Integrating forest ecosystem service assessment with pro-poor governance in India
Research and policy discussions on tropical forest ecosystem services are currently happening in two disjointed spheres.
Ecologists and economists are in conversation to develop data and models for quantifying and monetising ecosystem services. On the other hand, political ecologists, political economists and sociologists are studying the implications of changes in forest rights, institutions and governance mechanisms for forest conservation and the well-being of the poor.
In terms of policy, the former group is recommending market-based approaches, while the latter is recommending a rights-based approach. The disconnect is from both sides and at several levels.
Environmental economists tend to assume away the critical importance of institutions and power as a determinant of forest condition, market prices and benefit distribution, whilst rights- and justice-focussed researchers may neglect the full range of ecological services and their importance to non-local stakeholders. Ecologists emphasise the multiplicity of benefits from forests, while political economists point to tradeoffs between them.
We contend that these two analytical and policy perspectives must be reconciled if sustainable and pro-poor governance of forest ecosystems and their services is to be achieved. We propose to address this challenge in this project. Forest-related decision-making in India reflects this lack of integration and rigour.
While the Supreme Court has imposed a net present value charge on forest conversion, upstream (hilly) states are demanding payments from downstream ones for forest conservation. Both are using data and methods that are weak, to say the least.
While the Ministry of Environment and Forests is eagerly looking to carbon markets to bring in new financial flows, activists and local communities, while struggling to get a landmark forest rights law implemented, are questioning the Ministry's initiatives without any consultation or reference to rights. They are also unclear about how (or under what conditions) the new rights will actually improve livelihoods and affect ecosystem services.
This project used two critical concepts - tradeoffs and institutions - as an approach to nuancing and bridging the conversations. It developed an understanding of the biophysical flows of ecosystem services, their variation by management regime and distribution across stakeholders and within them for poorer households, the tradeoffs involved in modifying forest management regimes, and the role played by institutions in shaping who benefits and how.
The project aimed to develop rigorous assessment methods and tools for rapidly assessing different management scenarios in different political-economic contexts.
The project was implemented in India, in two regions - Western Ghats and eastern central India (Orissa state) - with contrasting ecological and social characteristics and forest histories. We used comparisons between adjacent state managed 'command and control' (for timber / biodiversity) and rights based management sites within each region.
We attempted to consider the full range of ecosystem services, including forest products, hydrological services, and carbon sequestration and biodiversity. We disaggregated the FES value chains and the distribution of benefits to different users along the value chain, and highlighted policy recommendations that increased benefits to the poor.
Findings were highly policy relevant and feed into policy debates over forest governance and rights. Findings and the methodological innovations they were based on were of relevance to forest policy globally.
Stakeholder engagement was essential and was achieved through 3 cycles of workshops in which 'learning groups' comprising of multiple stakeholders contributed to and developed a sense of understanding for the ESPA issues, our innovative project and the findings.
