"Use eco penalties to fund conservation"
N G Jayasimha, Lawyer and managing director, Humane Society International/India, Hyderabad
Most of the larger terrestrial endangered species live only on government-owned land in forests and protected areas. These conservation activities need huge investments, such as in law enforcement, conflict mitigation, habitat consolidation, village relocation and research and monitoring. None of these activities generate “profits”. So why would private parties get involved in them?
However, if environmental penalties and offsets charged on industry for industrial activities such as mining, highways and energy projects can be specifically directed to acquire or consolidate critical habitats, then it could be called some sort of privatisation, I suppose.
As far as “for profit” privatisation is concerned, only the wildlife tourism sector offers some scope. But that is a peripheral activity, rather than central to species recovery. However, if farmers next to protected areas, who now see only damage and no profits from the presence of endangered species, can change land use cooperatively to have wildlife on their lands as well as earn money from tourism, it would be helpful indeed. Same is the case of community-owned tribal lands in northeast India, where all wildlife has been hunted out. There is room for visionaries for private players to venture into such opportunities, but I see no evidence of long-term vision in this sector.