
The Committee opined that one condition linked to the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes is as follows:
1. that NPV as compensation be paid to existing stakeholders for the loss of their rights to the services that this forest earlier provided to them, and towards the fundamental eco-system values, services that forests provide.
2. It is therefore imperative to ensure a division of the total NPV among the stakeholders concerned.
Division of Compensation among stakeholders
The Committee noted: the three tier system of governance viz. the
Central, State and local level institutions (Panchayati Raj Institutions) in the country at present and,
the methodology of which can be used to separate out the loss to the three kinds of stakeholders was outlined
It recommended that a Special Purpose vehicle with three funds: Local Forest Funds, State Forest Funds and National Forest funds be created for the NPV
Division of Compensation among stakeholders
Some Relevant Points for Public Policy
This methodology recommends use of two kinds of policy instruments:
1. Legal regulation for biodiversity hotspots: following the precautionary principle
2. An Economic price based instrument such as NPV for land with forest cover
3. Levels of charge to vary in accordance with predetermined parameters: biophysical, legal, ecological and social.
4. So do resposibilities for maintaining forest cover
State Campa Funds created vide SC Order of July 10, 2009
Rs. 1000 crores per year for 5 years from 2009 for the State CAMPAs ( from the NPV and protected areas fund)
Total corpus of the National CAMPA on January 25, 2012 is Rs. 25,000 crores.
No amount or provision for transfers to Local Forest Funds: local stakeholders not compensated
Situation on CAMPA in 2012
In India’s federal structure, tax devolution and grant making formulae are determined by the Finance Commissions and Planning Commission
One of mandates of the Thirteenth Finance commission was to suggest means of protecting ecology and environment through special measures.
It mandates grants in aid to incentivise forest conservation, and environment
Amount is small (Rs. 5000 crores) but financial position of states will be improved: and mandate can be carried forward.
Finance Commissions: Thirteenth Finance Commission
Inviolate Areas or ESAs to be protected by law with limits on nature of development
Application to the WGs: Madhav gadgil Committee and HLWG (Kasturirangan committee) to review its application
Contentious issues: 1. Delineation of the western ghats2. Nature of development in ESAs and non-
ESAs3. Incentivising green growth in the non-ESA
Western Ghats
Recent developments: ESAs in the Western Ghats
Forest rich states are not wilderness areas: they are habitats of people
Are forest states suffering from development disabilities? Special funds Planning Commission study
States negotiate ‘debt for nature’ swaps;debts are swapped for new initiatives to conserve natural resources: a part retained by state governments and a part to local trust funds
Payment for ecosystem services and funds for ESAs by 14th Finance Commission
Policy for development in forest areas: non-ESAs and ESAs
The need now is for the process initiated to be taken ahead in two ways:
firstly by the Fourteenth Finance Commission to take this initiative forward and cover areas and issues not already taken into account by the Thirteenth Commission
secondly by ensuring that the grants-in aid further devolve to local bodies wherever the issues fall in their domain as per the 73rd and 74th Amendments.
The way ahead
The Indian federal polity allows for three levels of governance: the Centre, the State and the local. The Punchhi Commission on Centre-State Relations (2010) asked for a separate fiscal domain for local bodies to be put in place in a time-bound manner.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) had also recommended that “the 11th and 12th Schedules should be restructured to create a separate fiscal domain for panchayats and municipal bodies. Accordingly, Articles 243H and 243X should be amended to make it mandatory for the State legislatures to make laws devolving power to the panchayats and municipalities”.
The way ahead: the third level of governance
From international level and national follow up
Green Accounting Committee: to introduce aspects of UNSEEA into System of National Income Accounting
Experimental ecosystem Accounting in limited ways
Initiatives at project level: to strengthen EIAs etc.
Need for more focussed research on critical ecosystems of an interdisciplinary nature
Other policy initiatives