📰 Panel on MSP, natural farming set up
Samyukt Kisan Morcha says it will decide soon on the government’s offer to be part of the committee
•The Centre has finally constituted a committee headed by former Union Agriculture Secretary Sanjay Agrawal here on Monday to look into the issue of minimum support price (MSP) for agricultural produce, as promised to the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) earlier in January. The panel has three unfilled posts for representatives of the SKM, which will be filled as and when the Centre receives the recommendations from the umbrella body of farmers.
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said while announcing the decision to repeal the three farm laws that a committee would be constituted to promote zero budget-based farming, to change crop patterns keeping in mind the changing needs of the country, and to make the MSP more effective and transparent. He had said the committee would consist of representatives of the Central and State governments, farmers, agricultural scientists and agricultural economists.
•Apart from Mr. Agrawal, NITI Aayog Member (Agriculture) Ramesh Chand; agricultural economists C.S.C. Shekhar and Sukhpal Singh; award-winning farmer Bharat Bhushan Tyagi; members from farmer organisations Gunwant Patil, Krishnaveer Choudhary, Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Gumi Prakash and Sayyed Pasha Patel; IFFCO chairman Dilip Sanghani; CNRI general secretary Binod Anand; senior member of the CACP Naveen P. Singh; and agriculture experts P. Chandrashekhar, J.P. Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Bisen will be members of the panel.
•The Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Agricultural Research and Education, Food and Public Distribution, Cooperation and Textiles and the Director-General, ICAR will represent the Centre on the panel. The member-secretary of the panel will be Joint Secretary (Crops).
•SKM leader Hannan Mollah said it would take a decision on the government’s offer to be part of the committee soon. “At the moment, we are holding nationwide protests against the policies of the Centre. We do not know the brief given to this committee,” he said.
•The “subject matter of constitution” of the committee, according to a gazette notification, include suggestions to make MSP available to farmers by making the systems more effective and transparent.
📰 The five-day work week might be fading away
Instead, an old idea, a four-day work week, could become a reality, shaping the future of staff engagement
•A three-day weekend is not beyond anyone’s dream, and it may soon be a reality. The idea of a four-day week against the usual 40-hour, five-day work week has been mooted for decades. The call for fewer work hours itself is older than the Great Depression. After the reduction of working hours in the 1920s and 1930s led by Henry Ford, from more than 60 hours a week to the current 40, the notion of fewer working hours for the same productivity aided by higher technology grew prevalent. The noted English economist, John Maynard Keynes, predicted that his grandchildren would only work about 15 hours a week. Even though the prediction seems a little far-fetched right now, the direction of change seems about right as companies from all over the world toy around with the idea of fewer working hours.
Trial results show benefits
•The most recent and widespread adoption of a four-day work week was a trial run by Microsoft in Japan in 2019. The trial was conducted with a typical eight-hour work day for four days and a three-day weekend but a five-day week pay cheque. Microsoft was happy with the result as it saw a 40% increase in worker productivity, presumably due to increased job satisfaction and lower burnouts. Microsoft Japan also reported that a shorter work week led to higher efficiency in the form of lower office costs. It saw a massive 23% dip in electricity costs and a 60% fall in the number of pages printed in the office.
•Perpetual Guardian, a New Zealand trust management company, also reported a 20% increase in worker productivity after a similar trial in 2018. Most trials of a four-day work week seem to increase or at least keep constant worker productivity. Gains in productivity also depend on the kind of work. The idea of increased productivity due to a fall in working hours has been carried along since Henry Ford. However, an increase in a worker’s productivity in a manufacturing firm with a decrease in work hours would not mean a similar increase in productivity for an employee in the service sectors such as education or health.
•In a larger view, fewer working days will lead to lower commuting and hence have a positive impact on the environment, including a fall in electricity consumption in offices. Lower work hours are also being seen as an important tool to revive employment rates after the novel coronavirus pandemic. The New Deal in the United States mandated overtime pay after 40 hours a week to increase employment after the Great Depression. A similar move is argued to be a viable option to reduce unemployment prevalent in the global economies after the pandemic.
Gains for women
•A shorter work week is seen as a welcome step toward gender equality and women’s career progression. A two-day weekend was often not enough for women, especially mothers with young children, as they would not have much time for themselves after all the care work. Women often opt for smaller shifts and shorter work days for lower pay after they become mothers. A four-day work week for everyone instead could ensure pay equality among genders. A three-day weekend may also push men to take up more unpaid domestic work, which would give women more leeway. With enough work-life balance in a four-day work week, women would be able to focus more on work, hence adding to their career prospects.
