TheComptroller and Auditor General (CAG) submitted a reporton the ‘Performance of Agriculture Crop Insurance Schemes’ onJuly21, 2017.The reportexamines the performances of crop insurance schemes in nine states, between the period 2011-12 and 2015-16.

These schemes include the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme(NAIS), the Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme(MNAIS), andthe Weather Based Crop Insurance Programme(WBCIP).

Crop insurance schemes aim to provide insurance cover to farmers against yield losses. The Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare is responsible for implementing the schemes. The Agriculture Insurance Company of India (AIC) and private insurance companies are the implementing agencies of the schemes. Key findings and recommendations of the auditreport include:

Coverage of farmers: The CAG noted that the number of farmers covered under the scheme was low when compared to the population of farmers as per Census 2011. Share of farmers covered under all schemes ranged between 8% to 22% of the total farmers, between Kharifand Rabicrop from 2011 to 2016. The CAG noted that under NAIS, which provides subsidy for small and marginal farmers, coverage ranged between 2% to 13%.The CAG recommended that effective measures need to be taken by the Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare to ensure coverage of a larger number of farmers, including both with and without loans.

Data on beneficiary farmers: The CAG noted that data on beneficiary farmers was not maintained by the AIC, and the central and state governments. Further, schemes like MNAIS and WBCIS, do not require the central and state government to maintain databases of insured farmers. The CAG recommended that the central and state governments should maintain databases of beneficiary farmers for monitoring and implementation purposes.

Delays in processes: The CAG noted that while the Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare released their share of funds on time, delays in were observed in release of share from state governments. Further, CAG observed delays in: (i) the issue of notificationsof crops and area coveredand receipt of yield data by the states, (ii) processing of claims by the implementing agencies and (iii) receipt of declarationand disbursements of claims from banks. The CAG recommended that effective measures needto be taken by the Department to ensure that timelines are met by state governments, implementing agencies and banks.

Verification of claims by private insurance companies:The CAG noted that the AIC failed to verify the claims submitted by the private insurance companies before releasing funds under the MNAIS and the WBCIS. The guidelines released by the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare specify that funds can be released to private insurance companieson submission of: (i) statistics of claims covered with a certificate from the respective state government, and (ii) a random verification of scheme coverage.

The CAG recommended that the Department should ensure that payments to private insurance companies are made only after verification of claims.Noting that private insurance companies receive large amount of funds under these schemes, the CAG also recommended that there needs to be a provision for audit of such companies by the CAG.

Savings under NAIS: Savings under NAIS may arise due to difference between premium collected and claims payable by the AIC. The CAGnoted that theguidelines of NAIS donotaddress utilisation of such savings under the scheme. Savings of Rs2,519 crore (18% of the premium collected) were retained by the AIC, between 1999-2000 Rabi crop season and 2015-16 Rabi crop season.

In this context, the CAGrecommended that themanner in which such savingswill be dealt with, should be taken up by theDepartment of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare, Ministry of Finance and the AIC.▪Monitoringof the schemes:The CAG noted that the monitoring of schemes by the implementing agencies and the central and state governments, was poor.

The CAG observed that a technical support unit to monitor the scheme was not set up. Further, periodic appraisal reports of the schemes were not prepared by the Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare. The CAGrecommended that the central and state governments need to ensure that the schemes are monitored at all level

The workshop aims to i) identify good practices of disaster risk management in key infrastructure sectors, ii) identify specific areas and pathways for collaborative research on DRI (Transport, Energy, Telecom and Water), iii) discuss and co-create the broad contours of the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) as well as a notional roll-out plan for the next three years, and iv) build a forum for members to work on areas of common interest and make specific commitments.

About UNISDR: The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), created in December 1999, is the successor to the secretariat of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. It was established to ensure the implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

It is part of the United Nations Secretariat and its functions span the social, economic, environmental as well as humanitarian fields. Functions: UNISDR supports the implementation, follow-up and review of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction adopted by the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction on 18 March 2015 in Sendai, Japan.

UNISDR’s vision is anchored on the four priorities for action set out in the Sendai Framework: Understanding disaster risk. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.

About Sendai Framework: The “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030” was adopted during the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, Japan in March, 2015.

