The Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) is an important source of study material for IAS, especially for the current affairs segment. In this section, we give you the gist of the EPW magazine every week. The important topics covered in the weekly are analyzed and explained in a simple language, all from a UPSC perspective.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Interstate Border Disputes in North East India
2. Are We Reforesting Adequately?
3. Income and Livelihood Promotion through Individual Assets under MGNREGA
4. Mainstreaming Urban Resilience in India

1. Interstate Border Disputes in North East India

Context

The article tries to understand the root cause of the conflict between Assam and Mizoram and points out the stands of the respective governments on the border dispute.

Details

• The border dispute between Assam and Mizoram resulted in the death of six and injured at least 50 police personnel in the bordering areas of Lailapur (Cachar district, Assam) and Vairengte (Kolasib district, Mizoram) on 26 July 2021.
• Assam and Mizoram share 164.6 kilometres of border with each other.
• The bordering districts include the following:

• To understand the root cause of the conflict, there is a need to know about the administrative arrangements in colonial and post-independent India in relation to the border demarcation between Lushai Hills (Mizoram) and Cachar plains (Assam).

Image source: India Today

Administrative Arrangements

• The reorganisation of the North East and creation of various states within the territory are influenced by various factors like administrative convenience, preservation of linguistic and ethnic identities of the communities.
• The Lushai Hills, was a district of Assam during the British rule, and was declared as union territory of Mizoram in 1971 and later became a separate state in 1987.
• In the process, the border between the two states has been defined in legalised terms, resulting in a border dispute.

Colonial Era

• The first notification of 1875
  • Based on the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, the notification demarcated the territories between Cachar plains and Lushai Hills district of Assam.
  • In terms of territory, the notification was more beneficial for the Lushai Hills district (present-day Mizoram) as a sizeable portion of the forest area was given to the district.
• The second notification of 1933
  • Demarcated the boundaries between Lushai Hills and Manipur, and also realigned the borders between the Lushai Hills district and the Cachar plains.
  • The mapping was done by the Survey of India.
  • The notification of 1933 was beneficial to the Cachar plains as a portion of the forest area was given to Assam.

Post-Independence

• The Lushai Hills District (Change of Name) Act, 1954
  • Changed the name of the Lushai Hills district into Mizo district.
  • The act states that “Mizo District shall comprise the area which at the commencement of this act was known as the Lushai Hills District.”
• The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971
  • An Act was passed and the territory of the Lushai Hills district was declared as a union territory.
  • Section 6 of the act states that “from the appointed day there shall be formation a new union territory, to be known Mizoram, comprising the territories which were part of the Mizo District in the existing state of Assam and thereupon the territories shall cease to be part of Assam.”
• The State of Mizoram Act, 1986.
  • Statehood was conferred to the union territory of Mizoram.

Assam government’s stand

• The Government of Assam upholds the notification of 1933 as the basis for boundary distinction and justifies it on constitutional grounds.
• It views that the root cause of the disputes lies in the fact that the boundary line drawn by the Survey of India and the reserve forests documented as belonging to Assam is rejected by other states in the North East on historical grounds.
• The government alleges that the Mizoram government, in the historical context, has claimed the inner line forest of the Assam–Mizoram border as its own.
• Government admits that there was a clear delineation of the boundary when Uttarakhand and Jharkhand were created as states; but, when Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Nagaland were created, the ambiguity remained leading to the disputes.

Mizoram government’s stand

• The Government of Mizoram upholds the notification of 1875 on the issue of border demarcation between the two states.
• It argues that the notification of 1933 was not acceptable as the Mizo society was not consulted before the signing.
• The realignment of the boundary in 1933 was opposed by the people of Mizo.
• The reorganisation of Mizoram as a state in 1987 intensified the opposition over the notification of 1933.
• Mizoram claims 1,318 square km of ­inner line reserve forest under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) Act, 1873.

Recent conflict

• The Assam government accused the Mizoram government of constructing a road from Vairengte (in Mizoram) to enter into Cachar, via Rengti Basti.
• The Assam police asked the Mizoram police to clear the post from which Mizoram supervised the construction of the road.
• The Mizo police fired on the Assam police resulting in the death of six policemen.
• Mizoram called the incident an “unjustified act of the Assam counterpart for intruding and aggression into Mizoram territories”.
• According to the Mizoram government, the Assam police’s aggression in the duty camps of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Mizoram police near Vairengte resulted in “needless injuries on both sides”.
• The chief minister of Assam emphasised the existence of an integrated cultural identity of North East India and stated that the spirit of the North East cannot be destroyed in the name of the boundary dispute.

