Daily Current Affairs

Is there a rural bias in national surveys? (GS Paper 3, Economy)

Why in news?

• The Government of India recently appointed a panel under the chairmanship of Pronab Sen, former Chief Statistician of India to review the methodology of the National Statistical Organisation (NSO).

 

Why is there a need for review?

• This happened in the backdrop of articles by Shamika Ravi and Bibek Debroy arguing that the usage of outdated survey methodology by national surveys such as the National Sample Survey (NSS), National Family Health Survey (NFHS) and Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), have systematically underestimated India’s development.
• On the other hand, P. C. Mohanan and Amitabh Kundu have reasoned that there is no systematic underestimation of development by these national surveys.
• Therefore, there is no need for restructuring and overhauling the survey methodology just because it doesn’t suit certain narratives of development.
• However, they accept that there may be errors, which should be minimised. They also advocate the usage of appropriate sample weights to make the national sample adequately representative.

 

Why is it important?

• National level data is a key resource for research, policymaking and development planning, so it is of utmost importance to understand and analyse both claims in the light of existing evidence.

 

Does the NFHS have a rural bias?

• Some experts have argued that one of the ways in which national surveys like the NFHS are underestimating Indian development is through “rural bias in terms of representation”.
• In other words, the survey methodology, which depends heavily on the last Census data, systematically overestimates the rural population.
• However, the examination of five rounds of NFHS data doesn’t show any such systematic bias towards rural population. If the estimates of the urban population by the NFHS are matched with the corresponding World Bank estimates and urban percentage projections from the Census figures of 1991, 2001 and 2011, it is clear that there is no evidence of any systematic rural bias.
• On the other hand, there is evidence of rural population underestimation by NFHS-3. Overestimation of rural population seems to have taken place by NFHS-2 and NFHS-5.
• Only NFHS-1 and NFHS-4 estimates seem to be really close to World Bank estimates and projections based on Census data. However, these errors seem random rather than systematic.

 

How can we minimise such errors?

• Generally, there are higher percentages of no-response in urban areas compared to rural areas. However, this also does not seem to have any systematic relation with either rural or urban bias in estimation.
• For example, NFHS-1 with its near correct estimation of urban population had the lowest urban response rate at 94.5%, while NFHS-5 with its underestimation of urban population had the second lowest urban response rate of 95.6%.
• Nonetheless, no response or not, there seems to be room for improvement in minimising the errors and the way sample weights are assigned.
• A cursory glance at the percentages of the urban sample in the unweighted sample indicates that assigning appropriate weights may help to correct the errors to a great extent.
• In NFHS 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 the unweighted percentages of urban sample were 31.0%, 31.3%, 44.2%, 28.0% and 24.2% respectively. If the sample weights are appropriately assigned, after taking into account all possible sources of error, then underrepresentation of either rural or urban seems to get corrected to a large extent.

 

What next?

• The Pronab Sen Committee needs to address these concerns to make the sample adequately representative rather than go for a complete overhaul of the survey methodology.

 

Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Bill, 2023

(GS Paper 2, Governance)

Why in news?

• Recently, the Rajasthan government passed the Rajasthan Platform Based Gig Workers (Registration and Welfare) Bill, 2023.
• It is the first legislation of its kind in India outlining welfare schemes for the State’s approximately three lakh gig workers.

What did the Bill propose?

• The Bill applies to “aggregators” (digital intermediaries connecting buyers and sellers) and “primary employers” (individual or organisations engaging platform-based workers).
• The Bill proposes a Welfare Board comprising State officials, five representatives each from gig workers and aggregators, and two others from civil society.
• The Board will “set up a welfare fund, register platform-based gig workers, aggregators and primary employers, facilitate guarantee of social security to platform-based gig workers and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
• The Board will maintain a database of companies and workers and each worker will receive a unique ID which “shall be valid in perpetuity.”

 

Where will the funds come from?

• The Board will create a “Social Security and Welfare Fund” comprising contributions made by individual workers, State government aids, other sources and a ‘welfare cess’ which the aggregator is required to pay.
• The rate of the welfare cess will not exceed 2% nor fall short of 1% of the value of “each transaction,” and aggregators are required to submit the amount within the first five days of a month.
• Unions objected to contributing to the fund, arguing that it should be sourced only from aggregator companies and State funds, owing to the fluctuating and inadequate nature of pay.

 

Are workers’ rights recognised?