Key features of the Sendai framework: It is the first major agreement of the post-2015 development agenda, with seven targets and four priorities for action. It was endorsed by the UN General Assembly following the 2015 Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR).

The Framework is for 15-year. It is a voluntary and non-binding agreement which recognizes that the State has the primary role to reduce disaster risk but that responsibility should be shared with other stakeholders including local government, the private sector and other stakeholders.

The new Framework is the successor instrument to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters.

About KUSUM scheme: What is it? It is a ₹1.4 lakh-crore scheme for promoting decentralised solar power production of up to 28,250 MW to help farmers. Benefits: It would provide extra income to farmers, by giving them an option to sell additional power to the grid through solar power projects set up on their barren lands. It would help in de-dieselising the sector as also the DISCOMS.

Components of the scheme: The components of the scheme include building 10,000 MW solar plants on barren lands and providing sops to DISCOMS to purchase the electricity produced, ‘solarising’ existing pumps of 7250 MW as well as government tube wells with a capacity of 8250 MW and distributing 17.5 lakh solar pumps. The 60% subsidy on the solar pumps provided to farmers will be shared between the Centre and the States while 30% would be provided through bank loans. The balance cost has to be borne by the farmers.

Significance of the scheme: Expected positive outcomes of the scheme include promotion of decentralised solar power production, reduction of transmission losses as well as providing support to the financial health of DISCOMs by reducing the subsidy burden to the agriculture sector. The scheme would also promote energy efficiency and water conservation and provide water security to farmers.

The proposed scheme provides for: Setting up of grid-connected renewable power plants each of 500KW to 2 MW in the rural area. Installation of standalone off-grid solar water pumps to fulfil irrigation needs of farmers not connected to grid. Solarization of existing grid-connected agriculture pumps to make farmers independent of grid supply and also sell surplus solar power generated to Discom and get extra income.

Highlights of the Lokpal Act of 2013: The Act allows setting up of anti-corruption ombudsman called Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayukta at the State-level. Composition: The Lokpal will consist of a chairperson and a maximum of eight members. Applicability: The Lokpal will cover all categories of public servants, including the Prime Minister. But the armed forces do not come under the ambit of Lokpal.

The Act also incorporates provisions for attachment and confiscation of property acquired by corrupt means, even while the prosecution is pending. The States will have to institute Lokayukta within one year of the commencement of the Act. The Act also ensures that public servants who act as whistleblowers are protected.

Who can become the Chairperson? The person who is to be appointed as the chairperson of the Lokpal should be either of the following: Either the former Chief Justice of India Or the former Judge of Supreme Court Or an eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and expertise of minimum 25 years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and management.

Who can become a member? Out of the maximum eight members, half will be judicial members. Minimum fifty per cent of the Members will be from SC / ST / OBC / Minorities and women. The judicial member of the Lokpal should be either a former Judge of the Supreme Court or a former Chief Justice of a High Court. The non-judicial member should be an eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and expertise of minimum 25 years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and management.

Who cannot become the chairperson? The following persons cannot become chairperson of Lokpal: MPs and MLAs Persons convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude Less than 45 years of age, Members of Panchayats or Municipality, A person who was removed or dismissed from the public service, A person who holds any office of trust / profit; if so, he would need to resign from Lokpal. A person who is affiliated to a political party Carries on some business / profession; if so, he would need to quit some business.

Term of Office: The term of office for Lokpal Chairman and Members is 5 years or till attaining age of 70 years. The salary, allowances and other conditions of service of chairperson are equivalent to Chief Justice of India and members is equivalent to Judge of Supreme Court. If the person is already getting the pension (for being a former judge), the equivalent pension amount will be deducted from the salary.

The source of salary for Lokpal and Members is Consolidated Fund of India. If the chairperson dies in office or has resigned from the post, President can authorise the senior-most Member to act as the Chairperson until new chairperson is appointed. If chairperson is not available for certain functions due to leave, his job will be done by senior most member.

Powers: The Lokpal will have the power of superintendence and direction over any investigation agency including CBI for cases referred to them by the ombudsman.