Not always a virtue
•A four-day work week is not one that fits all. The service sector has challenges implementing a four-day work week, especially for small firms. For example, a hairdresser cannot cut more hair by reducing hours; so too a musician in the context of more concerts. This limited applicability is also relevant in schools and hospitals. The sales and marketing departments of firms may also face this issue as there would be less time to chase leads, build customer relations and solve issues. The Centre for Policy Studies, U.K., studied the possible cost of implementing a four-day work week for public sector employees in the United Kingdom. It would cost at least £17 billion, assuming stable productivity but an expanded workforce. Another major drawback is that employees in firms that would not decrease work hours in a four-day work week would have to work 10 hours on working days, which can lead to increased stress and decreased satisfaction. Implementation of a four-day work week can also affect employees’ holiday entitlements.
The Indian scene
•A study conducted between February 1 and March 7 across sectors in 2022 by Genius Consultants, in India, found that among 1,113 employers it surveyed, 60% preferred a four-day work week and believed that it would positively affect employee productivity and well-being. Recognising the growing trend, the Central government is set to roll out the new labour codes, which include rules for a flexible four-day work week. On the four-day work week, the new codes stipulate the requirement of a minimum of 48 hours per week; hence the employee will have to work for 12 hours on each working day. The new regulations on the flexible work week with 12 hours of daily work are not likely to increase productivity as the increased per day hours of work would work against employee motivation to increase output. It is well-known that productivity declines after a certain number of hours a day. The draft code should remember that only a reduction in the number of workdays, keeping the number of hours fixed, would contribute to improved labour productivity because better rested and more invigorated workers will be more productive. The extant code may not find many takers since it will find resistance from the workers and companies who very well know it might result in a decline in productivity — thus the total value of the output they produce.
•The conventional negative relationship between work hours and productivity is being proven right again through numerous four-day work week trials all across the world. The shorter work week has numerous advantages for employees and employers and can be crucial in increasing productivity and employee well-being, higher employer efficiency, and also increasing employment in the economy. These advantages have led to large strides in this mode of work, such as in Iceland, where 86% of employees have the right to work on a four-day work week. The concern on the applicability of four-day work is real, but examples such as Iceland show that it runs well with a few exceptions. Implementing a four-day work week without a reduction in aggregate working hours such as in India is most likely to fail in yielding the desired advantages. The draft code should not forget the Parkinson’s law that says work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion, and it should be a guiding principle in designing India’s new labour codes.
📰 The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and its stature in the modern world
What is the SCO and how does the grouping impact India? Is it set up to counter the West?
•Founded in June 2001 as the ‘Shanghai Five’, the grouping consisted of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. They came together in the post-Soviet era in 1996, in order to work on regional security and reduction of border troops.
•India acquired the observer status in the grouping in 2005 and was admitted as a full member in 2017.
•Through the years, the SCO hosts have encouraged members to use the platform to discuss differences with other members on the sidelines.
•The story so far: Iran and Belarus could soon become the newest members of the China and Russia-backed Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). “In the Samarkand summit [in September], we expect the leadership to adopt a document on the obligations Iran must fulfil to gain membership. The legal procedures of Belarus’s accession are about to start. We need to build consensus on the acceptance of Belarus,” Chinese diplomat and incumbent Secretary-General of SCO, Zhang Ming, stated last week. According to him, the suggested expansion would exhibit the collective’s rising international influence and its principles being widely accepted.
What is the SCO?
•Founded in June 2001, it was built on the ‘Shanghai Five’, the grouping which consisted of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. They came together in the post-Soviet era in 1996, in order to work on regional security, reduction of border troops and terrorism. They endowed particular focus on ‘conflict resolution’, given its early success between China and Russia, and then within the Central Asian Republics.
•Some of their prominent outcomes in this arena entail an ‘Agreement on Confidence-Building in the Military Field Along the Border Areas’ (in 1996) between China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which led to an agreement on the mutual reduction of military forces on their common borders in 1997. It would also pitch in to help the Central Asian countries resolve some of their boundary disputes.