Way forward

• It is important to focus attention to find appropriate mechanisms to resolve the disputes peacefully.
• The route of dialogue should be considered as a fundamental means to an amicable settlement.
• The union government as an observer should call the representatives of both the states to settle for a give-and-take policy of mutual benefit.
• Social organisations from both states should also be involved in dialogue and the peace process.
• There is a need to take into account the aspirations of people living in the border areas.
• Parliament may also constitute a new law to readjust the boundary between the states thereby resolving the dispute.
• The Constitution has conferred exclusive power on the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between two or more states under the original ­jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, mentioned in Article 131 of the Constitution.
  • The use of the services of the Supreme Court as a mechanism of settlement of interstate disputes has been seen previously in the case of the Assam–­Nagaland and Assam–Arunachal disputes.

Conclusion

In this era of globalisation, cooperation and interdependence, specifically to centre the North East in the Act East policy of the Government of India, it is essential to resolve the interstate border disputes without further delay.

2. Are We Reforesting Adequately?

Context

The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2021, has been recently released by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2021

• The report suggests an aggregate rise in the total forest area- 1,540 sq km rise in forest cover and 720 sq km of tree cover.
• The report further notes that the natural forests have declined by 1,582 sq km.
• The National Forest Policy, 1988 expected around 33% of the geographical area under forest and tree cover and around 66% of the area under forest cover in the hill districts of India.
  • However, the recent report shows a 902 sq km decline of forest cover in the hill districts of India.

Reasons for decline in Hill areas

The alarming reports of the decline in the forest cover in north-eastern states, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Himachal Pradesh are attributed to

• Anthropogenic factors – felling of trees, shifting cultivation, and developmental activities
• Natural factors – natural calamities and landslides.

Classification of Forests

The forests are classified based on the canopy density as,

• Very Dense Forests (VDF)- with tree canopy density of over 70% – accounts for 04%
• Moderately Dense Forests (MDF)- are also called the “natural forests,” with tree canopy density of 40%–70% – accounts for 33%
• Open Forests – with tree canopy density of 10%–40% – accounts for 34%

Read more about – ISFR, 2021

Detailed analysis

• With respect to the Conference of the Parties (COP26) target, nationally determined contributions of increasing the carbon sink of 5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2030, the forest’s carbon capture and sequestration should increase.
• The per hectare carbon sink provided by VDF is highest in the tropical and subtropical climate across India, suggesting that each hectare of VDF has the largest carbon sink potential due to its larger canopy.
• The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 by the Food and Agriculture Organization places India in 10th rank in the forest area globally.
• The average annual net increase in forest area in India was 0.38% between 2010–20, which is third in the global rank.
• According to the latest reports, there is a rise of 501 sq km in VDF, which are protected or reserve forests;
  • And a rise of 2,621 sq km in open forests.
• The tropical dry deciduous forests are the largest in terms of area, with the share of open forests, MDF, and VDF in descending order, respectively.
• The MDF found in tropical moist deciduous forests are the next largest that provide high carbon capture and sequestration potential owing to their size.
• The Himalayan dry temperate forest has the highest carbon stock potential in VDF – 12 thousand tonnes of carbon stock per hectare compared to the VDF of other forests. Hence, these forests need conservation positively.
• Plantations and trees outside forests have the lowest carbon capture and sequestration potential, although they are easy to grow and maintain.
• In brief, the tropical dry deciduous forests followed by the tropical moist deciduous forests provide the maximum carbon capture and sequestration potential.

Key Stats

Image Source: DownToEarth

Image Source: DownToEarth

• The rise of forest area in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana compared to 2019 is attributed to reforestation, conservation measures, and agroforestry.
• However, the fast-growing varieties like plantations and bamboo do not match the potential of natural forests due to a lack of biodiversity and carbon capture and sequestration potential.
• Metropolitan megacities- Greater Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad and Chennai have 72 sq km of forest cover, which accounts for 10.21% of the geographical area. Among these, only Delhi has VDF and its MDF and open forest are the largest.
• Of the total forest cover, 46% is prone to forest fires with 2.81% being extremely vulnerable.

