This is a summary of the discussion Professor Alex Pfaff of Duke University had with Srijana Mitra Das of Times Evoke in March 2024. He is a Professor of Public Policy, Economics and Environment. He is essentially an Economist working with different disciplines. His take is that ‘From debt relief for nature to the biggest environmental beneficiaries paying more for its preservation, policy can help restore ecology’.
On the core of his research, the focus is on researching the kind of policy interventions that brings both environmental and livelihood gains in developing economies. An Indian context is given in the 2nd Reference, where the State of Chattisgarh in India has intervened and executed a lot of grass-root level development in the tribal region of Bastar.
Regarding how planning has achieved both development and conservation in the Brazilian Amazon, he explained that it must be remembered that a policy can be imposed — but local individuals have a lot of agency. If conservation actions don’t offer local development, they are likely to fail. Impactful conservation actions tend to be much more consistent with local development benefits. A protected area that helps locals, for example, means it can be done in a place where it really matters. He also informed about research of the Duke Marine Lab that showed that when local small holder activities are allowed there is a positive impact in the marine protected areas. In such a case community involvement helps in achieving the impact when compared to a protected area from where people have been evicted. The Rubber Tappers in the Brazilian Amazon made a pact with the Government to ensure a blend of livelihood and conservation. This has been seen in Colombia too, where indigenous groups often feel they could lose their land to mining firms and here sometimes; they reach out to the government, to make an agreement that protects their livelihoods.
A University of Vermont group analysed the Demographic Health Survey conducted in various countries and found that losing forests upstream of a location increased diarrhoea and stunting amongst the population downstream, water quality being the reason. Of course here piped water does make a difference. In the absence of that, good forest cover upstream is required.
Regarding the Reduction of deforestation being vital, and responding to the question, if there sustainable ways to ensure government funds for this don’t run out; he mentioned that the richer people who benefit more from nature must pay to maintain it. If this were not done it would be difficult to save nature. Also, it has been found that World Bank Projects do cause nature to be damaged even though the economic development happens. An interesting idea is emerging where money could be given back to households and ecologically damaging activities could be made less cheap.
On how can a balance be achieved between short-term economic gains versus long-term ecological damage, he described a few ideas but this may be need to be debated keeping the country context in mind, is what we would like to leave the reader with.
Regarding the question on policy which utilises ecological knowledge from companies, he has mentioned a few interesting things. Firms also know a great deal and this can complement what Policy makers know. Some know they can go green at low cost — others have no idea how to do this although it’s mandatory. By releasing such information, the first set of firms can even be subsidised by the second. In the agricultural sector, some farmers love having birds in their fields. They know which ones eat crops and which don’t — others might not like this. Policy needs to let them have choices. The people we encourage to change their behaviour know their conditions and capacities — if policy design sets goals using this information, these can be achieved at the lowest cost and best benefit. In essence, his take is that Policy needs to let people have their choices, Policy makers need to work with the relevant stakeholders and Policy design goals must be set using the knowledge that is there with the Agriculturist (in the context of this discussion).
Regarding Share of Key Terrestrial Biodiversity areas that are protected; from Birdlife International, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the data for key terrestrial biodiversity areas varies from 10 to 20% in Central and South Asia to more than 60% in Europe. Considering the Oceans, only 7.7% of the total ocean area is protected.
Discover more from rasayANix
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
rasayANix 