•In 2001, the ‘Shanghai Five’ inducted Uzbekistan into its fold and named it the SCO, outlining its principles in a charter that promoted what was called the “Shanghai spirit” of cooperation. The charter, adopted in St. Petersburg in 2002, enlists its main goals as strengthening mutual trust and neighbourliness among the member states; promoting their effective cooperation in politics, trade, economy, research and technology, and culture. Its focus areas include education, energy, transport, tourism and environmental protection.
•It also calls for joint efforts to maintain and ensure peace, security and stability in the region; and the establishment of a democratic, fair and rational new international political and economic order. The precise assertion, combined with some of the member states’ profiles, of building a “new international political and economic order” has often led to it being placed as a counter to treaties and groupings of the West, particularly North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
•The grouping comprises eight member states — India, Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The SCO also has four observer states — Afghanistan, Iran, Belarus and Mongolia — of which Iran and Belarus are now moving towards full membership.
How is this relevant to India?
•India acquired the observer status in the grouping in 2005 and was admitted as a full member in 2017. Through the years, the SCO hosts have encouraged members to use the platform to discuss differences with other members on the sidelines. It was on such an occasion that Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a bilateral meeting with former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 2015 in Ufa, and Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar negotiated a five-point agreement with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi on the sidelines of the Moscow conference in 2020.
•India is also a part of the ‘Quadrilateral’ grouping with the U.S., Japan and Australia. Its association with the grouping of a rather different nature is part of its foreign policy that emphasises on principles of “strategic autonomy and multi-alignment”.
What is the organisational structure?
•The SCO secretariat has two permanent bodies — the SCO Secretariat based in Beijing and the Executive Committee of the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) based in Tashkent. Other than this, the grouping consists of the Heads of State Council (HSC), the Heads of Government Council (HGC) and the Foreign Ministers Council.
•The HSC is the supreme decision-making body of the organisation. It meets annually to adopt decisions and guidelines on all important matters relevant to the organisation. The HGC (mainly including Prime Ministers) also meets annually to zero in on the organisation’s priority areas and multilateral cooperation strategy. It also endeavours to resolve present economic and cooperation issues alongside approving the organisation’s annual budget. The Foreign Ministers Council considers issues pertaining to the day-to-day activities of the organisation, charting HSC meetings and consultations on international problems within the organisation and if required, makes statements on behalf of the SCO.
Is it about countering the West?
•The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) noted in 2015 that decades of rapid economic growth had propelled China onto the world’s stage, whereas Russia found itself beset with economic turmoil following the Crimean annexation in 2014 and ejection from the G8 grouping.
•Most recently, Russia’s action in Ukraine caused it to be subjected to sanctions on multiple fronts by the West. China, in what could be referred to as ‘distance diplomacy’, had held that security of one country should not be at the expense of another country — blaming the West (specifically referring to NATO) for the entire episode. Thus, the organisation spearheaded by both Russia and China does not find its supporters in the West. Moreover, on the proposed induction of Iran, journalist and commentator Nazila Fathi, writing for the Middle East Institute, stated in September 2021 that the country might not see much short-term benefit, however, it would signal closer ties with both China and Russia.
•The Iranian leadership has often stressed that the country must “look to the East”. This is essential not only to resist its economic isolation (by addressing the banking and trade problems on account of U.S. sanctions) from the West, but also find strategic allies that would help it to reach a new agreement on the nuclear program. In other words, using its ties with China and Russia as a leverage against the West. Additionally, it would help it strengthen its involvement in Asia.
•The same premise applies for Belarus, which lent its support to Russia for its actions in Ukraine. An association with the SCO bodes well for its diplomacy and regional stature.
📰 India’s climate imperative
For public pressure to drive climate action, we need to consider climate catastrophes as largely man-made
•In the absence of COVID-19, climate change-induced disasters would have been India’s biggest red alert in recent years. The heatwave that scorched Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and New Delhi this year; torrential downpours in south India in 2021; and the super cyclone Amphan that battered West Bengal and Odisha in 2020 are symbols of man-made climate change. But India, like elsewhere, still attributes these catastrophes to the wrath of mother nature rather than anthropogenic global warming.
•Temperatures over the Indian Ocean have risen by over 1°C since the 1950s, increasing extreme weather events. India is the fourth worst-hit in climate migration. Heat waves in India have claimed an estimated 17,000 lives since the 1970s. Labour losses from rising heat, by one estimate, could reach ₹1.6 lakh crore annually if global warming exceeds 2°C, with India among the hardest hit. India needs a two-part approach: one, to adapt to climate impacts by building resilience against weather extremes, and two, to mitigate environmental destruction to prevent climate change from becoming more lethal.