Forest fires

• India reported 3,45,989 forest fires between November 2020 to June 2021, according to the ISFR, 2021
• Forest fires break out in India between November-May every year due to natural and anthropogenic factors like the accumulation of inflammable materials such as dry leaves, twigs, pine needles, etc.
• Odisha reported the highest number of incidents (51,968), followed by Madhya Pradesh (47,795) and Chhattisgarh (38,106).

Image Source: DownToEarth

Mangroves

• Mangroves account for about 0.15% of our geographical area.
• The blue carbon ecosystems have three to four times higher carbon capture and sequestration potential compared to any forests on land.
• The area under mangroves has increased by a mere 17 sq km and is unable to offset the loss of the MDF of 1,582 sq km.

Tiger Reserves

• The ISFR 2021, for the first time, has assessed the forest cover in tiger reserves.
• The report suggests that 51% of tiger reserves comprise the forest cover of 22.01% VDF, 35.95% MDF, and 16.55% open forests.
• Tigers depend on prey populations as well as undisturbed, continuous, and non-fragmented landscapes.
• Reports suggest the increase in total area under tiger corridors compared to that of 2011.
• However, out of the 52 tiger reserves, only 20 have shown an increase in forest cover.
• The lion habitat in the Gir National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary has also shrunk its forest cover by 43 sq km (2.52%) from 2011 to 2021.
• This is a cause of concern because numerous river streams originate either from these tiger reserves or the catchment area is surrounded by these reserves.
• The loss of tiger or lion reserves implies the loss of these wetlands that support rich floral and faunal biodiversity.

3. Income and Livelihood Promotion through Individual Assets under MGNREGA

Context

In this article, the potentialities of individual assets, created under category B of Schedule I of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, for increasing the income of rural households and productivity of land are examined.

Mahatma Gandhi Nati­onal Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)

• Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of the MGNREGA, 2005 divides permissible works into four categories, namely A, B, C and D.
• Category A – provides for public works relating to natural resource management, water conservation and management, micro and minor irrigation, land development and afforestation.
• Category B – provides for community or individual assets for the most vulnerable households like Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), nomadic tribes, below the poverty line (BPL) families, women-headed households, physically handicapped-headed households, traditional forest dwellers, small and marginal farmers.
• Category C – provision for common infrastructure for the National Rural Livelihood Mission compliant self-help groups (SHGs) that promote agricultural productivity by creating durable infrastructure for bio-fertilisers, and warehouses for post-harvest storage.
• Category D – provides for rural infrastructure like all-weather roads, rural sanitation-related works, playfields, gram panchayat buildings, etc.

Read more about – MGNREGA

Analysis

• The government had prioritised the creation of income-generating individual assets under category B of Schedule 1 of the act.
• Accordingly, the government through an amendment dated in 2014, made a provision in Schedule 1 of the act, for providing 60% of the works in terms of cost to be undertaken for the creation of productive assets, directly linked to agriculture and allied activities through the development of land, water and trees.
• According to the MGNREGA Master Circular for the financial year 2018–19, there are 260 identified permissible works or activities and out of these, 164 are related to agriculture and allied activities.
• In 2017–18, the cost of works related to agriculture and allied ­activities constituted 67.8% of the total expenditure under the MGNREGA.

Joint study by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Sambodhi

• While there has been a greater emphasis on individual ­assets, there are few studies on the contribution of individual assets to income and livelihood promotion of its beneficiaries.
• A joint study conducted across six states found that there was an improvement in the quality of land of small and marginal farmers and that their income levels also increased.
• They found that dug wells in Jharkhand had increased crop intensity and productivity, with a decrease in the cost of cultivation.
  • The study shows a threefold increase in the incomes of dug well beneficiaries in Jharkhand.
• The study examined asset creation in Maharashtra and found that MGNREGA works benefited agriculture, especially small and marginal farmers.
• In Tripura, several beneficiaries had been provided with rubber plantations, fish ponds, betel vine orchards, etc, with a significant impact on their livelihoods.

Impact of different types of individual assets

Different types of assets created different kinds of benefits.

