Month: November 2024

There is an increasing policy engagement and advocacy emerging from various fronts on the possible European commitments and collaboration in the management of India’s river basins. One of the key learning experiences that is often suggested in this context is to reflect on Europe’s policy frameworks and institutional structures for improved outcomes from India’s river rejuvenation programmes. In India, the past decade witnessed an unprecedented focus and budgetary support by the Government of India (GoI) on river restoration, starting with the Namami Gange Programme (NGP). India is contemplating expanding Namami Gange’s experiences into a policy ecosystem to revitalise its rivers. The Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS) recently commissioned a large-scale study on assessment and management plans for six river basins in India, namely Mahanadi, Narmada, Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery, and Periyar, for improved river management along the lines of the NGP. In this context, how does the European experience offer insights to inform programmes like the NGP? In this commentary, we briefly outline some of the legal and institutional facets of the European experience and the lessons it holds for India.

European Cooperation on Rivers

The European experience of managing its river basins in the post-World War II period is often considered an exemplary case of regional cooperation in the management of freshwater ecosystems. This has resulted in the implementation of several legally binding directives, most notably the adoption of the European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) in 2000 and Flood Directive (FD) in 2007. The EU WFD has proven to be a pivotal piece of legislation in Europe’s history, reflecting the Union’s commitment to cooperative transboundary water management. Though the EU WFD appears to be a standalone legislative framework for water management, it reflects historical lessons learned from cooperation over important river basins —  most notably the Rhine and the Danube river basins.

Early Experiences

Some of the earliest evidence of formal cooperation dates back to 1815 when European nations came to an agreement over navigation on the river Rhine towards the end of the Napoleonic wars. This culminated in the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna. Article 108 ¹ of the Final Act resulted in the constitution of the Central Commission for Navigation of Rhine (CCNR). Subsequently, the Mainz Convention of 1831 and Mannheim Convention of 1868 accommodated various riparian concerns regarding Rhine navigation, but under the same spirit and principles embedded under Article 108. Cooperation over the Rhine became a template for other larger European river basins such as the Danube and Elbe. Moreover, the legal framework established to facilitate cooperation among the Rhine Basin countries manifested in the Rhine being the most used trade route in Europe for inland navigation underlying the economic prospect of cooperation over its waters.

Institutional Adaptation: From Economic Rationality towards Managing Environmental Risks

These early instances, however, created consequences affecting the aquatic health of the river — notably, increasing river pollution and the dwindling salmon population. With the conclusion of World War II, the situation worsened.

The major European economies — coincidentally the Rhine Basin states — steadily shifted their focus on deteriorating water quality. The International Commission for the Protection of Rhine (ICPR) was established in 1950 through the cooperation of France, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Switzerland towards restoration of the river. However, only in 1963, 13 years after its inception, ICPR obtained legal personality ² at the Berne Convention through Article 6.2, which endows it with rights and obligations – allowing ICPR to act independently and being represented by its Chairman. The Presidency rotates among the Rhine basin states every three years. According to the Preamble of ICPR, the goal of the Convention is to increase multilateral cooperation to facilitate sustainable development of the Rhine ecosystem. Initially, ICPR’s scope was narrowly restricted to addressing water quality concerns. Later, it expanded its focus and undertook a broader role which fundamentally altered the pathways for Europe’s water management paradigm. 

Imprint of the Rhine Cooperation on EU’s River Basin Management

Europe’s early experiences in managing large river basins like Rhine and Danube bolstered the development of important regional directives in the EU for environmental management – the most prominent being the EU WFD. Reflecting on the early European experiences illustrate that European member states developed adaptive management techniques from the Rhine experience that helped advance these regional directives. In this regard, three broad insights emerge:

