The key environmental challenges that the country faces relate to the nexus of environmental degradation with poverty in its many dimensions, and economic growth. These challenges are intrinsically connected with the state of environmental resources, such as land, water, air and their flora and fauna.
The key environmental challenges that the country faces relate to the nexus of environmental degradation with poverty in its many dimensions, and economic growth. These challenges are intrinsically connected with the state of environmental resources, such as land, water, air and their flora and fauna. The proximate drivers of environmental degradation are population growth, inappropriate technology and consumption choices, and poverty, leading to changes in relations between people, ecosystems and development activities such as intensive agriculture, polluting industry and unplanned urbanisation.
However, these environmental challenges give rise to environmental degradation only through deeper causal linkages, in particular, institutional failures, resulting in lack of clarity or enforcement of rights of access and use of environmental resources, policies which provide disincentives for environmental conservation (and which may have origins in the fiscal regime), market failures (which may be linked to shortcomings in the regulatory regimes), and governance constraints. Environmental degradation is a major causal factor in enhancing and perpetuating poverty, particularly among the rural poor, when such degradation impacts soil fertility, quantity and quality of water, air quality, forests, wildlife and fisheries. The dependence of the rural poor, in particular, tribal societies, on their natural resources, especially biodiversity, is self-evident.
Women in particular face greater adverse impacts of degradation of natural resources, being directly responsible for their collection and use, but rarely for their management. The commitment of time and effort in the collection of these resources has a direct impact on the capacity of rural women to devote time to raising and educating children, enhancing their earning skills, or participating in gainful livelihoods.
The poor are also more vulnerable to loss of resilience in ecosystems. Large reductions in resilience may mean that the ecosystems, on which livelihoods are based, break down, causing distress. The loss of the environmental resource base can result in certain groups of people being made destitute, even if overall, the economy shows strong growth. Further, urban environmental challenges and degradation, through lack of (or inappropriate) waste treatment and sanitation, industry and transport related pollution, adversely impacts air, water, and soil quality, and differentially impacts the health of the urban poor.
This, in turn, affects their capability to seek and retain employment, attend school and enhances gender inequalities, all of which perpetuate poverty. Poverty itself can accentuate environmental degradation, given that institutional failures persist. For the poor, several environmental resources are complementary in production and consumption on other commodities (e.g. water in relation to agricultural production, fuel wood in relation to consumption of food), while a number of environmental resources are a source of income or food (e.g. fisheries, non-timber forest produce). This is frequently a source of cumulative causation, where poverty, gender inequalities, and environmental degradation mutually reinforce each other.
Poverty and environmental degradation are also reinforced by, and linked to population growth, which in turn, depends on a complex interaction of diverse causal factors and stages of development. Stabilisation of population is a necessary condition for sustainable development. Economic growth, in its turn, bears a dichotomous relationship to environmental degradation. On the one hand, growth may result in “excessive” environmental degradation through the use of natural resources and generation of pollution aggravated by institutional failures.
If impacts on the environmental resource base are neglected, an incorrect picture is obtained from conventional monetary estimates of national income. On the other hand, economic growth permits improvement in environmental quality by making available the necessary resources for environmental investments and generating societal pressures for improved environmental behaviour, and institutional and policy change. Unsustainable consumption patterns, particularly in industrialised countries also have serious adverse impacts on the environment, both local and global. The global impacts are largely manifest in developing countries and further, accentuate poverty.
It is increasingly evident that poor environmental quality has adversely affected human health. Environmental factors are estimated as being responsible in some cases for nearly 20 percent of the burden of disease in India, and a number of environment-health factors are closely linked with dimensions of poverty (e.g. malnutrition, lack of access to clean energy and water). It has been shown that interventions such as reducing indoor air pollution, protecting sources of safe drinking water, protecting soil from contamination, improved sanitation measures, and better public health governance, offer tremendous opportunities for reducing the incidence of a number of critical health problems.
It is also evident that these environmental protection measures would be difficult to accomplish without extensive awareness raising, and education, on good practices with respect to public and private behaviour. Institutional failures, referring to unclear or insufficiently enforced rights of access to and use of, environmental resources, result in environmental degradation because third parties primarily experience impacts of such degradation, without cost to the persons responsible for the damage. Such rights, both community based and individual, are critical institutions mediating the relationships between humans and the use of the environment. Traditionally, village commons water sources, grazing grounds, local forests, fisheries, etc., have been protected by local communities from overexploitation through various norms, which may include penalties for disallowed behaviour.
These norms, may, however, be degraded through the very process of development, including urbanization, and population growth resulting from sharp reduction in mortality and also through state actions which may create conditions for strengthening of individual over communitarian rights, and in doing so allow market forces to press for change that has adverse environmental implications. If such access to the community resources under weakened norms continues, the resources would be degraded, and the livelihoods of the community would suffer. Policy failures can emerge from various sources, including the use of fiscal instruments, such as explicit and implicit subsidies for the use of various resources, which provide incentives for excessive use of natural resources. Inappropriate policy can also lead to changes in commonly managed systems, with adverse environmental outcomes.
Another major set of challenges arises from emerging global environmental challenges such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and biodiversity loss. The key is to operationalize the principle of common but differentiated responsibility of countries in relation to these problems. Multilateral regimes and programmes responding to these global environmental issues must not adversely impact the development opportunities of developing countries. Further, the sharing of global natural resources must proceed only on the basis of equal sharing per-capita across all countries.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance

The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.



Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.



The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.



The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)