Climate resilience
•Extreme heat waves hit swathes of India. Heatwaves are aggravated by deforestation and land degradation, which also exacerbate fires. Agriculture, being water-intensive, does not do well in heat wave-prone areas. A solution is to promote agricultural practices which are not water-intensive and to support afforestation that has a salutary effect on warming. Financial transfers can be targeted to help farmers plant trees and buy equipment — for example, for drip irrigation that reduces heavy water usage. Insurance schemes can transfer some of the risks of extreme heat faced by industrial, construction and agricultural workers to insurers.
•Climate-resilient agriculture calls for diversification — for example, the cultivation of multiple crops on the same farm. There will need to be more localised food production. Weather-based crop insurance would help.
•Floods and storms are worsened by vast sea ingress and coastline erosion in the low-lying areas in the south. Southern States need stronger guidelines to avoid construction in locations with drainages. It is vital to map flood-risk zones to manage vulnerable regions. Environment Impact Assessments must be mandatory for commercial projects.
•Kerala has some flood-resistant houses constructed on pillars. Communities can build round-shaped houses, considering optimum aerodynamic orientation to reduce the strength of the winds. Roofs with multiple slopes can stand well in strong winds, and central shafts reduce wind pressure on the roof by sucking in air from outside.
Arresting runaway climate change
•Adaptation alone will not slow climate damages if the warming of the sea level temperatures is not confronted. Leading emitters, including India, must move away from fossil fuels. But climate mitigation everywhere is painfully slow, because of a lack of political will. India has made slow progress in choosing 2070 as its target for net zero emissions.
•Meanwhile, a big part of climate action lies in protecting and expanding forest coverage. Regulation needs to be tightened and enforced to ensure forest protection while acquiring land. India gains from being part of the Glasgow declaration on forest protection that 141 countries signed in 2021.
•Management of dams can exacerbate glacier lake outbursts and floods. Nearly 295 dams in India are more than 100 years old and need repairs. In stemming landslides in Uttarakhand, regulations must stop the building of dams on steep slopes and eco-fragile areas, as well as the dynamiting of hills, sand mining, and quarrying. Dams in the southern States can moderate floods, but only if operated year-round to anticipate the need to control flows during floods.
•India’s share in disaster management should be raised to 2.5% of GDP. Climate finance is most suited for large-scale global funding from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank. But smaller-scale financing can also be vital: the World Food Programme’s funding for Nepal and Bhutan for community-based adaptation and agricultural resilience for vulnerable communities provides an interesting model.
•States can tap into the Union government’s resources, financial and technological, from early warning meteorological systems to centrally sponsored climate schemes. MGNREGA funds can be used for climate adaptation in agriculture, waste management and livelihoods. States could make compensatory payment to local self-government resources being used for climate adaptation. For public pressure to drive climate action, we need to consider climate catastrophes as largely man-made.
A new idea of ‘inter-generational justice’ is gaining traction as a better way of producing a more equitable global order
•After the horrific destruction in the 20th century in two World Wars — the second ending with a wanton display of scientific progress and the destruction of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki — the victors of the wars vowed “never again”. A new breed of global institutions was created to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rebuild shattered economies, and maintain global peace. These were the United Nations headquartered in New York and the Bretton Woods institutions — the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — in Washington. Power in these institutions was retained by the victors: in the UN in the five-member Security Council, and in the World Bank and the IMF by the United States and Europe who appoint their own at the top. The UN General Assembly is theoretically democratic. But the real power, of guns and money, is controlled by the Security Council and Washington institutions. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is back in the picture to keep the centre of gravity of global power in the West.
A fresh concept
•The power struggle has heated up in and around Ukraine, camouflaged as an ideological war between democracies and dictators. All countries are expected to declare whose side they are on. Institutions of global governance which were supposed to guarantee peace have failed. Clearly, new ideas for global governance are required. A new concept of “inter-generational justice” is gaining traction as a better way of producing a more equitable global order and, hopefully, arresting mankind’s breakneck destruction of the planet despite — or because of? — great advances in technologies.
