A recent report by the National Institute of Fiscal Policy and Research (NIFPR) released in July 2017 reveals that economically backward states like Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha spend less than half of the desired requirement for each student at the elementary level on an annual basis, when compared to more prosperous states like Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand.
The NIFPR report estimates requirements for twelve States using the set of norms defined in the RTE Act and other official documents. In the process of doing so, the report created a ‘normative’ frame of reference essential to judge financial adequacy.
There is clear evidence of substantial gaps and under-spending in per student resource requirements. “The obvious implication of these finding is the need for higher allocations with due consideration for equity aspect as the deficit is clearly concentrated in the poorer States of India”, the report reads.
The report sets out to calculate the gap between actual expenditures and ‘ideal’ expenditures on students at the elementary level to provide education for all and achieve the spirit of a right to free and compulsory education.
By calculating this gap, the report concludes that states like Bihar spend only 31 per cent of their what they ought to spend on each student per year. Similarly, Jharkhand and Odisha are spending 44 per cent of the funds they ought to divert to students. This deficit persists in most states such as Madhya Pradesh, which spends a little more than a half of its requirements at 52 per cent.
States with above average per student expenditure are Uttar Pradesh at 78 per cent and Uttarakhand at 91 per cent, yet the prize goes to Tamil Nadu which spends a whopping 108 per cent of its total requirement on students on an annual basis.
Uttar Pradesh performs better than expected, and this could be because of the relatively lower gap between actual and required expenditure due to the prevalence of children in the private unaided sector, which reduces public investment requirements. Another likely reason for the number is the higher pay scale for regular teachers in the state, which conflates the numbers.
The contour map represents the comparison between required and actual expenditure across States.
It can be seen that ‘per student actual expenditure’ lies well within the boundaries of per student requirements. The larger the distance between the red and blue lines, greater the gap. The green line shows the recurrent cost per student in Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) in the year 2015-16. At Rs 32,698 expenditure per student in 2015-16, the green line lies outside the other two lines by a large margin , except for Uttarakhand.
Several researchers, according to the report, have noted that the Sarva Shiksha Abhyaan (SSA) treats the better-off States and the backward States equally except the north-eastern or special category States, and all States are to provide equal matching shares under the scheme.
Comparing the per-student expenditure, Geetha Rani notes, “Himachal Pradesh reported the highest per student expenditure of Rs 18,509 and Bihar spent Rs 2,684 in 2010-11. The increase in per-student cost additionally on account of SSA was Rs 2,668 in Himachal Pradesh, while the amount itself was the per student cost in Bihar! The additional per student cost that Bihar could reap was Rs 1,872.
The report concludes by saying that the issue of equalisation needs immediate attention within SSA as well as in the overall framework of Centre-State finances. And careful strategic planning is needed to prioritise public expenditure on elementary education and giving due consideration to equalisation.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.