As per the Act, the Lokpal can summon or question any public servant if there exists a prima facie case against the person, even before an investigation agency (such as vigilance or CBI) has begun the probe. Any officer of the CBI investigating a case referred to it by the Lokpal, shall not be transferred without the approval of the Lokpal.

An investigation must be completed within six months. However, the Lokpal or Lokayukta may allow extensions of six months at a time provided the reasons for the need of such extensions are given in writing. Special courts will be instituted to conduct trials on cases referred by Lokpal.

Ambit of the Lokpal: For a wide range of public servants from the PM, ministers and MPs, to groups A, B, C and D employees of the central government various rules are in place. If a complaint is filed against the PM, the Act says, “Lokpal shall inquire or cause an inquiry to be conducted into any matter involved in, or arising from, or connected with, any allegation of corruption made in a complaint”.

However, certain conditions will apply. The Act does not allow a Lokpal inquiry if the allegation against the PM relates to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space. Also, complaints against the PM are not to be probed unless the full Lokpal bench considers the initiation of an inquiry and at least two-thirds of the members approve it.

Such an inquiry against the Prime Minister (if conducted) is to be held in camera and if the Lokpal comes to the conclusion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed, the records of the inquiry are not to be published or made available to anyone.

Lokpal itself is also subjected to the Law: The Act also includes the Lokpal’s own members under the definition of “public servant”. The Chairperson, Members, officers and other employees of the Lokpal shall be deemed, when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act to be public servants. It shall apply to public servants in and outside India. It clarifies that a complaint under this Act shall only relate to a period during which the public servant was holding or serving in that capacity.

Other outcomes of RATS council meeting: Chaired by Russia, the meeting also declared plans to hold the first stage of the joint border operation “Solidarity 2019-2021,” the 7th meeting of the heads of the border services, and training workshops on identifying and preventing the use of the Internet for terrorist, separatist and extremist purposes.

What is RATS? RATS, established in 2004, is a permanent organ of the SCO which serves to promote cooperation of member states against the three evils of terrorism, separatism and extremism. It is headquartered in Tashkent.

About SCO: What is it? The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, also known as the Shanghai Pact, is a Eurasian political, economic, and military organisation which was founded in 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Apart from Uzbekistan, the other five countries have been a part of the Shanghai 5 since 1996. The cooperation was renamed to Shanghai Cooperation Organisation after Uzbekistan joined the organisation in 2001.

New members: India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members in June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan. The SCO’s main goals are: strengthening mutual trust and neighbourliness among the member states; promoting their effective cooperation in politics, trade, the economy, research, technology and culture, as well as in education, energy, transport, tourism, environmental protection, and other areas; making joint efforts to maintain and ensure peace, security and stability in the region; and moving towards the establishment of a democratic, fair and rational new international political and economic order.

Background: SC has criticised the Uttarakhand High Court for framing a scheme to regularize hundreds of casual workers engaged by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in the construction of roads for Char Dham Yatra pilgrimage.

Important observations made by SC: It is not the function of the courts to frame any scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the government to do it. All that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct the government to consider framing an appropriate scheme.

Such directions to the government to consider framing a scheme should be with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. It is only in exceptional cases when the court considers it proper, should it issue appropriate mandatory directions, the Supreme Court held.

Need of the hour: The line between Judicial activism and Judicial Overreach is very narrow. In simple terms, when Judicial activism crosses its limits and becomes Judicial adventurism it is known as Judicial Overreach. When the judiciary oversteps the powers given to it, it may interfere with the proper functioning of the legislative or executive organs of government. Judicial Overreach destroys the spirit of separation of powers.

Hayabusa: In mid-September 2005, Hayabusa landed on the asteroid Itokawa, and managed to collect samples in the form of grains of asteroidal material. It returned to Earth with the samples in June 2010, thereby becoming the first spacecraft to return asteroid samples to Earth for analysis.

Hayabusa2: It is an asteroid sample-return mission operated by the Japanese space agency, JAXA. It was launched on 3 December 2014 and rendezvoused with near-Earth asteroid 162173 Ryugu on 27 June 2018.

It is in the process of surveying the asteroid for a year and a half, departing in December 2019, and returning to Earth in December 2020. Hayabusa2 carries multiple science payloads for remote sensing, sampling, and four small rovers that will investigate the asteroid surface to inform the environmental and geological context of the samples collected.

