07-06-2016 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click here.
Date: 07-06-16
सार्वजनिक-सार्वजनिक साझेदारी में ही समझदारी
विनायक चटर्जी
यह बात सभी जानते हैं कि राष्ट्रीय जनतांत्रिक गठबंधन (राजग) सरकार जब सत्ता में आई थी, उस समय सार्वजनिक-निजी साझेदारी (पीपीपी) का मॉडल अचेतावस्था में था। इसलिए रणनीति साफ थी: यदि तेज आर्थिक वृद्घि के लिए बुनियादी ढांचे में निवेश किया जाना है तो यह काम सार्वजनिक व्यय से ही होगा। इससे अपनी कमी पूरी करने के लिए दूसरे की खूबियों का फायदा उठाने के उद्देश्य से सरकारी निकायों के बीच साझेदारी के मॉडल को विस्तार मिला है, जो अवश्यंभावी था। इस प्रकार हमारे पास पीयूपीयूपी यानी पब्लिक-पब्लिक पार्टनरशिप अथवा सार्वजनिक-सार्वजनिक साझेदारी का मॉडल तैयार हो गया है।
Date: 07-06-16
दादरी का ताज़ा तनाव और ध्रुवीकरण की राजनीति
जीएम बीजों को चाहिए साफ नीति
मोंटेक सिंह अहलूवालिया, पूर्व उपाध्यक्ष
अठारह मई को जारी अधिसूचना को वापस लेकर कृषि मंत्रालय ने अच्छा काम किया है। इस पर अब आम लोगों की राय ली जाएगी। उस अधिसूचना में तीन चीजों को नियंत्रित करने की बात कही गई थी। पहली, बीटी कपास बीजों की कीमत को। दूसरी, ‘ट्रेट वैल्यू’, यानी बीजों के बिकने वाले हर पैकेट पर उस टेक्नोलॉजी के मालिक को दी जाने वाली रकम को। और तीसरी, बीजों के उत्पादन के इच्छुक लोगों को तकनीक के लाइसेंस देने संबंधी कायदे-कानूनों को। कहीं ये गंभीर समस्या न बन जाएं, लिहाजा इनका सावधानी से विश्लेषण जरूरी है।
पहला मुद्दा है कि क्या बीटी बीजों की कीमतों को नियंत्रित करना चाहिए? अगर यह सुनिश्चित किया जा सके कि कीमत कम करने से उपभोक्ता को बीज सस्ते मिलेंगे और उसकी आपूर्ति में भी कमी नहीं आएगी, तो यह नियंत्रण जायज हो सकता है। हालांकि हम यह भी जानते हैं कि मूल्य नियंत्रित करने से बीजों को विकसित करने के प्रयास और भविष्य में अच्छे बीजों की आपूर्ति प्रभावित होती है। ऐसा खासतौर से निजी क्षेत्र में होगा, जो मौजूदा समय में बीज मुहैया कराने का महत्वपूर्ण स्रोत है। साल 2015-16 के आर्थिक सर्वे में बीटी कपास के बीजों को नियंत्रित करने के फैसले की आलोचना की गई है। उसमें कहा गया है कि अच्छे बीजों की पर्याप्त उपलब्धता को बाजार के ऊपर छोड़ना ही उचित है। जाने-माने अर्थशास्त्री अशोक गुलाटी का भी मानना है कि मंत्रालय द्वारा उठाए गए कदमों के कारण बीटी कपास बीजों की कीमतें जरूर करीब चार फीसदी कम हुईं, मगर इसने ट्रेट वैल्यू पेमेंट को 74 फीसदी तक कम कर दिया। यानी कीमतों को नियंत्रित करने से तकनीक बनाने वाले नई किस्म के बीज विकसित करने को लेकर उदासीन बन सकते हैं।
असल में, नए बीजों को विकसित करना एक खर्चीला काम है। जीएम टेक्नोलॉजी इसलिए भी अधिक महंगी है, क्योंकि वहां लंबे समय तक सुरक्षा मानकों की जांच की जाती है। बेशक सिर्फ लाभ कमाना सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के बीज-निर्माताओं की मंशा नहीं हो सकती, मगर बीजों की अनवरत आपूर्ति होती रहे, इसके लिए सिर्फ उन्हीं पर भरोसा भी नहीं किया जा सकता। हमारा अनुभव बताता है कि निजी क्षेत्र ने बीज उत्पादन में बेहतर काम किया है, और आगे भी कर सकता है। मोनसेंटो के पास ही शोध व विकास के लिए इतना बड़ा बजट है कि वह भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद के कुल बजट का दोगुना बैठता है। जाहिर है, निजी क्षेत्र की कंपनियों को प्रोत्साहित करना जरूरी है। हालांकि यह तभी संभव होगा, जब निजी कंपनियों को यह भरोसा दिया जाए कि उनके निवेश पर आने वाला रिटर्न कीमतों को नियंत्रित किए जाने के कारण प्रभावित नहीं होगा।
