Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The aforesaid also shows that NPV as a tool of SBCA is required to be based on Total Economic Value (TEV). It indicates the components of TEV. It further shows what are the type of agency or experts which are required to examine these issues.

Dealing with co-relation between economics and environmental management, in 'Environmental Economics in practice' edited by Mr. Gopal K. Kadekodi in his write up through case studies, answers the question as to what has economics got to do with environmental management. The author says that economics is the science of explaining the behaviour of different agents who take part in production, consumption and distribution activities in the economy and make decisions regarding the use of resources. That, environmental economics focuses on market and non-market behaviour of different agents in the society regarding natural and environmental resources, viewed from intergenerational, inter- temporal and different institutional frameworks. (Emphasis supplied by us) It is further stated that one of the major branches of economic theory is the 'theory of value'. Economic theory always makes a distinction between value and price. Answering the question as to why value natural resources specifically, it is stated that one reason is that there is no market for ecosystem services such as nutritional cycle, carbon sequestration, watershed functions, temperature control, soil conservation etc. It is also stated that assuming there are markets, they do not do their job well. This market may be regulated one. There may be restrictions on entry as a result of licensing or rationing introduced by the Government. For the above reasons, it is concluded that valuation beyond the present is necessary and for natural resource Accounting NPV method is a must. Mr. Salve advocates for Total Economic Value (TEV) on the ground that TEV expresses the full range of value or benefits  both tangible and intangible. Basically, it is understood that natural and environmental resources provide several 'use values' and 'non-use values' to enhance human welfare and provide sustainability to all lives (often termed as anthropogenic values). Conceptually, it is the sum of use values (UV) and non-use value (NUV) which constitutes the TEV. Further elaborations UV, option value (OV) non-use value (NUV) etc. have been given. The UV, it is stated, can be further broadly classified into three groups  direct, indirect and option values. Direct Use Values (DUV) refer to the current use (consumption) of the resources and services provided directly by natural and environmental resources. Examples are the use of timber and non- timber forest products. Recreation (tourism to wildlife sanctuaries or Himalayan Glaciers, mountains), education, research etc., are examples of direct non-consumptive use values. Indirect Use Values (IUV) generally are referred to the ecological functions that natural resource environments provide. It can be broadly classified into three groups  watershed values, ecosystem services and evolutionary processes. The Optional Value (OV) is associated with the benefits received by retaining the option of using a resource (say a river basin) in the future by protecting or preserving it today, when its future demand and supply is uncertain. Take the example of the Narmada river basin.

Regarding the parameters for valuation of loss of forest, we may only note as to what is stated by Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government in its handbook laying down guidelines and clarifications upto June 2004 while considering the grant of approval under Section 2 of the FC Act. Dealing with environmental losses (soil erosion, effect on hydrological cycle, wildlife habitat, microclimate upsetting of ecological balance), the guidelines provide that though technical judgment would be primarily applied in determining the losses, as a thumb rule, the environmental value of one hectare of fully stocked forest (density 1.0) would be taken as Rs.126.74 lakhs to accrue over a period of 50 years. The value will reduce with density, for example, if density is 0.4, the value will work out at Rs.50.696 lakhs. So, if a project which requires deforestation of 1 hectare of forest of density 0.4 gives monetary returns worth over Rs.50.696 lakhs over a period of 50 years, may be considered to give a positive cost benefit ratio. The figure of assumed environmental value will change if there is an increase in bank rate; the change will be proportional to percentage increase in the bank rate. Ms. Kanchan Chopra, while conducting the case study of Keoladeo National Park in respect of economic valuation of biodiversity at the institute of economic growth, Delhi as a part of the Capacity 21 project sponsored by the UNDP and MOEF, Government of India examined the question as to what kind of values are to be taken into consideration. As per the study, different components of biodiversity system possess different kinds of value (1) a commodity value (as for instance the value of grass in a park), (2) an amenity value (the recreation value of the park) and/or (3) a moral value (the right of the flora and fauna of the park to exist). It is recognized that it is difficult to value ecosystem, since it possesses a large number of characteristic, more than just market oriented ones. It also leads to the need to carry out bio-diversity valuation both in terms of its market linkage and the existence value outside the market as considered relevant by a set of pre-identified stakeholders. It is, however, evident that while working out bio-diversity valuation, it is not trees and the leaves but is much more. Various techniques for valuing biodiversity that have been developed to assess the value of living resources and habitats rich in such resources have been considered by the author for her case study while considering the aspect of value, their nature and stakeholders interest. In so far as the value of ecology function in which the stakeholders or scientists, tourists, village residents, non-users, the nature of value is  regulation of water, nutrient cycle, flood control. These instances have been noted to highlight the importance of the biodiversity valuation to protect the environments. The conclusions and the policy recommendations of the author are: