14th Finance Commission and green bonus – E-Pao.net

See on Scoop.itNature + Economics

“Green Bonus is a new term in the environmental parlance denoting the money which is to be given for the effort made by a country, state or community for preservation of green cover. It is a compensation to be given to the people for the sacrifices they have made in preserving the green cover, which not only benefits them, but also benefits others nearby and humanity as a whole. So, in the 14th Finance Commission Awards, green bonus need to be given adequate consideration….

We know that the Uttarakhand is likely to get a green bonus for ecosystem services of its forests….


… In fact, many states are clamouring for a green bonus from the centre. 

The states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have been pioneers. They have substantial areas under forest cover. Of late, Maharashtra also joined the party. Other states likely to get benefit of Green Bonus are Kerala, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. There was an interim order of the Supreme Court passed in course of interlocutory applications (IA 424) of W.P (C) 202/1995 that the forest deficit states should pay the forest surplus states.”

MJP EcoArchives‘s insight:

Although a green bonus ideas could be lacking some of the transparency, accoutnability and measureability requirements of truly sustainable and effective forests conservation/offset/management, I think it’s a useful way for India to get these disuccsions happening, and Indian States seeing the economic benefit of valuing nature. A program like this could easily be developed into something more specific and robust, but I think it’s got plenty of wieght as it is right now.


That’s if there are the governance structures in place – India is known to have coruption thart someotherwise wholesome ideas and policies. 


It goes to show that policy can be brillant, but delivery is just as important. 


This article goes on to discuss how each element of the Green Bonus is weighted – for forest cover, carbon emissions, pollution, biodiversity etc. And argues forest cover should get bigger weighting thatn 2%. I can’t help but agree.


See on e-pao.net


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s