दूसरा सवाल यह है कि क्या यह काम राष्ट्रीय बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार नीति के अनुरूप है? जलवायु परिवर्तन से मुकाबला करने के लिए जरूरी है कि बीजों की ऐसी किस्में विकसित हों, जो तेज गरमी भी सह सकें और कम पानी में बेहतर पैदावार दे सकें। इस लिहाज से जीएम तकनीक काफी महत्वपूर्ण है। यह बेशक सेहत व सुरक्षा संबंधी चिंताएं पैदा करती है। मगर यदि जीएम बीजों को मंजूरी देने की प्रक्रिया सख्त बनाई जाए, तो इस समस्या का समाधान निकाला जा सकता है। और एक बार अगर किस्में मंजूर हो गईं, तो फिर यह सुनिश्चित किया जाए कि जिसने प्रौद्योगिकी विकसित की है, उसे मुनासिब रिटर्न मिले। असल में, हमें ऐसा माहौल बनाना चाहिए, जो नए बीजों के विकास और इनोवेशन को प्रोत्साहित करे। करीब हफ्ते पहले मंत्रिमंडल ने जिस राष्ट्रीय बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार नीति को मंजूर किया है, उसमें इसकी चर्चा है कि इनोवेशन को प्रोत्साहित करने के लिए क्या जरूरी है? यह नीति ‘आविष्कारों के व्यवसायीकरण’ पर जोर देती है और साथ ही, ऐसे ‘स्थायी कानूनों’ की वकालत करती है, जो यह सुनिश्चित करें कि आविष्कारकों के अधिकारों की पर्याप्त रक्षा की जाएगी।
इससे संबंधित कार्रवाई को अनिवार्य वस्तु अधिनियम के अंतर्गत किया जाना भी समस्याएं खड़ी करता है। बीजों के लिए बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकारों की सुरक्षा पौध किस्में व कृषक अधिकार संरक्षण (पीपीवीएफआर) अधिनियम के तहत होती है। राष्ट्रीय बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार नीति में भी इसका स्पष्ट उल्लेख किया गया है। इस अधिनियम के तहत, अगर किसी व्यक्ति को लगता है कि पौधों की किस्मों और किसानों के अधिकारों से जुड़े प्राधिकरण के यहां ‘जनता की उचित जरूरतों’ के लिए रजिस्टर्ड बीज या किस्मों की अन्य सामग्री संतोषजनक नहीं है, या ‘उचित कीमत पर’ बीज या किस्मों की अन्य सामग्री मौजूद नहीं है, तो वह व्यक्ति उत्पादन शुरू करने, वितरण करने और बीज या किस्मों को बेचने के लिए अनिवार्य लाइसेंस की मांग कर सकता है। और अगर उस तकनीक को विकसित करने वाले का पक्ष सुनने के बाद प्राधिकरण को लगता है कि उस व्यक्ति का दावा सही है, तो वह इसकी अनुमति दे सकता है। पीपीवीएफआर की बजाय अनिवार्य वस्तु अधिनियम के तहत कार्रवाई का अधिकार चुनकर कृषि मंत्रालय ने प्रौद्योगिक धारकों को अपना पक्ष रखने के अधिकार से वंचित कर दिया। इतना ही नहीं, कृषि मंत्रालय का वह प्रस्ताव भी पीपीवीएफआर अधिनियम से मेल नहीं खाता, जो प्रौद्योगिकी धारक को हर इच्छुक को लाइसेंस देने के लिए मजबूर करता है। पीपीवीएफआर अधिनियम किसी भी समय अनिवार्य लाइसेंस हासिल करने का किसी को कोई अधिकार नहीं देता।
ऐसे में, क्या सलाह-मशविरे की जरूरत नहीं है? हालांकि अब कृषि मंत्रालय ने लोगों से राय मांगी है। ऐसे में, यह उम्मीद की जा सकती है कि इस पूरे मामले को खुले दिमाग से परखा जाएगा। पर जरूरत यहां संबंधित विभागों के पूरी तरह सक्रिय बने रहने की भी है। राष्ट्रीय बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार नीति के अनुसार, बौद्धिक संपदा संबंधी सभी मामलों का नोडल विभाग औद्योगिक नीति व संवद्र्धन विभाग यानी डीआईपीपी है। चूंकि यह मामला भी बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार से जुड़ा हुआ है, इसलिए डीआईपीपी को सक्रियता दिखानी चाहिए। अंतर-मंत्रालयी विचार-विमर्श के लिए दो सुझाव हैं। पहला, अनिवार्य वस्तुओं की सूची से बीज को बाहर निकाल देना चाहिए। और दूसरा, पीपीवीएफआर अधिनियम के तहत बीजों और पौधों की किस्मों के लिए अनिवार्य लाइसेंस को लेकर नीतिगत रूपरेखा तैयार की जाए। अब यह सरकार पर निर्भर है कि वह इन समस्याओं का कैसे हल निकालती है। इसी से पता चलेगा कि ‘मिनिमम गवर्नमेंट, मैक्सिमम गवर्नेंस’ यानी न्यूनतम सरकार, और प्रशासन के अधिकतम प्रभाव के अपने सिद्धांत पर वह कितना विश्वास करती है।
Date: 06-06-16
Being neighbourly
Comparisons are inevitable — it is hard to miss that Pakistan’s most substantial gift to Afghanistan for the last two decades has been the Taliban.
