Towards a Sustha and Swachha Rural Dhenkanal: Institutionalizing Faecal Sludge Management for Achieving ODF Plus

Following significant national gains in access to a toilet facility under the Swachh Bharat Mission – Gramin (SBM-G), the Ministry of Jal Shakti launched the programme’s second phase in 2020. SBM-G Phase II places an emphasis on and funds interventions in sanitation beyond the toilet including Faecal Sludge Management (FSM). Nonetheless, FSM – a novelty among rural administrations – is yet to gain traction as a prerequisite to Safely Managed Sanitation in specific socio-spatial contexts. The present Policy Brief employs insights from a novel district-level sanitation survey in Dhenkanal, Odisha, and secondary data to support the District Administration, Dhenkanal, and the Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water Department, Government of Odisha in evaluating the need for FSM in the district in relation to the recommended alternative strategies. The Policy Brief argues that neither retrofitting single pits to twin pits nor FSM is an exclusively optimal solution in the district owing to its local specificities. It concludes with a roadmap for the Dhenkanal District Administration towards achieving district-wide Safely Managed Sanitation.

The Policy Brief has been prepared under the Dhenkanal Pilot Project for Solid and Liquid Waste Management (SLWM) supported by UNICEF.

Towards furthering action research for sanitation workers’ safety: Discussions from the Workshop

The Centre for Policy Research organized a workshop titled “Towards Furthering Action Research for Sanitation Workers’ Safety” on December 4, 2018. The objective of the workshop was to build knowledge-sharing networks, learn from experiences of various states and initiate a broader discussion on alternative livelihood option available to sanitation workers. The workshop deliberated broadly on two themes. Firstly, it discussed insights from the field to build an understanding of social, legal, technical and financial issues and challenges sanitation workers face. Secondly, it deliberated on the challenges of bringing sanitary workers into alternative livelihood options. This was followed by a discussion on developing an action research agenda for future in the Indian context and exploring possible solutions to improve sanitation workers’ safety.

The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB): The Challenges Facing a Strong, Progressive Agency

KEY FINDINGS

By far the largest share of the DUSIB budget, a little over 63 percent, is spent relocating JJCs, including construction of flats under JNNURM.
A range of actors inside and outside of DUSIB reflect an overwhelming perception of the agency and its predecessor as marginal and weak.
Despite its clear mandate, DUSIB has limited capacity to effect improvement on the ground, and there has been little effort to increase that capacity.
The DUSIB Act, which appears to have been a sweeping mandate for coordinating all relocation of JJCs in Delhi is, upon closer examination and after subsequent government orders, dramatically limited. The DUSIB only has oversight over one third of JJCs in the city.
Prioritisation of a JJC for rehabilitation has very little to do with improving conditions and services in the settlement, but rather is based on the respective land-owning agency’s need for the land.
It is clear that the DUSIB has not been able to cope with a core element of its central mandate: to provide adequate EWS housing for relocated JJC residents. By the end of 2014, DUSIB should have 88,000 flats ready for occupancy. Even if construction of the reported 40,000 EWS flats is complete by the end of 2014, the DUSIB will still face a gap of 25,000 EWS flats.
A report of the Cities of Delhi project.

The Draft EIA Notification, 2020: Reduced Regulations and Increased Exemptions Part I & II (NO LINK for pt 1)

The regulatory framework for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) lays down a process to assess possible environmental impacts of industrial, mining and infrastructural projects before approving or rejecting its environmental viability. In India the formal legal framework governing the EIA process was brought about in the form of an EIA Notification in 1994, which was enacted under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The 1994 Notification was amended several times in a span of 11 years before the EIA Notification of 2006 replaced it.

The system created by the 2006 Notification is far from perfect. Over the last 14 odd years, there have been quality issues with respect to EIA reports, several procedural lapses during public hearings and a poor track record with respect to post clearance monitoring and compliance. The 2006 Notification has also undergone changes over the years. Despite that, the 2006 Notification has been the most popular legislation used by the project affected people and non-governmental organizations to reduce the social and environmental costs of projects.

