A‘Centre for Disability Sports’ will be set up at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. The proposal regarding setting up of it has been approved by the Government. It will be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is to function under the name of Centre for Disability Sports, Gwalior.Improved sports infrastructure created by this Centre will ensure effective participation of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in sports activities and also enable them to compete at national and international levels. Setting up of the Centre will develop a sense of belonging in Divyangjan to facilitate their integration in society.
Taking 1st April, 2019 as the zero date, the project is expected to be completed in two yeartime, i.e, by 31st March, 2021. Thereafter, it will take another 6 months for the Centre to become operational.Once operational, this Centre will result in employment of 140 personnel. In addition, construction and allied activities will also generate considerable employment opportunities.Setting up of the Centre shall entail an estimated cost of Rs 170.99 crore (Non-recurring Rs.151.16 crore and Recurring Rs 19.83 crore),spread over a period of 5 years.
The Centre will have an Outdoor Athletic Stadium, Indoor Sports Complex, Basement Parking Facility; Aquatic Centre having 2 Swimming Pools, one covered Pool and an Outdoor Pool; High Performance Centre with classrooms; medical facilities; Sports Science Centre; hostel facilities for athletes, support facilities including accessible lockers, dining, recreational amenities and Administrative Block. The facilities so developed would be multi-functional centres with provision for training, selection, sports academics and research, medical support, spectator galleries and suitable for holding national/international events.
As part of the ongoing India Bangladesh defence cooperation, a joint military exercise Sampriti-2019 is being conducted at Tangail, Bangladesh from 02 March to 15 March 2019. The eighth edition of Exercise Sampriti, commenced at the Bongobondhu Cantonment, Tangail Bangladesh with an impressive opening ceremony on 03 March 2019. The participating contingents marched in and stood side by side and gave a ceremonial salute to the national flags of both the countries to the strains of “Jana Gana Mana” and the “Amar Shonar Bangla”.
The Bangladesh contingent was represented by 36 East Bengal Battalion, while Indian side was represented by 9th Battalion the Rajputana Rifles. Major General Mizanur Rahman Shamim, General Officer Commanding, 19 Infantry Division, Bangladesh Army welcomed the Indian contingent and in his inaugural remarks highlighted the common shared beliefs of democracy, freedom, equality and justice that are precious to both the nations.
The aim of the exercise is to increase mutual cooperation, bonhomie and camaraderie between the two armies through interoperability and joint tactical exercises. A company group from Bangladesh Army and an equal number from Indian Army are taking part in the two-week long exercise that will see them hone their tactical and technical skills in countering insurgency, counter terrorism and aid to civil authorities for disaster management in an UN peace keeping scenario involving a combined deployment at a battalion level.
In this eighth edition of the exercise which started way back in 2009 as a platoon level exercise and graduated to company level exercise in 2015 onwards, both sides will jointly train, plan and execute a series of well developed tactical drills for neutralisation of likely threats that may be encountered during simulated UN peace keeping operations. The experts from both the sides will also hold discussions to share each other’s experiences in varied topics for mutual benefits.
The Standing Committee on Finance (Chairperson: Dr. M. Veerappa Moily) submitted its report on ‘Central Assistance for Disaster Management and Relief’ on February 13, 2019. Under the Disaster Management Act 2005, financial assistance is provided to disaster-affected states from the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF). Where assistance from SDRF is insufficient, additional assistance from the NDRF is provided in case of calamities of severe nature. Key observations and recommendations made by the Committee include the following:
Scale of relief: Some disaster-prone states such as Odisha submitted to the Committee that major items of relief expenditure are not covered under existing SDRF and NDRF norms. Therefore, the Committee recommended that rates and scale of assistance under SDRF and NDRF should be enhanced to cover major heads of expenditure. This includes restoration of all government educational institutions, non-residential government buildings, and transmission power sub-stations. The Committee also recommended that funds for relief should be based on vulnerability of the state rather than past expenditure on the state.
Disaster Mitigation Fund: The Committee recommended that a separate Disaster Mitigation Fund should be operationalised for undertaking permanent mitigation measures in disaster-prone states. It stated that any investment on mitigation and prevention of disaster risk will go a long way in significantly reducing expenditure on relief and disaster response. Further, the Committee recommended that comprehensive insurance coverage should be provided to all properties located in disaster-prone areas.
National Calamity Contingency Duty: The NDRF is funded through the National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) imposed on specified goods under central excise and customs. The Committee noted that with the introduction of GST, the scope of NCCD is shrinking. The revenue collected from NCCD has decreased significantly from Rs 5,690 crore in 2015-16 to Rs 2,500 crore in 2018-19. The Committee stated that the GST Council and Ministry of Finance should take a view on augmenting this fund.
Funding mechanism: The Committee made various recommendations related to the funding mechanism for disaster relief. It recommended that an additional 10% of the allocation of the centrally sponsored schemes may be specially earmarked for permanent restoration of damaged structures. Further, in order to bring greater flexibility to the funding mechanism, the Committee recommended that borrowing powers of affected states may be enhanced in the event of a disaster.
The Committee noted that 10% of the annual fund allocation of the SDRF may be used for localized state-specific natural calamities. It recommended that this 10% limit should be done away with and all expenditure towards state-specific disasters should be charged to the SDRF. The Committee recommended a 10% increase to the corpus of the SDRF to accommodate this expenditure.
Given the wide gap between the funds sought by affected states and those released by the central government, the Committee recommended an annual increase of 15% (from the current 5%) in the total corpus of SDRF, for the period 2020-25. Further, it recommended that there should be a provision for automatic release of advance amounts from the NDRF in case of disasters of rare severity, to enable immediate relief work.