If there is one neighbourhood outreach that India can take pride in, it is Afghanistan. New Delhi kept away from participating directly in the occupation by foreign militaries for over a decade to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda despite repeated entreaties by the US and an open invitation from Kabul to do so, and focused instead on development and reconstruction projects.
Instead of soldiers, India sent engineers and workers, and the results are there for everyone to see: A hospital in Kabul, the country’s parliament building that Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated in December 2015 on his first visit to Afghanistan, a 218 km road from Zaranj to Delaram for better connectivity from the Iranian border, the 220kV DC transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul, and the $ 300 million Salma dam in Herath, also called the Afghanistan-India Friendship Dam, that Modi inaugurated on Saturday.
Comparisons are inevitable — it is hard to miss that Pakistan’s most substantial gift to Afghanistan for the last two decades has been the Taliban. It would have been all too easy for India, especially after the Haqqani network-Taliban bombed the Indian embassy in Kabul and repeatedly targeted other Indians working in Afghanistan, to rise to the bait and use this already ravaged country for a proxy war with Pakistan, but wisely, India has resisted that temptation too.
The $ 2 billion that New Delhi has poured into Afghanistan is not cheap, but there can be no real price tag to the goodwill that India has earned in the process. New Delhi has always emphasised its civilisational ties and cultural links with Afghanistan. It is fitting that the dam is located close to Chisht-e-Sharif, the birthplace of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, whose dargah in Ajmer is a magnet for Muslims across the region.
“Your friendship is our honour; your dreams are our duty,” Modi declared as he and President Ashraf Ghani opened the dam together. Yet, there is no diplomatic endeavour in the world that is purely built on friendship and duty. What New Delhi has hoped to gain from its expansive diplomacy in Afghanistan is a strategic gateway to Central Asia, and is now closer to this goal than before. Pakistan’s denial of a land route was an obstacle, but the recent win-win solution — an India-Iran agreement to develop Chabahar, and an India-Iran-Afghanistan agreement for the development of a trade corridor from the Iranian port through Afghanistan to Central Asia — is a potential game-changer.
While the Khyber bypass may be triumph-inducing in New Delhi, it cannot be forgotten that the normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan is still key to peace in the entire region. Afghanistan is far from stability, and will remain a battlefield for the new Taliban leadership and Pakistan’s growing insecurities vis-à-vis India. While much depends on the choices of Nawaz Sharif and Raheel Sharif, India should pay no heed to those who will now advise it to ignore Pakistan. Rather, it must leverage the new emerging compact in the region to actively seek to break the impasse with Pakistan.
Date: 06-06-16
Missing the wetlands for the water
Neha Sinha
Wetlands need to be reinforced as more than just open sources of water. How they are identified and conserved requires a rethink
The government is all set to change the rules on wetlands. The Draft Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2016, which will replace the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules of 2010, seek to give power to the States to decide what they must do with their wetlands. This includes deciding which wetlands should be protected and what activities should be allowed or regulated, while making affable calls for ‘sustainability’ and ‘ecosystem services’.
On the face of it, this appears to favour decentralisation and federalism. But the peculiar reality of wetlands shows that local pulls and pressures are not the best determinants for their protection. Both water in liquid form and wetlands in the form of ‘land’ are hotly contested, making wetlands the most imperilled natural ecosystem worldwide. It is imperative that the Draft Wetlands Rules, 2016 (comments for which close today) be looked at with a hard, if not cynical, eye. Three issues are of immediate concern. First, the draft does away with the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority, which hadsuo moto cognisance of wetlands and their protection. Second, the draft rules contain no ecological criteria for recognising wetlands, such as biodiversity, reefs, mangroves, and wetland complexes. And finally it has deleted sections on the protection of wetlands, and interpretation of harmful activities which require regulation, which found reference in the 2010 rules.
