UPSC Essentials| Weekly news express with MCQs : COP15, Taliban’s war on women, and more

The Indian Express’ UPSC weekly news express covers some of the important and burning topics of current affairs news from this week to help you prepare for UPSC-CSE. Try out the MCQs and check your answers provided towards the end of the article.

COP15 biodiversity summit

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: General issues on Environmental ecology, Bio-diversity and Climate Change – that do not require subject specialization.

Main Examination: General Studies II: Important International institutions, agencies and fora- their structure, mandate.

Why in news?

— A major international environmental conference has just concluded in Montreal, Canada, promising to take urgent action to protect and restore the world’s biodiversity — all the different forms of life, plants as well as animals, that inhabit this planet.

— This conference was the biodiversity equivalent of the more high-profile climate meetings that are held every year. Signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a 1993 agreement, meet every two years — not annually like the climate meetings — to work on a global plan to halt biodiversity loss and restore natural ecosystems. The Montreal meeting was the 15th edition of this conference, hence the name COP15 — or the 15th Conference of the Parties to the CBD.

— The Montreal Conference has delivered a new agreement called the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which contains four goals and 23 targets that need to be achieved by 2030. The GBF is being compared to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change that is guiding global climate action.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

According to Reuters some of the key areas agreed on after two weeks of negotiations are:

— Conservation, protection and restoration

Delegates committed to protecting 30 per cent of land and 30 per cent of coastal and marine areas by 2030, fulfilling the deal’s highest-profile goal, known as 30-by-30. Indigenous and traditional territories will also count toward this goal, as many countries and campaigners pushed for during the talks.

The deal also aspires to restore 30 per cent of degraded lands and waters throughout the decade, up from an earlier aim of 20 per cent.

And the world will strive to prevent destroying intact landscapes and areas with a lot of species, bringing those losses “close to zero by 2030”.

— Money for nature

Signatories aim to ensure $200 billion per year is channelled to conservation initiatives, from public and private sources. Wealthier countries should contribute at least $20 billion of this every year by 2025, and at least $30 billion a year by 2030.

This appeared to be the Democratic Republic of Congo’s main source of objection to the package.

— Big companies report impacts on biodiversity

Companies should analyse and report how their operations affect and are affected by biodiversity issues. The parties agreed to large companies and financial institutions being subject to “requirements” to make disclosures regarding their operations, supply chains and portfolios.

This reporting is intended to progressively promote biodiversity, reduce the risks posed to business by the natural world, and encourage sustainable production.

— Harmful subsidies

Countries committed to identify subsidies that deplete biodiversity by 2025, and then eliminate, phase out or reform them. They agreed to slash those incentives by at least $500 billion a year by 2030, and increase incentives that are positive for conservation.

— Pollution and pesticides

One of the deal’s more controversial targets sought to reduce the use of pesticides by up to two-thirds. But the final language to emerge focuses on the risks associated with pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals instead, pledging to reduce those threats by “at least half”, and instead focusing on other forms of pest management.

Overall, the Kunming-Montreal agreement will focus on reducing the negative impacts of pollution to levels that are not considered harmful to nature, but the text provides no quantifiable target here.

— Monitoring and reporting progress

All the agreed aims will be supported by processes to monitor progress in the future, in a bid to prevent this agreement meeting the same fate as similar targets that were agreed in Aichi, Japan, in 2010, and never met.

National action plans will be set and reviewed, following a similar format used for greenhouse gas emissions under U.N.-led efforts to curb climate change.

Some observers objected to the lack of a deadline for countries to submit these plans.

Biodiversity Convention and Evaluation of the deal

Amitabh Sinha writes:

— The comparison of the biodiversity meetings with the climate conferences is not incidental. The two are in fact closely related. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the CBD were both outcomes of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit — as was the third member of the family, the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), which deals specifically with the issue of land degradation. The CBD came into force in 1993; the other two in the following year.

— The three environmental conventions seek to address the issues that overlap among them. Climate change is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss, while changes in land and ocean use have an impact on climate change. Land degradation appears as a cause as well as effect in both climate change and biodiversity loss. So, while all the three agreements hold their separate COPs, the interlinkages, not very obvious in the 1990s, are getting increasingly evident. The success on any one helps the cause of the others too.