• Learning from History: The success and frameworks established for the Rhine have significantly influenced the EU’s approach to water management. The collaborative approach to managing the Rhine has shown the benefits of transboundary cooperation, including improved water quality, restored ecosystems, and reduced flood risks. These successes have reinforced the EU’s political commitment to cooperative water management, shaping broader EU water policy. The early experiences with the Rhine navigation established interdependencies over time and manifested in the creation of transnational institutions, flourishing trade, and heightened consultation efforts.
• Setting Precedent: The Rhine cooperation efforts highlighted the need for preventive measures to protect water quality and ecosystems. Protection of Rhine water quality through the deployment of various economic and legal instruments, and its satisfactory implementation proved to be a guiding force behind  EU’s environmental policy. Techno-legal instruments such as the Polluters Pay Principle, No Harm Rule, Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development Principle, etc. emerged from the experiential wisdom accrued through the management of the Rhine and other important river basins. These environmental principles serve as the core aspects of EU environmental law and transboundary water management. For example, the allocation of costs based on the Polluters Pay Principle among the Rhine Basin States, as well as the industries located along the banks of the river contributed to the Rhine Action Programme. On a similar note, the No Harm Principle ³ was operationalised by ICPR as it played a pivotal role in the cooperation between the upstream and downstream Rhine basin states for pollution control measures.
• Institutionalisation of Cooperative Mechanisms: The River Basin Management paradigm in Europe was a gradual and incremental process. Insights offered by the functioning of the CCNR and ICPR have been central in shaping the approach taken by the EU’s management of its large river basins.  For example, the River Basin Organisation constituted to pursue Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) as mandated by the EU WFD is a culmination of various institutional practices that emerged from the functioning of ICPR and CCNR. In addition, the other single most important criterion for pursuing river basin management is to ensure coordination and cooperation across geographies and political actors. The Rhine experience greatly benefitted and advanced this cause. The international cooperation effort and its eventual institutionalisation for the Rhine restoration programme, have produced protocols for monitoring, data management, and coordination mechanisms.These protocols include consensus-based measures to maintain high-quality data standards – making it accurate and reliable. These efforts paved the way for the adoption of the EU WFD and  played a vital role in achieving the WFD’s ambitious water quality and ecological objectives.

India’s experience with NGP and what it can learn from the Rhine

In the Indian context, the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) has taken some important steps in rejuvenating the Ganga Basin. NGP, in its current avatar, aims to address diverse pollution sources by including the entire basin as a unit of governance. The Ganga River Basin Management Plan (GRBMP), prepared by a consortium of seven IITs, is credited with its usefulness for planning in Ganga and remains foundational for the NGP. Like the Rhine experience, the Ganga rejuvenation started with modest and narrow efforts.  It was only in 2016 that the effort received a significant legal fulcrum. Prior to 2016, NMCG had limited functional scope, restricting its role to funding specific projects for the Ganga Basin. It did not have a mandate to take cognizance of any threats to the Ganges or the power to issue directions to the concerned authorities/polluters. In 2016, under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, the role of NMCG was strengthened to enforce laws regarding pollution control in the Ganges Basin. NMCG is now a fully functional authority that is both a regulator and an implementer in pursuing the management of the Ganges Basin towards improving the ecology and aquatic health of the river. Besides pollution abatement measures, it is making a promising effort to improve river-city connection through the Urban River Management Plan (URMP), standardizing data collection protocols, etc. In this context, NGP offers opportunities to establish itself as a template for India’s river rejuvenation goals.

Way Forward

More than anything, the Rhine and the larger European experience offers two critical lessons — a legal framework developed through a consensus-building approach and the constitution of a legal authority which should be supplemented by institutional and deliberative mechanisms. In this aspect, NMCG is still at a nascent stage. The formidable task for NMCG would be to address some of the complex areas of the river rejuvenation programme — such as inter-state and centre-state cooperation, that would be required for pollution management, especially its core aspects of infrastructure finance, and data sharing architecture. All this would require cooperation across scales and would be crucial in sustaining the programme post the mission life of the NGP which is slated to end in its current capacity in 2026. 