Experiments with water systems
One of the biggest ironies around water is that it comes from rivers and wetlands, yet it is seen as divorced from them. While water is used as a resource or good, public policy does not always grasp that it is part of a natural ecosystem. Efforts at engineering water systems are thus efforts at augmenting water supply rather than strengthening the capacities of ecological systems. There have been many recent attempts at this sort of engineering — Karnataka had dredged its rivers, for instance; other States may follow suit. The Ken and Betwa rivers in Madhya Pradesh are to be interlinked, and we have a history of building dams and barrages to store water. Parliament has already passed a Waterways Act, which will make navigation channels of 111 rivers, by straightening, dredging, and creating barrages.
While these projects require serious ecological consideration, they are usually informed only by the need to ‘use’ water. For instance, river dredging may increase the capacity of a river channel, but can also interfere with underground reservoirs. Over-dredging can destroy these reservoirs. River interlinking changes hydrology and can benefit certain areas from a purely anthropocentric perspective, but does nothing to augment water supply to other non-target districts. Constructions of barrages have impacts on ecosystems and economies: the commercially important hilsa fish are no longer found in the Padma river after the construction of the Farraka barrage across the Ganges.
In the case of wetlands like ponds, lakes and lagoons, the contestations are more fierce. Who owns the wetland is a common quandary — and what happens to the wetland also depends on this. Asia’s largest freshwater oxbow lake, the Kanwar lake in Bihar, has shrunk to one-third of its size due to encroachment, much like Jammu and Kashmir’s Dal lake. Water sources like streams, which go into lakes, also get cut off, as is the case of lakes in Bengaluru and streams in the Delhi Ridge. The political pressure to usurp water and wetlands as land is high — and for this reason, States have failed to secure perimeters and catchment areas or notify wetlands.
Why then do the Draft Wetland Rules award full authority to the States? The particularly complex case of wetlands warrants more checks and balances. In the proposed scenario, with an absence of scientific criteria for identifying wetlands, it is imperative to have a second independent functioning authority.
What comprises a wetland is an important question that the Draft Rules leave unanswered. Historically, as wetlands did not earn revenue, they were marked as ‘wastelands’. While the Wetland Atlas of India says the country has 1,88,470 inland wetlands, the actual number may be much more: U.P. itself has more than one lakh wetlands, mostly unidentified by the government.
Significantly, the 2010 rules outline criteria for wetland identification including genetic diversity, outstanding natural beauty, wildlife habitats, corals, coral reefs, mangroves, heritage areas, and so on. These criteria would refer to wetlands like Pulicat in Andhra Pradesh which have nearly 200 varieties of fish.
The Ramsar Convention rules are the loftiest form of wetland identification that the world follows. Ramsar has specific criteria for choosing a wetland as a Ramsar site, which distinguishes it as possessing ‘international importance’. An important distinguishing marker is that Ramsar wetlands should support significant populations of birds, fish, or other non-avian animals. This means that it is ecological functioning which distinguishes a wetland from, say, a tank, which is just a source of water. However, man-made tanks or sources of water can also evolve into wetlands. For instance, Kaliveli tank in Tamil Nadu, an important bird area, is fed by a system of tanks and man-made channels forming a large and vibrant landscape. A wetland is more than a source of water, or a means for water storage, though it is often reduced to only that. By removing ecological and other criteria for wetland identification and protection, and the examples of activities that could hamper this physical functioning, the new draft underlines the same malaise which misses the wetlands for the water.
Use and non-use
While the new draft calls for sustainability, this is a difficult concept to enforce, particularly with regard to water. Regulation of activities on a wetland and their “thresholds” are to be left entirely to local or State functionaries. There are insufficient safeguards for the same, with the lack of any law-based scientific criteria or guidance. For instance, it is telling that regulation of activities in the draft rules do not make any obvious connection with existing groundwater legislations because these two aspects are still seen as separate.
The 2016 Draft Wetland Rules also call for wise use of wetlands. ‘Wise use’ is a concept used by the Ramsar Convention, and is open to interpretation. It could mean optimum use of resources for human purpose. It could mean not using a wetland so that we eventually strengthen future water security. It could also mean just leaving the wetland and its catchment area as is for flood control, carbon sequestration, and water recharge functions.
