 You can use the podium or you can walk around as you like. Thanks. Honour to be here. Hello, everyone, friends. Especially those friends who are online watching this program. I have been given the topic, which is green economy for rural Prosperity or shared prosperity. So my big three ideas are number one, why we need green Economy? Why we need what we need? I mean green economy, what is the rational? Second, if we want to achieve green economy or elements of Green Economy, what are the building blocks where we have To focus? And I will talk about indirect drivers of change. And finally, if we really want to achieve green economy, what Are the indicators? And especially the compass of the measurement of progress and Welfare where we need some attention. So I'm not going to give a definition of green economy, but To share some story. I mean, basically the development paradigm or economic Design says that elements of natural capital or natural Resources, they are the part of production and consumption. So that means their relative worth or scarcity values would Be reflected through the pricing or the cost. And people will be using them as per their relative value. That means that also means alternatively that you pay for Something, you get something. If you don't get something, you don't pay for it. That has not happened. If you see the broad pictures of last 30, 35 years, three Broad macroeconomic aggregates, GDP, for example. GDP has gone up by eight to nine times in purchasing power Terms during 1980 to 2013. So eight times. Investment, it has gone by nine times. I'm not giving you the big, big numbers. Just broad trend. So GDP going up during 1980 to 2013 by eight times. Investment by eight times. Trade in terms of volume by seven times. Of course, population, the number of homo sapiens has also Gone up. In 1980, we were around 4.4 billion. Now we are around 7 billion plus. So in terms of per head trade volume and per head GDP, We have gone ahead and we have made a good progress. But the same, if you see the natural capital or ecosystem Services, it has gone down around for the same period. Ecosystem services has gone down. That's what millennium ecosystem assessment said that 60% For the same period, ecosystem services has declined. We are pumping 33 billion tons of carbon. We don't have a kind of list of endangered species on a Coherent yardstick, but this endangered species list is Increasing in every assessment for the same period if you Take for every five years. That means that there is something wrong somewhere that The kind of natural capital which is feeding the development Process and the growth is not being recognized. So this integration, this management is one of the corner Stone of the green economy effort. Story number two. We are talking about the climate change. As you know, the assessment has come out and then there Are some literatures and the assessment coming from Individual scientists from all over the world that out of 7 billion people, top 3 billion in terms of income, They are responsible for 50% of emission. 50% by top 3. And bottom 3 billion, 5%. Out of that 3 billion, 1.3 has been mentioned, They don't have even access to basic fossil fuels. And out of that 1.3 billion, less than 800 million, They are living the life of pre-industrial, you know, revolution. All of us will be affected by the impact of climate change. That's true, but tragically those 1.3 billion people or 3 billion people who are in the lower bracket of income, They will be affected more than anyone else because they are More vulnerable, they are poor, they don't have the safeguard Standard in their, you know, scheme. So how to bring those 1.3 billion people in the Energy security net, that is one of the goals of the green Economy approach. Let me tell you one more thing. Out of this 1.3 billion people, If you take around 400 million people, the poorest rock bottom, They are the chronic poor. The chronic poor means a person is born as a poor, He lives his entire life as a poor, and when he dies, He passes the poverty to his kids. Now these are the guys, It's a challenging problem, how to pull them up and bring And give them a respectable life, and that is also one of the Goals of the green economy. Now the issue is what should be the optimal level of Economic activities with respect to the total natural system Where you have a decent life for a large number of People and certainly those who are underprivileged is another Goal of the green economy. Now i will tell you another story. We are talking about the trade-offs. Food security and Ecosystem services are one of the celebrated trade-offs. I mean in many parts of the world, especially in south South Africa where lots of poor people, you need food, right? So the way the green revolution has brought food security Or at least the kind of food they are producing, this has caused Also soil salinity, water logging, monocropping. And the challenge is we need food, but how to produce Food