 

This blog is part of an ongoing project on Rejuvenating India’s Rivers, in collaboration with the National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG).

---

1. Final Act of the Congress of Vienna 1815, Article 108 (CVIII) stipulates that when the states are separated or traversed by the same navigable river, the navigation related powers must be regulated by common consent.
2.  Legal personality gives an organisation its own legal standing in the court, i.e. ICPR is formally recognized as a legal entity and can be legally represented by its chairperson.
3. No Harm Principle obligates parties to not have any adverse impacts on the other in a cross-jurisdictional setting and particularly directed to the upstream states.

Summary

The YouGov-Mint-CPR biannual surveys are conducted by Mint in association with YouGov India and Centre for Policy Research. This collaboration began in 2018 with the aim of assessing the beliefs, choices and anxieties of India’s young urban population.

The 12th round of this survey was conducted in July 2024, with 10,314 respondents across more than 200 towns and cities. In this latest round, 45% of the respondents were post- millennials (born after 1996) and 39% were millennials (born between 1981 and 1996).

In the last few months, the findings from this 12th round were published in Live Mint in a seven part series. Four of these articles were authored by Rahul Verma (Fellow, CPR) and Melvin Kunjumon, and have been summarised below. The full survey is linked here.

 

Polls and Perceptions: The 2024 Lok Sabha Election

The findings of the 12th YouGov-Mint-CPR Millennial Survey conducted in July 2024 found little change in BJP’s approval rating in urban India with 46% respondents choosing it as their most favoured party, while Congress trailed at 15%. 

The BJP garners its lowest proportional support from economically disadvantaged groups, and scheduled castes and tribes. In terms of voter outreach, the BJP fared better (with one-third respondents responding positively) than Congress (reaching slightly less than a quarter respondents). 

On Rahul Gandhi’s emergence as a serious opponent, slightly more than half the respondents reacted favourably. When asked about the INDIA bloc’s ability to mount an effective challenge to the BJP in the incumbent government, about two-fifths responded in favour as against 29% in December 2023. The data suggests that the BJP’s public appeal has weakened among the lower socio-economic strata and that Modi’s popularity may have peaked. 

 

Democracy Check

The second set of findings deals with determining the people’s faith in the electoral machinery. When asked about the fairness of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, 58% people confirmed their faith while 42% responded negatively. A significant number of respondents, about every 3 in 5, supported the continued use of EVMs dismissing the allegations of rigging.

On being questioned whether the media gave favourable coverage to the BJP during its election campaign 54% respondents agreed, while 46% believed the coverage was fair. Surprisingly half the surveyed BJP supporters also affirmed that the media favoured the BJP. 46% respondents questioned the integrity of exit poll projections and claimed that the forecasts were fraudulent.

One-third respondents maintained that holding multiple elections was unresourceful, while another one-third held that staggered elections strengthen democracy. 41% of BJP supporters viewed multiple elections as wasteful, against only 24% of Congress supporters.

The survey findings are indicative of how party affiliations shape popular perceptions on electoral issues. BJP supporters exhibit greater trust in ECI, EVMs and exit polls, while Congress supporters are more likely to be skeptical.

 

Social Media and Politics

Another data set found that Politics was the 5th most popular topic on social media among respondents after Lifestyle, Science and Technology, Sports, and General Entertainment. 

Similar to the previous round (conducted in December 2023), educated younger respondents with high incomes and strong partisan leanings tended to be more active in political discussions on social media. However, the latest round conducted right after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, found an increase in negative interactions online, with the sharpest increase among post-millennials, from 34% to 41%. Respondents belonging to minority groups were more likely to report online harassment. 

The respondents also showed a trust deficit in social media influencers and posts along with Whatsapp messages for information. Newspapers were the most trusted, followed by TV channels.

 

A Welfarist Budget?

The concluding survey focused on understanding the opinions of urban Indians on governmental budgetary priorities. The survey asked respondents to give their preference from paired policy questions. 70% participants favoured investment in free healthcare and education for the poor over public infrastructure, and prioritised rural development to building big, global cities. 

