Daily Current Affairs (MCQ) | Date 24.01.22

Q1. Consider the following statements
1. All industrial projects require environmental clearance by an expert committee formed by the Centre
2. An Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is mandated under the Environment Protection Act, 1986

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

a. 1 only
b. 2 only
c. Both 1 and 2
d. Neither 1 nor 2

Answer : b

Why is the Question ?

A stellar fallacy
Assessment of environmental costs, benefits of projects should not be done in haste
Highlights:
1. A move by the Union Environment Ministry to implement a ‘star-rating system’ has sparked controversy after one of its official communiqués became public.

2. Under this scheme, State-level environment committees that appraise industrial projects on their potential environmental risk would be incentivised with points for “transparency, efficiency and accountability”.
3. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is one of the cornerstones of ensuring that the ecological costs of infrastructure development are minimal.
4. Prospective projects above a certain size and with a potential to significantly alter the natural environment must be first approved by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) comprising State officers and independent experts.
5. Projects that are even bigger or involve forest land — category A — must be cleared by an expert committee formed by the Centre.
6. SEIAA projects make up the bulk of projects for approval including building and construction, small mining, small industrial projects, and are considered ‘less polluting’.
Ease of Doing Business vs Environmental protection:
1. The star rating system proposed is to “rank” and “incentivise” States on how quickly and “efficiently” they can accord environmental clearances. It spells out seven criteria to rate SEIAAs on “transparency, efficiency and accountability”.
2. On a scale of 7, an SEIAA, for instance, gets more points for granting a clearance in less than 80 days than for within 105 days and no marks for more. A score of seven or more would be rated ‘five star’.

3. However, a reading of the order gives the impression that States, in the quest for more stars, would logically vie for speedily clearing projects rather than ensure a thorough appraisal.
4. The Environment Ministry, has said, in response to criticism, that the intention is not to hasten clearances but accelerate the pace of decision making. Rather than files being sent back for every query, all objections must be compiled and addressed at one go, it contends.
5. While quicker decision-making benefits everyone, State committees are currently hampered by having too few independent experts and decision-making being left to bureaucrats than to environmental specialists.
6. Both industrialists and States gain from projects and, therefore, the tendency is always to elide environmental concerns. In many instances, site visits are critical to understanding the potential environmental challenges.
7. Calculating the risks and the benefits of industrial projects vis-à-vis their environmental impact is understandably hard.
The way forward is to take steps to increase trust in the system and ensure that all States have competent experts who can conduct appraisals without fear or favour. A list of empty rankings is the least advisable way to bring about this.

Applicability in India

EIA was first introduced in 1978 with regard to the various river valley projects all over the country and later expanded to include various other developmental procedures in its scope. EIA is now mandatory for over 30 classes of projects.

The Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 warrant for the imposition of certain restrictions on the construction/ expansion/ modernization of specific projects without prior approval from the Central, State, or Union Territory level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (EIAA) constituted under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Categorisation of projects
The rules categorise the projects into two categories- A and B on the basis of the magnitude of their scale and impact on the natural and artificial resources. The projects belonging to Category A require approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forests on behalf of the Central Government, on the advice of an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), constituted by the Central Government for this specific purpose; eg. Construction or Expansion of Ports, harbours, airports, nuclear power, and related projects, Primary metallurgical industries (iron, steel, copper, etc), individual projects, etc. Projects and Activities falling under Category B require the approval of a State EIAA, based on the advice of a State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), constituted under the said notification.

Q2. Consider the following statements

1. India spends more on education than other middle income countries
2. Education is in state list

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

a. 1 only
b. 2 only
c. Both 1 and 2
d. Neither 1 nor 2

Answer : d

Why is the Question ?

Budgeting for the education emergency
It is astonishing that public expenditure data on the education sector are not easily available
Highlights:
1. In the current Budget session, how much money the Central and State governments will allocate to education and for what purpose should be a matter of public concern and debate.
2. Even before the pandemic, public spending on education in most States was below that of other middle-income countries.
3. Most major States spent in the range of 2.5% to 3.1% of State income on education, according to the Ministry of Education’s Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education. This compares with the 4.3% of GDP that lowermiddle-income countries spent, as a group, between 2010-11 and 2018-19.
4. Low-income countries increased their spending from 3.2% to 3.5% of GDP in the same period (World Bank, Education Finance Watch, 2021).