Finally, in a country which is both water-starved as well as seasonally water-rich, it is not just politics and use that should dictate how wetlands are treated. Sustainability cannot be reached without ecology. Towards this end, our wetland rules need to reinforce wetlands as more than open sources of water, and we need to revise how wetlands should be identified and conserved.
Neha Sinha is with the Bombay Natural History Society. Views expressed are personal.
Date: 07-06-16
Environment part of sustainable progress
Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan unleashed a storm with his post against environmental fundamentalism on Facebook. The comments come in the backdrop of opposition to efforts to revive the 20-year-old proposal for the 163 MW Athirapally hydroelectric
project. This small addition to Kerala’s generation capacity is unlikely to be worth its adverse environmental impact. The state needs to think bigger and bolder, instead of wasting energy and goodwill on such tiny projects.
It is wrong to label questioning of development projects as “ecological fundamentalism”. However, it is hard to take issue with the chief minister’s call for rigorous scientific research into problems such as garbage treatment, resource depletion, misuse of energy, illegal exploitation of natural resources, etc. Across the political spectrum, politicians support conserving the environment without stunting development and posit the environment and development as two sides of the same coin — suggesting that there exists a possible flashpoint when the two are at odds. Politicians alone are not guilty of breathing life into this false dichotomy, environmentalists too have contributed.
Globally, economic development over the last 30 years has lifted millions out of poverty but also caused environmental and societal harm that threatens to reverse or undermine development. It is time to set aside the dichotomy and link economic processes to the environment and natural resources through interventions that encourage sustainable patterns of production and consumption. That calls for higher resource efficiency. The aim of any administrator, including Pinarayi Vijayan, should be to ensure that their plans for alleviating poverty and promoting economic development minimise harmful effects on humans and reduce pressure on the ecosystem.
Date: 07-06-16
Money For Nothing
Anjana Menon
GENEVA: In a global first, the Swiss voted Sunday on a radical proposal to provide the entire population with enough money to live on, no strings attached.
In a measure almost certain to fail, voters are being asked whether they want all Swiss citizens, along with foreigners who have been legal residents in Switzerland for at least five years, to receive an unconditional basic income, or UBI.
Polling stations in most places opened at 10:00 am (0800 GMT) and were set to close at noon, but most people in the wealthy Alpine nation vote in advance.
In Geneva for instance, 47.4 percent of eligible voters had already cast their ballot Saturday evening, according to the regional voting service.
Supporters of the UBI initiative say providing such an income would help fight poverty and inequality in a world where good jobs with steady salaries are becoming harder to find.
The idea is controversial, to say the least. The Swiss government and nearly all the country’s political parties have urged voters to reject the initiative — advice which 71 percent are inclined to follow, according to the latest opinion poll .
Critics have slammed the initiative as “a Marxist dream”, warning of sky-high costs and people quitting their jobs in droves, to the detriment of the economy .
Proponents reject that, arguing people naturally want to be productive and that a basic income would simply provide them more flexibility to choose the activities they find most valuable.
“For centuries this has been considered a utopia, but today it has not only become possible, but indispensible,” Ralph Kundig, one of the lead campaigners, told AFP.
The amount to be paid has yet to be determined, but the non-political group behind the initiative has suggested paying 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,500/2,300 euros) a month to each adult, and 625 francs for each child.
That may sound like a lot, but it is barely enough to get by on in one of the world’s priciest nations — leaving plenty of incentive to work, campaigners say.
Authorities have estimated an additional 25 billion francs would be needed annually to cover the costs, requiring deep spending cuts or steep tax hikes.
“The idea is noble, but I don’t think our society can afford it today,” Stephane Szeless, a 45-year-old civil servant in Geneva, told AFP ahead of Sunday’s vote.
“I’m sceptical.”
Supporters of the initiative however suggest the UBI could replace a range of other expensive social welfare programmes and could be easily financed through slight increases in sales tax or through a small fee on electronic transactions.
There is little chance of the initiative passing, but Kundig said that “just getting a broad public debate started on this important issue is a victory”.
Several other contentious issues are also being put to the vote under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy on Sunday, some of which have a better chance of going through.
A recent gfs.bern poll indicated that 60 percent of voters are in favour of a government proposal to speed up the country’s asylum process.
The aim is for most cases to be handled within 140 days or less, compared to an average of around 400 days at the moment.
The Swiss will also vote on whether to allow genetic testing of embryos before they are inserted in the uterus in cases of in vitro fertilisation where either parent carries a serious hereditary disease.
No screening would be permitted for things like gender, hair and eye colour, but that has not stopped opponents from dubbing the initiative the “eugenics law”.
The final results of Sunday’s vote were expected to be clear by early evening.