To gauge these preferences, the survey asked respondents to allocate a hypothetical government budget of 100 Rs. across public hospitals and schools, creation of government jobs, investment in public infrastructure, growth of big businesses, and direct cash transfers to the poor. The results showed that respondents least preferred cash transfers and were the most favourable to improving conditions of governments schools and hospitals.

Finally, the survey also tried to assess whether people associate personal economic anxieties with the performance of the government. To the question of whether it is harder to find jobs across demographics, respondents reported that compared to the survey conducted in December 2022, finding jobs was harder in 2024. 

 

Source Table 4a in Annual Survey of Industries 2021-22: https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/ASI%20Volume%20I%202021-22%20%20Final.pdf

There has been a long-running discussion about the low and falling female labour force participation, especially in the non-farm sector. Simultaneously, it has been claimed that industrial growth in India has not been labour intensive. So, the question arises – does the nature of industrial growth, whether it is capital or labour intensive, affect the gender composition of the workforce, e.g., do capital intensive industries have fewer women workers?

To answer the question, we turn to the Annual Survey of Industries, which collects information from a relatively formal group of industries, i.e., units with ten or more workers (with power), or twenty or more workers without power, registered under Sections 2(m)(i) and 2(m)(ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 or the Bidi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. Some large units registered under other acts are also included but, the survey excludes small unregistered units.

Within this group of units, the figure above shows that industries that have a high share of women in directly employed (i.e., non-contractual) women workers, e.g., garments (28%) textiles (16%), food (13%), tobacco (6%), leather (6%), and electronics (2%) do indeed have lower capital intensity (the available data does not allow us to investigate this for contractual workers[1]). Industries where the share of women is above average (dotted line) all have a capital intensity of less than ₹ 0.2 lakh per worker. The figures in parenthesis show the share of women employed in that industry to total female employment and these six industries together employ over 70% of the female workforce (which is why the average is where it is, though many industries have lower shares).

So, the answer is yes, capital intensive industries do indeed employ fewer women and that an increase in labour intensive manufacturing may have the additional benefit of boosting female labour force participation.

---

1. It is possible that that the regular workers are more likely to be male and if so, the use of regular workers understates the female-intensity of the workforce, but unless this varies systematically across industries, the conclusion would continue to hold.

Bibek Debroy (1955-2024)

Around mid-2002, I managed to airdrop myself onto the lap of Prof Bibek Debroy (1955 – 2024) as his ‘colleague’ at the Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (RGICS) where he was the Director. For a little while I was apprehensive and wondered how long he (‘Bibek’ to his friends) would tolerate me for I was not his choice. Within a couple of weeks he put me at ease and I spent the next four years working closely with him. He very quickly integrated me into the Institute’s work and much later he was also instrumental in bringing me to CPR, once again to be his colleague!

The reports of his death tried to measure the void he left behind and the obituaries by well-meaning scholars are gratifying. More can be added from his public persona but what about the man, Bibek Debroy? Though he walked in the corridors of power and privilege and rubbed shoulders with the rich and famous, he never lost the common touch. And he could be affectionate and caring to people he worked with; he would find nice things to say about his employees who were below the hierarchy.

For two decades, Bibek was my friend and mentor, and also a teacher who never lectured his ideology down my throat. But, truth be told, as the years passed by, thanks to him, I understood the value of limited government, not so much as an article of faith, but as the least detrimental system. The canard that he supported anti-people policies wouldn’t hold much water because the man was decent enough and intelligent enough and ‘pro-people’ enough to advocate liberal policies, firmly believing that they would help people.

He was always reserved, even in his unguarded moments; he wouldn’t reveal much about himself, nor would he ask others about theirs. For people closer to him, he was caring, offering a way out in delicate situations. A minor health issue? Why not take some German-made homeo drops, usually that of Adel brand’s?