• Land Assets
  • The land development assets brought uncultivated parcels of land under cultivation,
  • The main impact of wasteland development works was an increase in total crop acreage.
  • Land development assets resul­ted in a significant increase in crop acreage of wheat (169.14%) and paddy (93.56%) of the sample beneficiaries in the survey regions of UP.
• Irrigation Assets
  • The irrigation assets first provided water to the existing cultivable land and then brought new parcels of land under cultivation.
  • The creation of irrigation assets resulted in high productivity and crop diversification.
  • High productivity- Due to irrigation assets, a significant increase in acreage was found in the case of tomato (200%), lentils (170.73%), cotton (73.87%), wheat (62.59%), urad (28.31%)
  • Crop diversification- There was a shift from foodgrains to high-value crops, such as vegetables, oilseeds, pulses, chilly and cotton.
  • The overall impacts enhanced income to the beneficiary households and ensured greater food security to the community.
• Livestock Assets
  • The beneficiaries of livestock assets were provided with animal sheds for cows, buffaloes, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, etc.
  • This enhanced productivity of the livestock. Thereby increasing the income of the households.
  • Livestock assets also provided organic manure and draught animal power to agriculture.
  • The revenue of a livestock shelter beneficiary increased, on average, by 84.53%.
• Fishery Assets
  • Fishery assets contributed to the enhanced inc­ome of the beneficiary and greater availability of high-protein nutritious food to the community.
• Horticulture/Plantation Assets
  • Horticulture has a long gestation period, yet the returns are higher.
  • Beneficiaries include Mango, Chikoo, Guava plantations, Wine orchard, Rubber plantation and Tea gardens.
  • The average revenue of a beneficiary household from a horticultural asset was Rs. 48,500 per annum.

Increase in Income

• Most of the beneficiaries of MGNREGA individual assets are marginal and small farmers.
• On average, a beneficiary earned about 31.28% of the gross annual income from individual assets.
• Transformational impact has been seen in the households, from casual labour to self-employed, resulting in a dramatic increase in income and well-being.

Way forward

• A proactive selection of landless households and diversification of individual assets is required to make the benefits of asset creation more inclusive.
• Individual assets are to be targeted at the most vulnerable households.
• The selection of individual beneficiaries needs to be transparent and should be strictly implemented through the gram sabha.
• Individual assets depend on factors such as nature, agro climatic conditions, and land. Hence there is a need for innovative practices at the local level that suit the conditions.
• The capital base of individual beneficiaries can be increased by imparting knowledge, requisite skills, pre- and post-assets technical support.
• Grass-root level organisations and agencies like SHGs should be involved in the process.
• Combination approaches like Land development work undertaken along with irrigation work should be encouraged as they have high cost-benefit ratios.
• There is a need for providing credit, technology and knowledge to maximise the benefits of the assets, this can be achieved by convergence with other schemes and departments.
• Only income-generating individual assets should be undertaken under the MGNREGA.
• There is a need for a massive increase in resource allocation to cover a large number of beneficiary households.

Conclusion

If implemented with due diligence, the indivi­dual assets could, indeed, be a game changer in transforming the lives of the most vulnerable households of India.

4. Mainstreaming Urban Resilience in India

Context

In recent decades, India is witnessing a rapid growth rate in urbanisation thus increasing its associated vulnerability to disasters.

Disaster Management in India

• India is highly vulnerable to disasters because of its geographical location.
• Disaster management in India has the “district” as a basic unit, while “city” being a complex system requires different strategies.
• Although we cannot prevent disasters, we can mitigate their impacts through better preparedness.
  • Example: In 1999, a super cyclone created huge devastation and resulted in the death of around 9,843 people along with severe destruction of infrastructure in Odisha.
    • In 2003, another powerful cyclone, named “Phailin,” made landfall in the same area of Odisha but not more than 47 persons lost their lives.
    • This significant reduction in the numbers was achieved with improv­ed efforts of disaster risk management in our country.
  • The city authorities need to adopt various measures and increase their resource allocations for disaster management because the current disaster management framework is grossly inadequate at the city level.

Read more on disaster management in India in the linked article.