— The CBD is not just about the conservation and restoration of ecosystems. It is also about sustainable use of natural resources, and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of these resources. For example, if a European pharmaceutical company wants to make use of some medicinal properties of plants grown in Tamil Nadu, the benefits of such use, monetary or otherwise, must be equitably shared among all stakeholders, including the indigenous populations that are custodians of that specific biological resource.

Cartagena and Nagoya

— The CBD has given rise to two ‘supplementary’ agreements — the Cartagena Protocol of 2003 and the Nagoya Protocol of 2014. Both agreements take their names from the places where they were negotiated.

— The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety seeks to protect biodiversity from genetically modified organisms by ensuring their safe handling, transport and use. Genetically modified crops, for example, can interfere with natural ecosystems in ways that might not yet be fully understood. That is the reason why GM crops are cultivated on segregated farms.

— The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing deals with the commercial utilisation of biological and genetic resources, for example, by pharma companies. It asks the host countries to provide access to its genetic resources in a legal, fair and non-arbitrary manner and, as mentioned above, offers them a fair and equitable share of benefits arising out of the utilisation of those resources.

— More than the GBF that countries agreed to in Montreal earlier this week, it is these two Protocols that are comparable to the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Evaluating the deal

— Though important, this is not the first time that countries at CBD have listed out specific targets for protecting biodiversity. In fact, the latest exercise is just a replacement of similar targets that were meant to be achieved in the 2010-2020 decade.

— In 2010, at COP10 in Nagoya, Japan, countries had agreed to a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity containing 20 targets. These used to be called the Aichi targets — Aichi is the region in which Nagoya city is located. A recent report showed that none of these targets were achieved at the end of the decade.

— The GBF is to the 2020-30 decade what the Aichi targets were for the previous one. The challenge will be in their implementation.

( Sources: What is the COP15 Biodiversity Commitment, delivered at Montreal? by Amitabh Sinha; 30-by-30: Key takeaways from the COP15 biodiversity summit by Reuters)

Point to ponder: Why have countries failed to meet their biodiversity goals?

1. MCQ

Consider the following international agreements (2014) :

1. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

2. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

3. The world Heritage Convention

Which of the above has/have a bearing on biodiversity?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 3 only

(c) 1 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Ban on alcohol

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Economic and Social Development-Sustainable Development, Poverty, Inclusion, Demographics, Social Sector Initiatives, etc.

Main Examination: General Studies I- Social Issues

Why in news?

— The official death toll from the latest hooch tragedy in “dry” Bihar has mounted to 38. Critics have claimed that one of the reasons behind the tragedy is the state’s prohibition policy, with an official ban on alcohol leading to a thriving underground economy where such spurious alcohol is produced and sold.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Arjun Sengupta writes:

— India has a long history of banning alcohol, with prohibition a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution and also among the key Gandhian principles.

— Gandhi wrote, “Alcohol makes a man forget himself and while its effects last, he becomes utterly incapable of doing anything useful. Those who take to drinking, ruin themselves and ruin their people.”

How the Indian constitution views alcohol

— One of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) mentions that “in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.” While DPSPs are not in themselves legally enforceable, they set goals that the state should aspire towards to establish conditions under which citizens can lead a good life. Thus, alcohol is seen by the Constitution and by extension, the Indian state, as an undesirable evil that needs to be regulated.

— However, according to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, alcohol is a state subject, i.e. state legislatures have the right and responsibility to draft laws regarding it, including “the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors.” Thus, laws regarding alcohol differ from state to state, falling in the whole spectrum between prohibition and private sale.

Why do all states not have prohibition?

— While the Constitution sets prohibition on alcohol as a goal, for most states, it is very difficult to declare a ban on alcohol. This is primarily because liquor revenues are not easy to ignore and have consistently contributed a large share of state governments’ revenue.

— For instance, in Maharashtra, state liquor revenues amounted to Rs 11,000 crore in April 2020 (during the nationwide Covid lockdown), compared with Rs 17,000 crore in March. The state government attributed much of this drop to the closure of liquor stores, later categorising them as an essential service, in part due to the industry’s contribution to tax revenues. The day liquor stores were reopened, the Maharashtra government collected Rs 11 crore revenue from liquor sales in a single day.

What are some of the places which currently have prohibition?