On 23rd March 2020, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) released a new draft EIA Notification and invited public comments on it within 60 days. However since the period for public comments coincided with the national lockdown in lieu of the COVID 19 pandemic several environmental groups demanded for the comment period to be extended. The MoEFCC had extended the time for public comments till 30th June 2020. The Delhi High Court in Vikrant Tongad v Union of India has as of now further increased the date for sending comments till 11th August 2020.

This draft notification proposes changes that can dilute protective provisions of the 2006 Notification to a great extent. Part I of this analysis presents a clause by clause comparison of the EIA Notification, 2006 and the draft EIA Notification, 2020 to illustrate the lacunae in the proposed changes and their possible implications on the environment and communities, if implemented. Part I can be accessed here.

On 22nd July 2020, The MoEFCC submitted a statement of objections in response to the matter of United Conservation Movement Charitable Welfare and Trust v. Union of India before the High court of Karnataka. The Ministry claims that it has facilitated wider publicity to the Draft EIA 2020 since they had circulated a Zero Draft of the EIA Notification in the form of an Office Memorandum with the State Governments and other state level administrative bodies, an year ago. This Zero Draft was released on 15th april 2019, while the country was focusing on the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The MoEFCC has claimed the Zero Draft of 2019 to be the same as Draft EIA 2020 in their statement of objection.

The Zero Draft of 2019 and the Draft EIA 2020 Notification are however significantly different and cannot be considered as the same document. Part II of this analysis discusses the major differences between the Zero Draft of 2019 and the Draft EIA 2020 and presents a clause by clause comparison of both the drafts. Part II can be accessed here.

The Enclave Approach Has Outlived Its Usefulness for Bangladesh

The growth of its readymade garments industry has been a critical factor in Bangladesh’s development success. However, Bangladesh has not been able to replicate this success in other labor-intensive sectors. A key reason for this is the current trade policy stance that allows a virtual free trade regime in the garments sector, but perpetuates a high degree of protection to the domestic (import substituting) industries, at the expense of emerging and potential export industries. This enclave approach encourages most productive sectors to cater to the domestic market and cannot sustain export growth at the rates required to accelerate growth or provide quality jobs, especially in the face of impending preference erosion. There is an urgent need to change this policy stance and start the process of trade reforms in a careful and

The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Public School Education

This brief presents some of the key effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on India’s public school education, focussing specifically on children. It begins with a discussion of the pre-pandemic status of school education and key policy shifts over the past few years, and provides an overview of the principal issues arising from the pandemic and the resulting school closures. It then offers potential policy suggestions to address these challenges, and thereby ensuring quality education to all children.

The Legal Regime and Political Economy of Land Rights Of Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled Areas of India

Context:

India holds the unique distinction of being both the world’s largest constitutional democracy and also one of its fastest growing economies. Critical to the process of India’s economic development is state acquisition of land for infrastructure and industrial development. Creating a legal framework that ensures equitable and efficient acquisition of land by the state, through processes that are socially inclusive and politically feasible, has proved challenging. While the Indian Constitution guarantees property rights to all, it enshrines special protections for land rights of ‘Scheduled Tribes’, vis-a-vis the state and other communities, in geographically demarcated tribal majority areas known as ‘Scheduled Areas’ under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution. The currently designated Fifth Scheduled areas are in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, and Rajasthan. The currently designated Sixth Schedule areas are in the north-eastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

The Scheduled Tribes (STs) or adivasis consist of a number of heterogeneous tribal groups that have historically self-identified and been identified by the British colonial and independent Indian states, as lying outside the mainstream of Hindu society, partly because of their ’distinctive culture and way of life as a group’, and partly because of their ‘geographical isolation’. Currently, there are 750 tribes in 26 states and 6 union territories of India.

The Constitution guarantees special protections for land rights of Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled areas because land is not only the most important source of tribal livelihoods, but it is also central to their community identity, history and culture. Many non-Scheduled area states have also created legal protections for protecting land rights of tribals.