Changing Dynamics of Urban India

• According to the United Nations estimates,
  • In the 1960s, people in rural areas were two times more than people in urban areas.
  • By 2007, urban and rural populations became almost equal.
  • In 2017, the urban population was 55% of the global population and was projected to increase to 68% by 2050.
  • According to the UN report in 2018, by 2050, India would add 416 million urban dwellers.
• The majority of Indian states are urbanised to the extent of 20% to 40%.
• Delhi and Chandigarh are the highest in terms of the level of urbanisation, followed by Goa, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Karnataka.
• Contrastingly, states with high populations like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar show a low level of urbanisation, while Odisha, Assam, and Himachal Pradesh are the least urba­nised.
• According to a McKinsey report, urban India was home to about 7 crore people in 2011 and the number is expected to reach the 56 crore mark by 2031.
• It is expected that urban areas have more than 40% of India’s population and account for more than 75% of the national gross domestic product.

Vulnerabilities of Urban Areas

• The shift in the population indicates both demographic and paradigm shift, that places urban areas at the centre of the development trajectory of the country and assigns cities and towns a critical role in the structural transformation of our economy.
• Economic prosperity will depend on the uninterrupted functioning of the city, as disruptions could upset the delicate balance with an adverse impact on the overall economy.
• Example:
  • Cyclone Hudhud in 2014 caused about Rs. 21,000 crores damage in Visakhapatnam and the loss of 40 lives.
  • Heavy rainfall in 2015 in Chennai caused the city about Rs. 14,000 crores in damages and loss of about 280 lives.
  • About 21 cities, including Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, and Hyderabad, are racing towards zero groundwater levels, with the potential to affect the access for 10 crore people.
• Heatwaves exaggerated by urban heat islands are increasing every year.
• City centres have become hubs for disasters due to their rampant growth, without long-term planning.
• A study by the World Bank warns that poor urban planning and management would cost Indians around $13 billion annually and about 6.3% of the GDP by 2050.

City as a Complex System

• Cities represent the highest form of complex web of institutions, infrastructure and information, with the constant threat of disasters mainly by two factors.
  • Shock: a phenomenon that warns of major loss of life, and damage to assets for poor or vulnerable populations, due to urban flood, earthquake, etc.
  • Stress: an ongoing natural pheno­menon that weakens the city’s ability to function and provide basic services, parti­cularly for poor or vulnerable populations.
• It is difficult to prevent shocks or natural disasters but the resilience can be increased to mitigate the effects of disasters.
• The UN-Habitat defi­nes urban resilience as the measure of the ability of an urban system to maintain continuity despite shocks and stresses, while positively adapting and transforming towards sustainability.
• A resilient city is one that has developed capacities to absorb future shocks and stresses.
• The resilience of a city is the result of four factors that are intricately related to each other, namely;
  • Health and well-being of people
  • Economy and society
  • Infrastructure and environment
  • Leadership and strategy

Way forward

• Risk identification
  • The authorities must have an understanding of the disaster and its potential impacts on the local population, infrastructure and economy. Hence, there is a need to dev­elop the know­ledge base of its vulnerability to disasters.
  • The vulnerability asse­ssment should be based on historical facts and the changing vulnerabilities of the city environment.
  • For example, in cities, vulnerable places like river floodplains became places of habitation for poorer sections of the ­society and thus a high level of vulnerability ensued.
• Communication
  • It is equally important to establish communication channels to vulnerable sections. Communication channels are integral for an effective early warning system.
• Institutional and legislative systems
  • Institutional and legislative systems at the municipal level must adopt and lead the disaster reduction process.
  • State agencies and the centre must provide financial assistance to local bodies to take up disaster management measures.
• Involvement of city agencies
  • Various measures like better urban resilience, hazard vulnerability risk assessment, awareness creation, etc. depend on the extent of participation of city agencies.
• During normal conditions
  • The attention should be to ensure the integration of risk-reduction measures at all levels and spread awareness to the vulnerable sections of the city.
• During the disaster phase
  • The focus shifts to the organisation of efficient rescue and relief measures.
• During the post-disaster phase
  • The focus should be to ensure early return to the standard of pre-disaster level.
• Increase in budget allocation
  • In the budget 2021–22, the Government of India allocated 9,000 urban centres that hold nearly 34% of the Indian population, a meagre 1.5% of the total budgetary outlay.

Read previous EPW articles in the link.

EPW January Week 4, 2022:- Download PDF Here