— All states have some regulations with regards to alcohol consumption and sale (like age requirements or dry days). Currently, there are five states with total prohibition and some more with partial prohibition: Bihar, Gujarat, Lakshadweep, Mizoram and Nagaland.

Does prohibition work?

— There is evidence to show that by and large, prohibition creates opportunities for a thriving underground economy that distributes liquor, outside the regulatory framework of the state. This creates its own problems, from strengthening organised crime groups (or mafias) to the distribution of spurious liquor.

In the case of Bihar, The Indian Express had earlier reported that a year after prohibition was enforced, there was a spike in substance abuse.

— While the government made liquor more inaccessible, it is impossible to take it out of circulation completely.

— Furthermore, prohibition disproportionately affects poorer sections of society with upper classes still being able to procure expensive (and safe) alcohol. Even in the case of Bihar, a majority of cases registered under its prohibition laws are on the less privileged.

— However, prohibition might have some limited benefits as well. Various studies have provided evidence linking alcohol with domestic abuse or domestic violence. In India, prohibition has often been framed as a “women’s rights” issue. Nitish Kumar’s decision in Bihar was ostensibly made on these grounds. There is some evidence to suggest that prohibition has a positive impact in this case.

— A report by the Sexual Violence Research Initiative says that after prohibition was introduced in 2016, “crimes against women have clearly declined both in terms of rate (registered cases per 100,000 female population) and incidence (absolute numbers).” While other factors may also be involved, other studies have shown marginal improvement in certain kinds of crime after prohibition.

— Emily Owens, an economist at the University of California Irvine, argues that “prohibitions (in the US) were associated with lower murder rates” and lower crime overall, specifically when one looked at “alcohol and violence.” She said, “It (prohibition) affects family members, it affects kids, it affects violence that happens inside someone’s home.”

( Source: Why do some Indian states ban alcohol? What are its effects? by Arjun Sengupta)

Point to ponder: How alcohol impacts the economy?

2. MCQ:

Consider the following states:

1. Bihar

2. Gujarat

3. Lakshadweep

4. Kerala

5. Nagaland

Which of the above states have total or partial prohibition?

(a) 1, 2, 3, 4

(b) 1, 2, 3, 5

(c) 1 and 2 0nly

(d) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Taliban’s war on women

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests.

Why in news?

— Ban on women’s education is part of the Taliban push to make one half of the Afghan population socially invisible. The world has been united in condemnation, but its leverage with the Taliban is clearly limited.

— The ban makes Afghanistan the only country in the world where girls and women are denied access to education.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Nirupama Subramanian writes:

— The Taliban first slapped a ban on girls attending secondary schools — they said it was a “temporary suspension” — on September 18, 2021, a month after they took power, and two weeks after the last American and NATO troops left the country.

— In August this year, foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Qahar Balki told The Indian Express that despite the “cultural constraints, budgetary constraints, lack of resources, lack of infrastructure, lack of teachers, books”, the government was “working extremely hard to try to address this problem”. “Our policy”, Balki said, “is education for all Afghan citizens irrespective of gender”.

— He accused the international community of “weaponising” women’s education against the regime in order not to return Afghanistan’s financial assets banked in the US. He also said girls had access to secondary education in more than a dozen out of the country’s 34 provinces.

— The Taliban have also resumed the practice of public punishment, their calling card in the late 1990s. The first public execution took place on December 7 in the southwestern province of Farah — an alleged murderer was shot dead by the father of his victim. There have been several public floggings since then.

The world’s outrage

— The world has responded as one to the Taliban ban on girls’ education. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan, the three countries that recognised the 1996-2001 Taliban regime (they have not done so this time) have condemned the ban. Turkey, Qatar, and Indonesia have also questioned the ban. Some countries have said it is against Islam to deny women education.

— In her capacity as chair of the G7 foreign ministers that issued a joint statement against the Taliban decision, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock warned the Taliban’s “gender persecution may amount to a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute, to which Afghanistan is a State Party”.

— India has said it is “concerned” and reiterated its commitment to an “inclusive and representative government that respects the rights of all Afghans and ensures the equal rights of women and girls to participate in all aspects of Afghan society, including access to higher education”.

— But the Taliban appear unfazed, indicating the limits to the leverage the international community has with them, and what it can do to make them respect the human right of women to education.