However, CPR Land Rights Initiative research shows that despite these special protections, Scheduled Tribes remain one of the most vulnerable, most impoverished, and most displaced of all groups in India. 47.1% of all STs in rural areas are below the poverty line as compared to 33.8% for the national average, whereas 28.8% of all STs in urban areas are below the poverty line as compared to 20.9% for the national average. Inspite of being the only group with constitutional protections for their land rights, 9.4 % of STs are landless compared to 7.4% for the national average. While STs constitute only 8.6% of the total population, it is estimated that they constitute 40% of all people who have been displaced during the period 1951 to 1990, some more than once, due to the construction of dams, mines, industrial development, and the creation of wildlife parks and sanctuaries. Only 24.7% of ST population that was displaced during this period was rehabilitated. Therefore, it is clear that these groups have disproportionately borne the burden of economic development.

Why is this so?

The CPR Land Rights Initiative report on ‘The legal and political economy of land rights of Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled Areas of India’, offers some preliminary answers to these questions. Through a review of constitutional provisions, laws, and policies, governing the rights of Scheduled Tribes and the administration of Scheduled Areas, and the financial and administrative structures that effectuate these protections, the Report delineates a conflicting regime of protective and displacing laws, as well as conflicting policy narratives underlying these laws which facilitate the displacement of Scheduled Tribes and their corresponding landlessness. The Report also contains extensive primary data on the current mapping of Scheduled areas, and the current distribution of dams, forests, and mining activity, in the Scheduled areas.

Key findings:

Extent of geographical area, and distribution of forests, dams, and mining activity in Scheduled Areas: The Report establishes for the first time that as much as 13% of India’s geographical area is in the Scheduled Areas. Further, the Report finds that both the concentration of forest cover, and the concentration of dams, is significantly higher in Scheduled area districts (a little over two and a half times) as compared to non-Scheduled area districts. Finally, we find that 90% of all mineral wealth generated in India comes from states that have Scheduled Areas.
Fragmented constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes: The Report concludes that despite the centrality of land to the identity, economy, and culture of the Scheduled Tribes, the constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas are fragmented and contradictory. The creation of these fragmented protections was in turn a product of two factors. First, even at the time of drafting of the Constitution, many tribal communities were no longer located within the geographically isolated scheduled areas, while many non-tribal communities were resident there, some for several generations. The Constitution makers created safeguards both for tribal people resident in Scheduled areas and those that were residing outside Scheduled Areas, but these fragmented protections failed to fully safeguard the rights of STs. Second, they arose from an inherent contradiction in creating geographically protected areas for Scheduled Tribes, while at the same time imposing no restrictions on the movement of tribals outside those areas, or on the movement of non tribals to those areas. This enabled more dominant non-tribal communities to settle in scheduled areas and in practice displace STs.
Special constitutional and legal protections for ST land rights negated by contrary laws: The Report concludes that special constitutional and legal protections for land rights of STs have been diluted by a contrary legal framework comprised of forests, mining, and land acquisition laws. While state land alienation prohibition laws prohibit transfer of land from tribals to non tribals, there is no prohibition on the state acquiring land in Scheduled Areas for its own purposes in the exercise of its power of eminent domain or assertion of its rights over forestland. State led lawfully sanctioned development in the form of dams, mines, industrial development, and wildlife parks and sanctuaries, has historically been the biggest displacer of STs. This is corroborated by data on the intensity of dams and mining activity in the Scheduled Areas as outlined in the Report.
Fundamental contradictions between ‘identity based isolation’ and ‘development through integration’ policy narratives of the British and Indian states: The Report finds a fundamental contradiction between two narratives that have characterised the policies of the British colonial state and the independent Indian state. The first narrative, that the Report calls the ‘identity based isolation’ narrative, identifies the tribals as a ‘distinctive group outside mainstream Hindu society’ both in terms of their ‘cultural traits’ and ‘geographical isolation’, and argues that they are keen to preserve their distinctiveness and their isolation. The second narrative called the ‘development through integration’ narrative identifies the tribal way of life as backward, compared to mainstream Indian population and seeks to improve their economic and social indicators to ‘integrate’ or ‘assimilate’ them with the mainstream population. The Report concludes that while both the ‘identity based isolation’ and ‘development through integration’ narratives, characterised the drafting of constitutional protections for STs, post-independence policy making was guided primarily by the latter. STs have however, rejected the ‘development through integration’ narrative as paternalistic and patronising, alleging that it fails to capture their aspirations to ‘develop according to their own genius.’
Meagre financial allocations for ST welfare: Translating policy and legal protections into reality needs financial resources. Even though the Constitution envisages a centralised framework for the administration of tribal areas under the aegis of the President and Governors of states, the responsibility of financing the costs of progressive change increasingly vests with the states. The Report computes significant shortfalls in Planning Commission recommended financial allocations made by both central and state governments in Scheduled area states under the tribal sub plan. Misguided expenditure of allocated funds compounds the problem of shortfall of funds for tribal development.