Q3. Privacy was declared a “constitutionally protected right” in

a. Navtej Singh Johar judgement
b. KS Puttaswamy judgement
c. Saroja Rani case
d. Joseph Shine judgement

Answer : b

Why is the Question ?

Petition on conjugal rights pending for months in SC
It assumes importance amid debate on marital rape
Restitution of conjugal rights and liberty of women:
1. A petition questioning a law that forces a woman to return to her husband and denies her sexual autonomy has been pending in the Supreme Court for months without a hearing.
2. Restitution of conjugal rights, considered a medieval ecclesiastical law from England codified in several statutes, including the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act, owes its survival largely to the fact that marital rape is not recognised as a crime.
3. The furious debate to criminalise marital rape compels a thought on how restitution of conjugal rights, though gender-neutral, places an additional burden on women by forcing them to stay with their husbands and threatens their bodily autonomy, privacy and individual dignity.

4. If a woman does not comply to return to her husband, the court could even attach her property.
5. Provisions of restitution of conjugal rights empower a husband or a wife to move the local district court, complaining that the other partner has “withdrawn” from the marriage without a “reasonable cause”.
6. The provisions violate a woman’s freedoms of association, to reside anywhere in the country and practice a profession.
7. That is, if a woman stays away from her husband for her job, would it mean that she has “withdrawn” from the marriage. Besides, “reasonable cause” is subjective.
The courts have dealt with conjugal rights in a chequered manner:
1. The Supreme Court, in the Saroja Rani case, held that the “right of the husband or wife to one another’s society is inherent in the very institution of marriage”.
2. The fight against marital rape and restitution of conjugal rights has gained a new lease of life with the Supreme Court’s nine-judge Bench upholding privacy as a “constitutionally protected right”.
3. The top court, in its recent Joseph Shine judgement, concluded that the State cannot interfere in a person’s private affairs and “privacy is an inalienable right, closely associated with the innate dignity of an individual, and the right to autonomy and self-determination to make decisions”.
4. The time is ripe for the top court to pick up from where it left off.

Q4. Recently an Oil spill led to the declaration of environmental emergency in

a. Peru
b. Argentina
c. Spain
d. France

Answer : a

Why is the Question ?

Peru declares an environmental emergency following an oil spill
1. Peru declared an environmental emergency to battle an oil spill caused by freak waves from a volcanic eruption in the South Pacific.
2. The stunningly powerful eruption on last Saturday of an undersea volcano near Tonga unleashed tsunami waves around the Pacific and as far away as the United States.
3. In Peru, the oil spill near Lima has fouled beaches, killed birds and harmed the fishing and tourism industries.
4. With its 90-day decree, the government said it plans “sustainable management” of 21 beaches tarred by 6,000 barrels of oil that spilt from a tanker ship.
5. The environment ministry said 174 hectares — equivalent to 270 football fields — of sea, beaches and nature reserves were affected by the spill. Crews have been working for days to clean up the spill.

Q5. Arrange the following environmental action taken by India in Chronological Order

1. Submission of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC)
2. Legalising compensation payment for forest diversion for non-forestry use
3. Implementation of National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC)

Select the correct answer from the codes given below

a. 3, 1, 2
b. 3, 2, 1
c. 2, 3, 1
d. 1, 3, 2

Answer : c

Why is the Question ?

Legalising compensation payment for forest diversion for non-forestry use
As per the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, and the Rules and Guidelines made thereunder, whenever a forest land is to be diverted for non-forestry purposes, the equivalent non-forest land has to be identified for compensatory afforestation and funds for raising compensatory afforestation are to be imposed.

Implementation of National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC)

National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) is a Government of India's programme launched in 2008 to mitigate and adapt to the adverse impact of climate change. The action plan was launched in 2008 with 8 sub-missions.

Submission of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC)
Ahead of the UN Conference of Parties on Climate Change, scheduled in December 2015 in Paris, India had submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has called the Indian INDC “fair”, and its renewable and forestry targets “ambitious”.
In its INDC, India had pledged to improve the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 per cent by 2030 below 2005 levels. It had also pledged to increase the share of non-fossil fuels-based electricity to 40 per cent by 2030. It had agreed to enhance its forest cover which will absorb 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main gas responsible for global warming) by 2030.