— Some 15 countries, including India, China, Russia, Pakistan, the US (through Qatar), and Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbours have been engaging with the Taliban through differing levels of diplomatic presence in Kabul. But no country has granted recognition to the Taliban, making that conditional on the Kabul regime meeting preconditions that include giving girls and women equal access to education, and forming an inclusive and representative government.

Taliban’s case

— The Taliban are desperate for international recognition, but they have shown that they won’t fulfill the conditions for it, and instead hope to benefit from geopolitical rivalries and the race among regional powers for influence in Afghanistan.

— In the Security Council exactly a year ago, Russia and China successfully pushed for an exemption in the UN sanctions regime to allow humanitarian aid to flow into Afghanistan. At a Security Council briefing on Wednesday, hours before the Taliban announced their blanket ban on girls’ education, the UN Special Representative in Afghanistan Roza Otunbayeva said: “We do not see eye to eye with the Taliban on a number of issues, but the focus is, and should be, on maintaining dialogue in the hope of a better future for Afghanistan, where everyone — women, men, girls and boys — can live a life with dignity and equality”. Otunbayeva later described the ban as “devastating”.

— UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths said 20 million Afghans faced acute hunger, and millions more were directly and critically dependent on international aid. Cutting aid to Afghanistan was not an option, he said.

— Given the nature of the choice — between starving Afghans and punishing the Taliban — the limitations to what the international community can do to ensure that Afghan women do not sink into a black hole are painfully evident.

India’s shackles on itself

— New Delhi reopened its Kabul mission in June with a “technical team”. Concerns over security are the main driver of India’s engagement with the Taliban. Other than ISIS and al-Qaeda, Pakistani-origin terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are reportedly present in Afghanistan.

— At the December 20 Security Council briefing on Afghanistan, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ruchira Kamboj pointed to the presence of 60 UN-sanctioned individuals in the Taliban “cabinet” and senior positions in the regime. India is the chair of the Taliban sanctions committee, and Kamboj also pointed to continuing close links between the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

— New Delhi seems to hope that its presence in Kabul will somehow ensure that Afghan soil is not used against India. With relations between the regime and its benefactors in Rawalpindi not so warm at the moment, New Delhi believes it has an opportunity to retrieve some lost influence in Afghanistan.

— Somewhat contradictorily though, India has stopped playing to its biggest strength and the wellspring of its influence in Afghanistan: the friendship of the Afghan people.

— While the stated objective of the reopening of the diplomatic mission in Kabul was “the continuation of our engagement with the Afghan people”, the mission does no public outreach. In the past, education and refuge from the conflict were solid connectors — but over the last year, New Delhi has not responded to desperate pleas from Afghans for visas. Some 3,000 Afghans who were studying in India in 2021 and had gone home in the months before the Taliban takeover found their visas cancelled.

— Among the visa seekers are hundreds of women with no education or career prospects in their own country, more so after the latest anti-women move. New Delhi’s only engagement so far with the Afghan people has been the evacuation of the Afghan Sikh community, who were being repeatedly targeted by the ISIS.

( Source:  Why the world can’t do much to stop Taliban’s war on women by Nirupama Subramanian )

Point to ponder: Should India engage with Taliban ?

3. MCQ

Which of the countries do not share their borders with Afghanistan?

(a) Turkmenistan

(b) Iran

(c) Uzbekistan

(d) Kyrgyzstan

Amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Parliament and State legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.

Why in news?

— The Lok Sabha on Tuesday referred the Multi-State Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill 2022 to a joint committee of Parliament.

“Incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including banking, insurance and financial corporations, but not including co-operative societies,” states entry 43 of the Central List.

( Source: What are the amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act? by Harikishan Sharma)

Point to ponder: Cooperatives model a middle path, can make India self-reliant. Do you agree?

4. MCQ

With reference to Cooperatives, consider the following statements:

1. Cooperatives are a state subject under the Constitution.

2. Cooperatives of more than one state are registered under the MSCS Act.

Which of the following statements are incorrect?

(a) Only 1

(b) Only 2

(c) Neither 1 nor 2

(d) Both 1 and 2

ANSWER TO MCQs: 1 (d), 2 (b), 3 (d), 4 (c)

Share your views, answers and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com