Case for green accountingBittu SahgalNature feeds the birds in the sky, the fish in our waters and the deer and tigers in our forests. The fact seems so obvious as to need no mention. So let‚s take the thought a step further. Water from the Himalayan glaciers slakes the thirst and irrigates the fields of over 400 million people in the Indian subcontinent. Again, it hardly needs mentioning; every child is taught this in school. Now let‚s take the thought still further. The government does not feed the people of the Indian subcontinent ‚ nature does. Now we have an argument on our hands. No agronomist will accept this statement. Nor will any politician, businessman, economist, or social activist for that matter. I doubt if they are even remotely aware of the extent to which the food security of India is dependant upon wild nature. Even beneficiary communities, who live on our coasts, in forests and depend on nature‚s larder take it for granted ‚ as they do the air they breathe. Which is why they undervalue their resources and sell their land to developers of all persuasions. Even without placing a specific monetary value on the food directly obtained from nature, it is easy to see just how significant such resources are. Take the case of the sea.The seas help meet part of the nutritional needs of around 50 million people every single day. Much of this food is consumed within the fishing community, or is bartered for goods and services. It might be reasonable then to presume that inland waters, including India‚s many lakes, swamps, streams and rivers directly feed another 100 million people ‚ every day. Much of this food too is consumed or bartered. And then we have wild ‚Ëœland-foods‚. In Rajasthan, en route to school, village children routinely fill their pockets with wild ber fruit (zyzyphus sp.) or amla (emblica officinalis). There is not a state in the country where this gather-and-consume act is not played out by young and old. These are just illustrative examples. Without overstating the case, economists have no clue whatsoever of the monetary value of wild foods. They never take nature‚s larder into account, until someone sells it for money.And because we know not what we lose, India‚s munificent natural treasury is being emptied. In the absence of any resource accounting, economists readily advise decision makers to turn marine nurseries into ports and other commercial infrastructure, and natural forests into golf courses and housing colonies. Wetlands are reclaimed and our purest aquifers are used as hazardous waste dumping grounds. Precious topsoil is treated like dirt (pun intended).Comments Pavan Sukhdev, an international banker and director of the Green Accounting for Indian States Project (GAISP): “India‚s forests deliver vast economic benefits, which we simply do not account for anywhere in our gross domestic product (GDP). Which is why GAISP is in the process of setting up a system to measure the economic value of forests from conservation and natural forest growth, as well as losses due to deforestation. It really works both ways. For example, our first report ‚ on the timber, carbon storage, fuelwood, and non-timber forest produce provided by our forests ‚ has calculated that the GDP of Arunachal Pradesh is understatedby 32 percent and Nagaland by 18 percent, on just these four components of forest value!” Ranjit Barthakur,who works closely with planners in India‚s north-east seems to agree. “The implications of human and natural threats to the biodiversity of the north-east are far ranging in terms of the ecological equilibrium of the region,” says Barthakur who has meticulously listed the consequences of faulty land use, including the strategy of opting for large dams rather than small and micro-hydel schemes in the north-east, on food and water supplies. He firmly believes that “the securitisation of land and water will add economic value addition to agricultural land”. In Barthakur‚s view, if all the seven north-eastern states choose to develop ‚Ëœnature capital‚ rather than exhaust it, they will definitely profit by way of improved agriculture, fisheries, forestry, water security and tourism. Moreover every household will benefit from access to clean water and affordable power. More than the loud voices of activists, it is the force behind such reasoned arguments that will help India make its great U-turn. Hemendra Kothari, chairman of DSP Merrill Lynch, India, a long-time wildlife champion puts another spin on things. He has made public statements in the media to the effect that India has much to gain in the international arena from protecting the tiger which is synonymous with India in the manner that the dragon is with China. Hopefully, Indian parliamentarians, legislators, planners and industrialists will pay heed and accept from a banker what they have consistently refused to accept from conservationists. The key to success of the ‚Ëœnature capital‚ development model is decentralisation. The foundation of power generation would be micro-hydel. Tourism would involve no new hotel constructions and would rely instead on heritage tea-estate bungalows combined with ‚Ëœhome stays‚ in clean, improved villages to give visitors an unforgettable Indian experience. Incomes from such development strategies would be spread far and wide, without resorting to doles. Importantly, our natural treasury would become a capital asset to be enhanced, not depleted.This trend bodes well for India‚s biodiversity. But the true test willultimately lie in the ability of corporate and political heads being able to prevent their own constituencies from plundering nature‚s capital for private gain. That outcome, of course, no one can predict.(Bittu Sahgal is the editor of Sanctuary magazine)