Page 1 of 5
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 04 Issue 01
January 2018
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 926
Protection of the Environment & Natural Resources
for Sustainable Development in India
Keshari Nandan Mishra
Associate Professor, Department of History, H. N. B. Government P.G. College, Allahabad, Uttar
Pradesh, India
Abstract
Ensuring environmental sustainability the seventh Millennium Development Goal requires
achieving sustainable development patterns and preserving the productive capacity of natural
ecosystems for future generations. Both efforts in turn require a variety of policies that reverse
environmental damage and improve ecosystem management. The challenge has two dimensions:
addressing natural resource scarcity for the world’s poor people and reversing environmental
damage resulting from high consumption by rich people. Many environmental problems arise
from the production and consumption patterns of non-poor people, particularly in rich countries.
Rich countries consume a lot of fossil fuels and deplete many of the world’s fisheries, damaging
the global environment. They also use a lot of tropical hardwoods and products from endangered
species.
Keywords: MDGs, Environment, Policies, Natural Resources, Sustainable development.
Introduction
To ensure the sustainability of Earth and its
resources, including the development
prospects of poor countries, these harmful
production and consumption patterns must
change. Energy systems will have to generate
much lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Fisheries will have to be managed based on
ecological limits rather than heavily
subsidized free-for-alls. And international
rules of the game will have to mitigate the
overconsumption that endangers ecosystems
and certain plants and animals. But with
smart policies and new technologies, the
costs of these changes can be quite low.
Human well-being depends on natural
resources and environmental services that
help produce food. People rely on soils to
grow crops, grasslands to raise livestock and
freshwater and oceans to support fisheries.
Underlying much of this productivity:
genetic resources. Over centuries farmers
have generated crucial stocks of knowledge
and productivity by breeding livestock and
selecting, storing and propagating plant
varieties. Diverse genetic resources enable
farmers to adapt to environmental change by
creating new livestock and plant varieties
better suited to new conditions. In periods of
scarcity, wild biodiversity is also a source of
alternative food products.
From a Regulatory to a Participatory
Approach
Within the participatory approach, evidence
suggests that watershed development and
forest protection have been much more
Page 2 of 5
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 04 Issue 01
January 2018
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 927
successful in places where sufficient
biophysical and institutional incentives exist
or have been provided to the local people to
participate in such activities. Furthermore,
the commitment of communities to
watershed development projects has also
been significantly higher wherever the
beneficiaries themselves have contributed to
the costs of the project activities. Wherever
sufficient awareness has been created, and
the right incentives provided, people are
willing to contribute to the costs of watershed
development activities in their locality. It is
being argued and seen in other parts of the
world that markets for environmental
services are an efficacious tool for the
conservation of natural resources, without
compromising on the benefits that have been
traditionally derived from them in the nature
of goods.
This concept is based on placing imputed
values on various environmental services to
promote the conservation of natural resources
as well as meet livelihood needs in a
sustainable way. Thus, payments based on
these values, made and received as an
incentive for appropriate management of the
natural resource base, constitute what is
commonly termed as ‘markets for
environmental services’. Like other services,
such as forest biodiversity or carbon
sequestration, the hydrological functions of
land use in the form of watershed protection
services have also started receiving
significant attention. The value of better
access to reliable supplies of clean water and
reduced vulnerability to environmental risks
such as flooding and landslides are
increasingly being appreciated. Globally,
there has been development of systems for
payment for watershed services in several
countries
Potential and Constraints: Market-Based
Mechanisms Embedded In Collective Action
Markets for watershed protection services do
not always imply a monetary or even tangible
transaction between service providers and
service receivers. An exploration of the
potential for market-like arrangements
encompasses all incentive-based
arrangements, transactions, payments and
compensation systems (monetary or non- monetary) for watershed protection services
that are ‘market like’ in nature and have the
potential to develop into more sophisticated
mechanisms in the future. Given this and
learning from experiments from other parts
of the world, the potential of market-based
approaches as alternative, yet
complementary, solutions to existing
regulatory and collective action approaches
for the sustainable management of natural
resources has begun to be explored in India.
A preliminary scoping study of two states in
India, Himachal Pradesh (HP) and Madhya
Pradesh (MP), revealed that there is a latent
potential for the development of such
approaches. However, underlying this
potential are also several constraints, which
would need to be overcome.
At the Micro Level: Inter-Village
Transactions
In order to put in place inter-village
transactions/payment mechanisms as
incentives for watershed protection, a strong
awareness needs to be created about
upstream-downstream linkages in the minds
of the people. This awareness was found in
some villages in HP, where people traced the
drying up of fresh water springs (baodies) to
the degradation of forest vegetation
upstream. On the whole, however, this kind
of linkage is still very weak or absent in the
minds of the people. Usually, people are not
interested in issues beyond their village
Page 3 of 5
Journal for Studies in Management and Planning
Available at http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/
ISSN: 2395-0463
Volume 04 Issue 01
January 2018
Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 928
unless they are directly affected by them and
can ‘see’ the changes/benefits from\
watershed protection on the ground.
A Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to
Water Projects
For many years the domestic water sector has
focused on the achievement of health
benefits through supply improvements, based
on the premise that more and better water can
help to improve the health of individuals.
This approach has been consistent with the
provision of improved supplies by
governments and other agencies as part of a
strategy of meeting the basic needs of the
poor. In the last decade however, the wider
policy environment has moved towards self
financing and cost recovery on water
projects, where greater emphasis is placed on
community financing as a means of ensuring
cost recovery. The idea of water as an
‘economic’ good has been the driving force
behind this change. Whilst the end result is
still anticipated health benefits, the principle
that the ‘consumer pays’ is now more firmly
linked to sustainable supply delivery. This
shift in emphasis has various implications for
poverty reduction, not least of which is
whether or not poor consumers can afford to
pay.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Water as a natural asset forms part of the
asset range available to households and its
economic value as well as its cost needs to be
properly understood in order to understand
the linkages with livelihood strategies. This
is the case not just because this points
towards ways of strengthening asset bundles
through improving access to natural capital,
but also has methodological implications for
demand assessment. The structure of demand
for water within a community – particularly
demand over and above the survival level –
may be informed just as much by its
productive uses as by its routine daily
consumptive uses. Calculating anticipated
demand at the household and community
level may, therefore, require greater depth of
analysis of household livelihood uses (and
potential uses) than is commonly undertaken
by demand assessment. This also has policy
implications for notions of scarcity,
particularly in terms of the presence or
absence of other assets critical to gaining
sustainable access to supplies. Scarcity can
be determined by the unavailability of
physical and human capital as well as by the
absence of the water.
Underlying this paper has been the question
of what we need to know and how we need
to use knowledge. The systematising of
knowledge and its use has deep implications
for future policy and practice in the sector,
not least because the acquisition and use of
knowledge is frequently an elite based
process which, de facto, excludes the poor
and yet frames the development of formal or
informal policy towards the poor. Knowledge
environments, as they have been termed here,
refer to the knowledge systems surrounding
the various sectoral actors – communities,
households and individuals, government
institutions, the private sector and civil
society (predominantly NGOs) – and do not
refer to formal systems of knowledge on their
own.
At a community level, the research approach
would involve rapid assessment based on key
informants at local and sub-regional level
rather than lengthy (and costly) research
projects. Principal aims should be to
establish:
The impact of changing water availability in
terms of natural asset stocks on the range and
use to which other household capital assets is
put, including labour and financial capital
assets.