where ecosystem services or resilience of natural Capital is not compromised. I will give you the example from the place where i come from India, Andhra Pradesh is one of the provinces of India. It has around 4.4 million people. In terms of size, it could be like Lebanon or Oregon State here. They also followed the green Evolutions. In 80s, they started using intensive farming. That means more reliance on chemical fertilizers, one or two crops, More use of pesticides and insecticides. And so much so that 35% to 40% of inputs cost was only on Chemical fertilizer and pesticides. Of course the terms of trade was not in favor of agriculture. Agriculture productivity started declining in 90s. Of course farmers who 82% are the marginal farmers. So those farmers started borrowing money, of course from The local lenders or the local banks who used to charge them Astronomical interest rates. So by the time of 2002, 75% farmers were under debt. Under severe stress and depression. And the phenomena of suicides started happening in that Step. And it became very alarming. There are lots of media reports about that. Some local organizations and NGOs and opinion makers, They realized that no, we have to do something about it. And what they started doing, they changed the cropping pattern. They threw some botanical formulations. They started avoiding use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. And then agriculture was on track. Not only it enhanced Productivity, but the farmers were not required to take Loans and not to suffer all the consequences which they were going through earlier. And today, in the last four to five years, 300,000s are Following the organic farming. It's a successful story. And the more farmers are in other states in India and South Asia, they are planning to follow them. And that was another story, how the trade-offs can be Resolved in a way that it secures the future of farmers In terms of income and jobs. At the same time, it does not compromise the resilience Or the health of the natural or agricultural ecosystems in the state. And these are the success stories. These are the trade-offs. And the path to resolve them is one of the backbone Of the green economy approach. And that's why in a world of growing population needs Aspiration, high consumption, stress, ecosystems, and climate, We need to follow economics, align the wheels Of development and conservation in a way that it Gives a respectable life to people. It has The ability to provide a good livelihood to the poorest Of the poor. That is also one of the backbone And elements of the green economy. Now, idea number two, Identify, acknowledge, and demonstrate the missing links For robust intervention and the response policies. Now, when we talk about ecosystems, natural capital, We always talk about habitat fragmentation or introduction Of new spaces. We talk about climate change. That is true. They are the big drivers. But the indirect drivers in terms of Governance, costing, pricing are somewhere else. And people, sometimes they understand, but they are not Able to link the two. The examples are plenty. I mean, export of aquaculture from Bangladesh, for example, Or vietnam, causing damage to mangrove, or the coastal Pollution. Similarly, export of pineapple Coming from one part in north-east India, causing soil Heroes and top soil. And the example could be many Like, you know, export of beef, causing deforestation. There are enough data. How to bring this Indirect linkages into the discourse of policy Formulations? How to capture those costs? How to capture those benefits and reflect them to the cost And benefits wherever they are. Similarly, we talk about, You know, governance. We talk about institutions. They are also important part of the indirect drivers. So indirect drivers are something which are, again, In the ambit of the tools and approaches Which green economy is trying to recommend. Of course, the rule of the game, investment, Saving behaviors, devaluations, exchange rate, Policies, they have impact on natural capital. Individual researchers here and there, they have documented it. Somehow, policymakers, they have not been able to understand Or at least embrace those linkages. And that has caused A disharmony or kind of disjunct between the practice of Policy and the conservation goals. We need to bring them on The common table, these two sides. Another thing, when we, we, the green economy also Tries to deconstruct the micro-happening. Sometimes a very sweeping statement is given, a macro. When we talk about, for example, poor and the ecosystem, For example, there are views that, okay, Incidents of poverty causes degradations. Then some other guys come, no, no, no, no. Degraded ecosystem causes incidents of poverty. Third comes, no, correlation is spurious. It is a market failure, information failure, government failure Which causes the poverty. Some other guys come, say, no. It is the induction of perverse policy which is causing the