The scientific objectives of Hayabusa2 mission are twofold: To characterize the asteroid from remote sensing observations (with multispectral cameras, near-infrared spectrometer, thermal infrared imager, laser altimeter) on a macroscopic scale To analyse the samples returned from the asteroid on a microscopic scale.

What is the significance of the mission? Ryugu is a C-type asteroid – a relic from the early days of the Solar System. Scientists think that C-type asteroids contain both organic matter, and trapped water, and might have been responsible for bringing both to Earth, thereby providing the planet with the materials necessary for life to originate.

Context: The inaugural Africa-India Field Training Exercise-2019 for India and African nations called AFINDEX-19 is being held at Aundh Military Station, Pune.

The aim of the exercise is to practice the participating nations in planning and conduct of Humanitarian Mine Assistance and Peace Keeping Operations under Chapter VII of United Nations Peace Keeping Operations.

Context: Fishing and coral reef degradation threaten parrotfish in Andaman. New study says presence of a protected area, live coral and algal cover, significantly influences distribution and abundance of the specie.

Bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum), is an important component of coral reef ecosystem, but is highly endangered globally. It is categorized as ‘vulnerable’ in the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Threats: This fish is a highly prized resource, but is threatened due to limited knowledge about its distribution and abundance in Indian waters.

Need of the hour: Ban night fishing for the species and implement regulations regarding reef fishing. Considering the vulnerable status of Bumphead parrotfish globally, the species could be a flagship for educational campaigns focusing on the importance of conserving similar fish groups and protecting the coral reefs.

Context: SC found Khushwinder Singh guilty and befitting of the death sentence (Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab). The last time the death penalty was upheld by the Supreme Court was in July 2018 in the Delhi gang rape case. Since then, the court has acquitted 10 death row prisoners and reduced the sentence to life imprisonment of 23 others.

What’s the issue? The judgment highlights the processes that cause cases to slip through the cracks of the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine, which mandates a consideration of both the crime and the criminal. The judgment exemplifies the varied standards of legal representation that impacts the imposition of the death penalty.

Things to be considered while awarding death sentence: Factors such as good conduct in custody, education, age, social, emotional and mental condition of the offender, and the possibility of reform need to be highlighted as relevant considerations in the sentencing scheme. Besides, other things such as grounds relating to the criminal such as his conduct in prison, his socio-economic and educational backgrounds, or the probability of reformation may be considered.

The need to abolish Death Penalty: It unfairly targets poor and marginalised, that means, those without money & power. Executions occurred in around five cases for every 1 lakh murders and it looks quite arbitrary. It depends on judges personal beliefs. India’s murder rate has declined continuously since 1991 and at present the lowest, except for 1963. Punishment should not imitate crime.

As per the recent Death Penalty India Report by the National Law University, Delhi, the structural flaws in our criminal procedure and criminal justice system are most pronounced in death penalty cases. Most of the civilised world abolished it. Death penalty has not deterred terrorism, murder or even theft.

From 2000-2015, Supreme Court imposed 60 death sentences and subsequently admitted that it had erred in 15 of them. So, it clearly admitted that it has arbitrarily imposed the most extreme punishment. The Police is not known for its probity or efficiency in our Country. Delays in the Criminal Justice System disproportionately affects those, who suffer the tyranny of the uncertainty of their life.

Need for review: The inconsistent and arbitrary application of the death penalty remains a matter of great concern to the judiciary. The irreversibility of the death penalty has fundamentally affected the jurisprudence around it. It is commonly accepted that a judge in adversarial proceedings cannot go on a ‘truth searching exploration’ beyond what is presented. Yet, death penalty jurisprudence is rife with examples where duty has been placed upon the courts to elicit information relating to the question of sentence, even if none is adduced before it.

Way ahead: Gradual abolition of the death penalty requires serious introspection from the court and the body politic. Our institutions may persist with attempts to ‘tinker with the machinery of death’ until there is a collective realisation that the death penalty is untenable in a fair criminal justice system. Till such time, the setting of established benchmarks for practice, and a system of oversight are necessary to ensure that the quality of legal representation does not become the difference between a sentence of life and death.