•The answer to the rhetorical question — what sort of world we want to leave for our grandchildren — is to ask them what sort of world they want to live in. Older generations listening to younger generations, rather than younger people following their elders, may be a radical civilisational shift. However, elders listening to youth will not be enough. Youth must also be given charge of producing the world they want to live in. They cannot leave solutions to the older generation whose ways of working have caused these global problems. The problem is that if youth apply the same old ways which are being taught in universities and also learned where they work, they will make global problems worse.
Time is running out
•The modern approach to progress, disseminated widely through “STEM” (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education, is to extract resources from the planet to create new products for human benefit. And then to find new technological approaches to repair the damage caused to the planet by those technologies. Thus, scientific technology goes round in circles. On each round, owners of technologies become wealthier. The people suffering the harm from a relentless growth of economies are advised to be patient until the size of the pie produced is large enough to share with them. Time is running out. The climate is heating up. Inequalities are growing. People are losing their patience. New ways must be found to solve complex global problems.
A new theory of change
•The prevalent scientific theory of change is both “outside in” and “top down”. Scientific experts try to be “objective” about the systems they study by placing their minds outside the systems. From their supposedly objective perches, they try to map the systems’ shapes detachedly. Like engineers, they look for levers within systems they can pull to improve efficiency and increase outputs. However, this way cannot work in socio-ecological systems. Because, in them, unlike in machines designed by engineers, social scientists and economists are situated within the systems they wish to observe objectively. Unlike ‘scientific’ design thinkers who try to design systems ‘objectively’, natural systems thinkers learn to live with and within the systems that give them life. They do not feel the need for rockets to take them to other planets after they have spoiled this one.
•The global approach to governance is “outside in” and also “top down”. Many disciplines must be brought together to understand the social, economic, and physical facets of complex issues such as climate change. Moreover, stakeholders with conflicting needs must be aligned. Therefore, central coordination seems essential for large-scale change. This is the standard model of a hierarchical organisation, which is applied in the corporate sector, in national governments, and in international development organisations too.
•The problem is this is the wrong approach for solving complex global problems. Because experts, remote from the diverse ways in which these complex problems manifest themselves on the ground, are not equipped to find effective solutions for large-scale outcomes. Since standard, “one size”, solutions cannot fit all, not only do their solutions not work well but trust also breaks down between the leaders on top of large international organisations (and the experts who advise them) and people on the ground. This is a principal cause of the rise of populism and revolts against “the Establishment” of ideas and institutions governing the world.
•A new configuration, the G7, was formed in the 1970s when the Bretton Woods institutions seemed unable to prevent the global economic crisis caused by large “oil shocks”. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, and Italy formed the G6. Canada and later the European Union, joined later. Russia was invited later (G8) when the Soviet Union collapsed and was swiftly removed in the Crimean war (2014). China, now the second largest economy in the world, was never included. The G7 was expanded to the G20 in the 1990s, when China, Russia, India, Indonesia, and other large economies were added. And now the G20 is being cracked up because the G7 wants to throw Russia out. India will be the chair of the G20 this year and must try to keep the group together.
•Power must shift between generations to create a more equitable global order. Less than 10% of the world’s citizens, and less than 6% of the world’s children below 10 years, are in the G7. Power must shift within economies from older persons to youth. Globally, it must shift from the older, so-called ‘advanced’ countries to younger ‘emerging’ economies. The G7 and the Security Council must invite the rest to find new solutions for global problems.
Recycle this wisdom
•Inter-generational dialogue is imperative. Though all countries are aging, older persons in economies are not burdens to be cast aside. Already the numbers of older persons in the world exceed the numbers of children below five years, and will soon exceed the numbers below 10. Older persons are humanity’s fastest growing yet least used resource. While power must shift towards younger generations and emerging economies, all generations and countries must work together. All are stages in a larger process of evolution. All must listen to others’ aspirations and must understand others’ wisdom. Emerging economies must not be arrogantly considered, in the colonial legacy, as a ‘white man’s burden’ to be improved by a more advanced West. Many native communities have not yet lost their wisdom of living within natural systems and living as families and communities. Such wisdom on the ground needs to be cycled to the top to save the world for everyone.
•The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals list 17 complex global problems. They appear in different forms everywhere in the world. Centrally managed organisations cannot solve such problems. Local systems solutions, cooperatively implemented within their communities by old and young persons together, are the way to solve these global systemic problems.