• Under existing labour laws, gig workers who are named ‘partners’ by platforms are not ‘employees’ because theirs is not a “fixed term of employment”, marked by providing exclusive service to one provider for a specified duration.
• The Code on Social Security, passed in 2020 and yet to be implemented, carried “restrictive criteria” about eligibility which are done away with in the Rajasthan Bill.
• The Bill states any person has the right to be registered the minute they join an app-based platform, regardless of the duration of work or how many providers they work for.
• The Welfare Board is expected to formulate schemes “for social security,” listing only accidental insurance and health insurance, and “other benefits concerning health, accident and education as may be prescribed.”
• Unions have recommended that benefits available to gig workers be enumerated clearly in the Bill, expanding on the clause “other benefits.”

 

What about workers’ grievances?

• Gig workers “have an opportunity to be heard for any grievances” with “entitlements, payments and benefits provided under the Act.” Per Section 15, a worker can file a petition physically before an officer or online through the web portal.
• The employer can object to the order within 90 days before an ‘Appellate Authority’. Several reports have documented ineffective and unresponsive redressal mechanisms.
• Urban Company workers are currently protesting the “arbitrary” blocking of their accounts and a lack of support.

 

Are aggregators held accountable?

• An aggregator’s duties under the Bill include: depositing welfare cess on time, updating the database of gig workers, and documenting any variations in numbers within one month of such changes.
• If they fail to comply, they will be fined up to ₹5 lakh for the first offence and ₹50 lakh for further violations; primary employers will pay up to ₹10,000 for the first offence and ₹2 lakh for subsequent violations.

 

Measures to Reduce Methane Emissions

(GS Paper 3, Environment)

Why in news?

• Recently, the Union Minister of State for Environment, Forest and Climate Change S in a written reply in the Lok Sabha discussed about measures to reduce methane emissions.

 

India’s third Biennial Update Report:

• India is a Party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and its Kyoto Protocol (KP), and the Paris Agreement (PA).
• As a Party to the UNFCCC, India periodically submits its National Communications (NCs) and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) to the UNFCCC which includes national Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory containing information on methane emissions.
• As per India’s third Biennial Update Report, India’s methane emissions in 2016 (excluding LULUCF) were 409 million tone CO2e of which, 73.96% was from Agriculture sector, 14.46% from Waste sector, 10.62% from Energy sector and 0.96% was from Industrial Processes and Product Use sector.

 

Paris Agreement:

• Under the Paris Agreement, India has submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which does not bind it to any sector specific mitigation obligation or action.
• The goal is to reduce overall emission intensity of its GDP and improve energy efficiency of its economy over time and at the same time protecting the vulnerable sectors of economy and segments of our society.

 

Measures to reduce methane emissions:

• The National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), implemented by Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, involves climate resilient practices including methane reduction practices in rice cultivation. These practices contribute to substantial reduction of methane emissions.
• The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) under National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) project has developed several technologies with mitigation potential for methane from rice viz.

1. System for Rice Intensification: The technique has potential to enhance rice yield from 36-49% with about 22-35% less water than conventional transplanted rice;
2. Direct Seeded Rice: The system reduces methane emissions as it does not involve raising nurseries, puddling and transplanting. Unlike transplanted paddy cultivation, standing water is not maintained in this system; and
3. Crop Diversification Programme: Methane emissions is avoided due to diversion of paddy to alternate crops like pulses, oilseeds, maize, cotton and agro forestry.

• Capacity building programmes are conducted through Krishi Vigyan Kendras across the country for creating awareness on climate resilient practices.
• The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD) is implementing National Livestock Mission, which inter alia, includes Breed Improvement and Balanced Rationing. Feeding livestock with superior quality balanced ration is helping to reduce methane emissions from the livestock.
• Government of India promotes green fodder production, silage making, chaff cutting, and total mixed ration under National Livestock Mission with a view to reduce methane emissions from livestock.
• Through initiatives like ‘The Gobar (Galvanizing Organic Bio-Agro Resources) –Dhan’ scheme and New National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme, cattle waste utilisation is being incentivised, in addition to production of clean energy invillages. The Gobardhan scheme, inter alia, supports biodegradable waste recovery and conversion of waste into resources and reduction of methane emissions.

 

Why is methane potent as a greenhouse gas?

• Methane accounts for about a fifth of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is about 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere.
• In the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, mainly due to human-related activities.
• Methane is emitted from a variety of anthropogenic (human-influenced) and natural sources.
• The human sources include landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities as well as livestock rearing, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial processes.