The Pandemic and Public Administration: A survey of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officers

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused extraordinary hardship since India’s first case was reported in Thrissur, Kerala in January 2020. Individuals and communities have since then made drastic changes to their behaviours, daily routines and lives, quite often in response to announcements or regulatory direction provided by the state. Officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) are important actors at the forefront of framing, implementing and evaluating the state’s response to the pandemic, and uniquely positioned between the political executive and India’s massive frontline state. Their views on the state’s response, preparedness, the public and stakeholders in governance, and their positions on important normative debates underlying policy formulation and implementation therefore offer useful insights into both how the Indian state governs, and how it might govern better in the future.

This report presents the results of a representative survey of over 500 IAS officers conducted between August and September 2020, 7-8 months into the pandemic. The survey sought to engage members of the IAS in reflecting on the critical challenges, decisions, and trade-offs that confronted public administrators charged with managing the state response at different levels. In doing so, it revealed both widely shared and sharply contested views on a range of subjects, including the role of the civil servant, executive and bureaucratic functioning in a crisis, and perceptions of and relations between the state, the public, and other important actors and institutions.

The report finds that on the one hand, IAS officers are remarkably consistent in expressing high levels of motivation and public service commitment and endorse the view that the Indian state and bureaucracy galvanise resources and deliver reasonably well in times of crisis. On the other hand, there is a consistent tension between some strongly expressed ideals and the realities of administrative action, especially on engagement and communication with, and trust in the public. Finally, there is significant diversity among IAS officers when it comes to perceptions of key stakeholders (civil society, international agencies and the media) and a striking distrust of the private sector. The report also highlights the diversity in responses of officers across state cadres and seniority in several places through disaggregated analysis.

This report, by the State Capacity Initiative at the Centre for Policy Research is part of a larger body of work on understanding the norms and values underpinning different state institutions in India. As we develop this body of work over the coming years, our goal is to continue to probe not just how the state performs, but how it perceives its own capacity, why and how it makes choices, imagines possibilities for governance, and engages with citizens.

The coordination of climate finance in India

In India, institutional arrangements around climate finance have mostly followed national policy responses to climate change. This paper maps the emergence of climate change policy in India and subsequently traces the evolution of arrangements around climate finance. An early assessment of the climate finance landscape in India suggests that it is a highly complex and fragmented space with a multiplicity of institutions, actors, and channels of climate finance, both public and private, and domestic and international. The focus of this paper is to understand the processes of collaboration and coordination across the several actors that have a role to play in the national response to climate change policy and finance. In particular, the paper tries to determine the effectiveness of the domestic arrangements to access and manage climate finance, which are aimed at realizing national strategies that respond to climate change. In doing so, it takes lessons from India’s past experiences with accessing multilateral climate funds. Finally, this paper aims to highlight opportunities to strengthen coordination between the different institutions and actors, such that they contribute positively to the development of climate change policy and finance landscape in India.

Full paper also available on the ODI website.