Gross Environment Product (GEP) is the total value of final ecosystem services supplied to human well-being in a region annually and can be measured in terms of biophysical value and monetary value. It indicates the overall health of the environment, as the GEP measures prime indicators such as forest cover, soil erosion, air quality and dissolved oxygen in river water.

Need for GEP accounting in GDP calculation:

• Economic growth alone cannot represent true economic development: Economic growth may adversely impact human well-being if it is accompanied by growing inequity and environmental degradation. Resource depletion during industrial growth impacts rural growth disproportionately, as the rural economy largely depends on natural resources.
  • GEP thus forms a balanced development approach where ecology is given equal space. Accounting GEP into GDP will give a true measure of the nation’s growth towards sustainable development.
• Shortcomings of traditional systems: The traditional System of National Accounts (SNA) like GDP/GNP does not account for the value of natural resources and ecosystem services, like the provisioning services (food, wood etc.) and regulating services (water purification, carbon sequestration etc.).
  • Also, the value of environmental/resource degradation taking place during the developmental process are not taken into account.
• Framing adequate policies: GEP helps in understanding the impact of anthropological pressure on our ecosystem and natural resources. This will enable us to make policies that will balance ecology and economy.

Despite its significance, there are several issues in capturing GEP, including:

• Knowledge gap: There is lack of data and an existent challenge to assign a monetary value to ecosystem services. Assigning monetary value to ecosystem services is possible only to a limited extent.
  • For example, the Pipal tree in India is revered as a holy tree and religious ceremonies are conducted under its shade. Here, economic valuation of the tree cannot encompass the complexity and the ecological, socio-cultural and institutional heterogeneity of a particular area.
• Policy gap: There is lack of recognition of ecosystem services in economic decision-making, development planning and resource allocation. Value of ecosystem services is either ignored or not understood adequately.
• Institutional failure: Insufficient ‘Compensation for Ecosystem Services’ (CES) is provided by the government to the stakeholders. CES involves recognising and compensating people who manage the land that contribute to the long-term security of ecosystem functions. A prominent CES mechanism is ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’ (PES).

Therefore, there is an urgent need to incorporate environmental assets in GDP calculation by collecting data on various types of natural capitals like forests, groundwater etc. and converting them into monetary terms. Most recently, Uttarakhand has shown the way by becoming the first state in India to take into account the Gross Environment Product (GEP) while calculating its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

A Marine Protected Area (MPA) has been defined by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as “any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water, and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved and protected by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment”. In the wake of global threats such as climate change, ocean acidification and intensified resource extraction, the world’s seas are at risk. As a result, many nations have adopted Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as a tool for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem functions. There are 24 MPAs in peninsular India and more than 100 MPAs in the country’s islands. The Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park, Gulf of Mannar National Park, Sundarbans National Park and Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park are some of the important MPAs of India.

Significance of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs):

• Protecting habitats: A declaration of an area as a Marine Protected Area helps to protect habitats. For example, it can help to restore the nesting sites of the Olive Ridley turtles at Odisha’s Ganjam district, which is under threat due to sea erosion.
• Helps to protect endemic species: MPAs help the authorities deal with the invasive species to protect the local biodiversity. They are also the key to arresting and possibly reversing the global and local decline in fish populations and productivity by protecting critical breeding, nursery and feeding habits. Further, they are sites for scientific study.
• Restrict human activities: MPA network declaration addresses habitat conversion to other land use, over exploitation of resources, pollution from domestic and industrial effluents, which otherwise lead to ecosystem degradation and destruction of coastal areas.
• Aid in income generation: MPAs raise the profile of an area for marine tourism, as they provide sites for nature-based recreation and also broaden local economic options.

The marine protected area network in India has been used as a tool to manage natural marine resources for biodiversity conservation and for the well-being of people dependent on it.

Challenges in extending the MPA network in India:

• Difference of opinion on factors: There is no consensus regarding factors that should be considered in declaring an area as a Marine Protected Area like the size of area, its habitat heterogeneity etc.
• Financial resources: It is difficult for a developing country like India to maintain and manage such areas in the long-run due to lack of adequate financial resources.
• Criticised as “paper parks”: Lack of synchronisation between social conditions and conservation efforts have led to MPAs being deemed as mere “paper parks”.
• Difficulty in extending the network: Due to the socio-economic dependency on coastal areas, it is difficult to extend the MPA network as national parks or sanctuaries.
• Lack of data: Poor data on status and distribution of the marine species in India has resulted in a compromise of the assessment of the conservation status of coastal and marine species of India using the IUCN Regional Red Listing Guidelines.

Way forward:

• Climate change adaptation plan: There is an urgent need to frame a climate change adaptation plan for the coastal and marine protected areas in the country.
• Inter-departmental coordination: Coordination among all the organizations/institutions that work for conservation of threatened marine species and the welfare of coastal communities is required.
• Maintaining data: Documentation and updation of database of information obtained through research on threatened marine species is urgently required.
• Human resource: Development of human resources to manage the MPAs of India is critical.

Dedicated efforts are required to secure and strengthen community participation in managing the Marine Protected Area network in India. Such efforts will also help to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, especially Target Number 11 and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Target of ’30×30′.