In view of the recommendations made on modifying financial arrangements, the Committee recommended that the Ministries of Finance and Home Affairs submit a revised memorandum to the 15th Finance Commission. It further suggested that suitable changes be made to the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in case required.
The Standing Committee on Labour (Chair: Mr. Kirit Somaiya) submitted its report on ‘Guidelines, Monitoring, Rating and Regulatory System, Status of Investment in Bonds and such Instruments - [Example of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS) by PF Funds, Pension Funds]’ on February 13, 2019. Key observations and recommendations of the Committee include:
The Committee noted that the main principle of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) is to cultivate a spirit of regular savings. It noted that the inherent principle of EPF is social security for the vulnerable working class of society. As its basic objective is social security rather than returns on investments, the Committee noted that ideally the amounts should not be deployed in risky investments. The Committee observed that the EPF Organisation (EPFO) is the custodian of the EPF and is required to ensure viable investment of the monies deposited in the fund to ensure a balance between safety and security of this fund and returns on investment.
Monitoring Mechanism: The Committee stressed on the need to ensure that the employees’ PF contributions in the EPF are insulated from any bad investments. Towards this, the Committee recommended strengthening the monitoring mechanisms by exercising tighter control over their designated portfolio managers and ensuring impartial external concurrent audit of the investments. It further observed that as per EPF Scheme, any losses on investment are made good from the reserves. However, the Committee were of the view that the need to delve into the reserves would not arise if a stringent monitoring mechanism for making and reviewing the investments are in place. The Committee wished to be apprised of the progress achieved by the Ministry in this regard.
Credit Rating Agencies: The Committee noted that the EPFO makes investments as per the pattern of investment notified by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. As per the current pattern, investments in corporate bonds is limited to ‘AA’ in case of PSU bonds and ‘AA+’ bonds in case of private sector bonds. These bonds are rated by Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs). CRAs are registered with and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Further, the CRAs are accredited by RBI as ‘External Credit Assessment Institutions’ for rating banks loans.
The Committee examined the process adopted by Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) for determining the credit rating of any financial institution. The Committee was of the view that CRAs are not discharging their functions adequately and in a transparent manner. It attributed this to a weak monitoring mechanism by the Ministry of Finance, SEBI, and RBI. The Committee emphasised the need for a healthy monitoring mechanism, rating mechanism and a forewarning system in case of falling credit rating. It further stressed that the Ministry of Labour & Employment voice the concern of the Committee with the Ministry of Finance and other concerned agencies to ensure that credit rating issued by CRAs are transparent. This will ensure that the provident fund of the employee is secure whilst ensuring a decent return on investment.
The Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests (Chair: Mr. Anand Sharma) submitted its report on the ‘Status of Forests in India’ on February 12, 2019. Key observations and recommendations of the Committee include:
Definition of Forest: The Committee examined the Draft National Forest Draft Policy 2018 which was circulated for public feedback during April 2018. The Committee noted that the word ‘Forest’ is not defined in the Draft Policy. It noted that the Ministry uses the definition of the term as provided by the Supreme Court. The Court defined forests to include all forests statutorily recognised under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Committee noted that certain stakeholders had expressed concerns that that this definition did not include ecosystems which don’t have forest-like attributes, such as wetlands or grasslands. Therefore, it recommended that Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF) come out with a comprehensive and clear definition of the term ‘Forest’.
Forest cover: The Committee expressed concern about the decline in the forest cover in the North-Eastern States, which constitute 65.34% of its geographical area in comparison to the national forest cover of 21.54%. It recommended that the concerned state governments and the MoEF take all necessary steps to ensure that the decline in forest cover in these states is stopped at the earliest.
The Committee noted that no action plan has been prepared by the MoEF for controlling the illegal cutting of trees in forests. It stated that MoEF must take cognizance of the illegal felling of trees in different parts of the country and prepare an action plan for tackling this menace, in coordination with state governments.
Deforestation: The Committee noted that the budget allocation to National Afforestation Programme has been insufficient. This has affected the achievement of the annual targeted area of afforestation during the last few years. The Committee recommended that the MoEF ensure that adequate allocation is made to the National Afforestation Programme and the targets under the Programme are achieved. Further, the Committee noted that the funding pattern for the Programme changed in 2015-16 from a 100% centrally sponsored scheme to a 60-40 sharing scheme between the centre and state. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the concerned state governments provide their share of the changed funding pattern to ensure the success of the Programme.
Evaluation of afforestation: The Committee noted that the mid-term evaluation study on National Afforestation Programme conducted by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education in 2008 had highlighted the successful implementation of the programme. However, the Committee stated that nearly ten years have passed since the ICFRE evaluation. Therefore, it recommended that the MoEF should undertake a study to assess the impact of National Afforestation Programme and the Green India Mission so that their actual impact on the forest cover is known and further strategies in this regard could be formulated accordingly.
The Committee observed that the MoEF has not undertaken any field survey to determine the total land available in the country for afforestation. It recommended that necessary action in this regard should be taken at the earliest so that state governments can formulate necessary strategies for taking up the afforestation activities in their respective states.
Concerns of exploitation: The Committee observed that the general perception of the public is that the Draft Policy emphasizes the commercialization of forests and curtails the ownership of rights of tribals, tribal communities, and traditional forest-dwellers. Concerns were also expressed that the Draft Policy aims to take away the rights of Gram Sabhas for management of forests and instead hands it over to the proposed centrally controlled Corporations. The Committee felt that if too much emphasis is given to the private partnership model in management of forests in the Draft Policy, forest lands may be lost. It recommended that adequate safeguards be taken after stakeholder consultations to protect the forests from over-exploitation by private parties.