Poverty and degradation of the ecosystem, both. Macro trends can mask the micro-reality. And the poverty and ecosystem dynamics needs to be Understood in the local context. And in order to understand the local context, the dependence, The cultural practices, the social, psychological, and other Institutional, we have to understand only then a Meaningful policy can be designed. That is another aspect Or element of green economy. Now, third thing which i would give the name like, Rectifying the compass of measurements of progress, including GDP. GDP which is, i mean, i don't Need to talk and people in this room, i'm sure, might be Knowing a lot, GDP, the gross domestic product, which is Roughly speaking, is equated with the income. Now, income is very good measurement. It shows, i mean, if There is a half-percent decline, there is a human cry in the Parliament, in the government, that we are under recession. But the way GDP is calculated is probably not good to say Anything about the duration and direction of human welfare. And in fact, whether it was in u.s. by ruggles and ruggles, in 50s, and in britain by james mead and others, they never Try to say that GDP should be taken as a proxy of welfare. But by some historical mistakes or some coincidence, it came To be taken as a proxy for the welfare. And it has several problems. I won't go into that. Like, you know, the bad defensive expenditure, they are part of Income, which should not be. You cut the forest that goes to Your income, but where forest goes? i mean, if income is Based on the double bookkeeping system, so your credit, my Debit, my debit, your credit. And you cut the forest? Forest is gone, but you build a house and your income has gone up And everything looks good. That is bad economics. Also, no way, just one more illustration. No way GDP can be taken as a measure of welfare, which Many studies have shown. One simple calculation. Suppose the GDP of a nation grows by 2% per annum. 2% per annum. 1,000 years after, what will be the income? It's a simple geometric progression. It will be around 400 million times of what? So if GDP now is one, after 1,000 years, it will be 400 million times. Can you imagine human welfare Increasing by 400 million times? So somewhere, this correlation between GDP and welfare is Either lost or there is something wrong somewhere. So we have to think about it. But i will come back to the forest Because that is the point of discussion here. Under new program called Vantage, valuation and accounting Of natural capital for green economy, we have done some estimates. And to share with you, again, living in kenya and giving the Examples, in uganda, in the national income, forestry Contributes 20%. In uganda, national income, forestry Contributes 20%, but they are just the log, wood, and timber. If you talk about other ecosystem services, they are missing And that constitutes 80% of the 20% which is being accounted. So that 80% is absolutely missing. Similarly for kenya, 35% comes from forestry. Again, log, wood, mostly. To some extent, some ntfp Or non-wood forest products. And 65% of that 30% is missing. The sad part is that those missing are the income which goes Directly to the poorest of the poor. And that part is missing. So GDP of the poor is absolutely missing. Finally, in jambia, the forestry contributes 6%. And it provides 1 million jobs to the rural poor in jambia. Now, half of them are not recorded. This is our own estimates. Finally, in central republic of africa, the bush meet, which Is around 1% of GDP roughly, they are missing in the Calculation. And they meet the need of the People, the protein needs of half population. So these are some of the missing links and missing contributions Which need to be captured. And that's why, as a final remark, In terms of green economy, what it can do to enhance the Rural prosperity and shared prosperity for everyone. Number one, make nature's contribution and its values Visible everywhere. Second, change the incentive Structures by changing the set of options available to people To all the actors, from household to the national policy Makers, throw market-based instruments. Third, ecosystem or ecological infrastructure should be part Of planning everywhere, including the ecosystem-based Adaptation to climate change. Natural capital can be a very Good, very handy in elevating poverty. Main streaming of nature should be done across sectors, Across actors, and of course across discipline. We have to think about new indicators. We talk about, we know The problem with the GDP. Why can't we think about inclusive Wealth, where you have human capital, natural capital, and The produced capital? For last five decades, per capita wealth Measurement gives you a better proxy for the progress of The system. And that's why this new Program under green economy called vent is tries to do all Those things, vent is valuation and accounting of natural Capital for the green economy, led by unip. I will stop here.