What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: The necessity of mainstreaming wetland conservation

Context

The conservation and the management of wetlands have emerged as a challenge as these are linked to other development issues.

 

Introduction

The suo motu public interest litigation by the Meghalaya High Court very recently, to monitor the conservation of wetlands in the State brings the focus back on this important ecosystem. Since 1971, February 2 is observed every year as ‘World Wetland Day’ to mark the adoption of the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation of wetlands, which was signed in the Iranian city of Ramsar. The theme this year was ‘Protecting Wetlands for Our Common Future”. It is a theme that has appropriately positioned wetlands in the sustainable development perspective, as espoused in the Brundtland report, ‘Our Common Future’, and published by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987.

 

Many pressures

• Wetlands: One of the most biologically productive ecosystems, provide multiple benefits.
• Global Coverage: Wetlands cover an area of 12.1 million km², or around 6% of the earth's surface.
• Ecosystem Services: Provide 40.6% of global ecosystem services.

 

Threats to Wetlands

• Major Stress Factors: Under severe stress, both qualitatively and quantitatively, due to various development activities including population growth, urbanisation, industrialisation, and increasing demand for land to cater to various human needs and climate change.
• Loss Since 1900: As much as 50% of the area under wetlands has been diverted to accommodate various other uses, as one of the studies indicated.
• Decline (1970-2015): Wetland surface area, both coastal and inland, declined by about 35% between 1970 and 2015.
• Loss Rate (WET Index): The rate of loss estimated with the Wetland Extend Trends (WET) index is (-)0.78% a year, which is more than three times higher than the loss rate of natural vegetation as estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

 

Decline of Wetland Species

• Inland Wetland Species: Around 81% of inland wetland species population have declined since 1970.
• Coastal & Marine Species: 36% of coastal and marine species have declined since 1970.
• Extinction Risk: The extinction risk of wetland species, both plants and animals, is increasing, globally.

 

Conservation and Management Challenges

• Major Challenge: The conservation and the management of wetlands have emerged as a major challenge as they are linked to other development issues.
• Potential Solutions: Can serve in devising nature-based solutions for water management and the mitigation of climate change impacts, besides providing blue-green infrastructures in urban areas.

 

Ramsar Convention COP14 and Wetland Conservation

• Conference: The Ramsar Convention COP14 that was held in Wuhan, China and Geneva, Switzerland from November 5-13, 2022.
• Key Focus: Laid stress on preparation of the fifth Ramsar Strategic Plan.
• Recognition: Recognised that the conservation and management of wetlands cannot be a stand-alone initiative.
• Approach: Needs to be contextualised and appropriately linked to other international environment development initiatives.

 

Integration with Global Environmental Goals

• Implementation of Ramsar Strategic Plan: An important contribution towards:
  1. The achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.
  2. Meeting the Global Biodiversity targets.
  3. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  4. Aligning with the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.
  5. Any relevant work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
  6. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
  7. Other global programmes relating to wetlands.
• Global Challenges: The global changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and greater knowledge about the impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change since COP13, or the 13th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (2018), reinforce the urgency to arrest the loss of wetlands.

 

The situation in India

• Signatory: India is a signatory to the Ramsar Convention.
• Number of Ramsar Sites (as of 2023): 75 Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance).
• Geographical Distribution: Spread across coasts to Himalayan territory.
• Diversity: Includes river stretches such as the Upper Ganga River.

 

Challenges in Conservation of Ramsar Sites

• Designation vs. Conservation: Identification as a Ramsar site does not necessarily contribute to its conservation.
• Total Wetland Area Covered: Ramsar sites cover 1.33 million hectares, which is around 8% of the 15.98 million ha wetlands mapped in the National Wetland Decadal Change Atlas, 2017-18 (SAC, Government of India).

 

Classification of Wetlands in India

• Types of Wetlands: Classified as inland and man-made wetlands.
• Status (2017-18):
  1. Natural Wetlands: 66.6%
     • Inland Wetlands: 43.9%
     • Coastal Wetlands: 22.7%
       • Dynamic Nature: The area under wetlands is not static.
       • General Trends:
  2. Reduction in natural wetlands.
  3. Increase in man-made wetlands.
     • SAC Study (2006-07 to 2017-18): Natural wetlands along the coast are declining.
     • Wetlands International South-Asia (WISA) Estimate:
  4. Nearly 30% of natural wetlands in India lost in the last four decades.
  5. Causes: Urbanisation, infrastructure building, agricultural expansion, and pollution.
  6. More Loss in Urban Areas: Especially around major urban centres.
     • Case Studies on Wetland Loss in Indian Cities:
  7. Mumbai (1970-2014): Lost 71% of its wetlands.
  8. East Kolkata (1991-2021): Wetlands shrunk by 36% in 30 years.
  9. Chennai (WWF Study): Lost 85% of its wetlands.
     • Global Impact of Wetland Degradation – Loss of Ecosystem Services: Several studies highlight degradation impacts worldwide.
  10. Cali City, Colombia Study:
      • Estimated Loss of Total Ecosystem Services: Urban Wetlands: $76,827 per hectare per year and Peri-Urban Areas: $30,354 per hectare per year.

 

The bigger dimension

• Present Focus: Most initiatives address ecological and environmental aspects of the wetland ecosystem.
• Scope of Studies: Limited to some of the major wetlands.
• Beyond Biodiversity: Global studies emphasize wetland distribution, characterisation, and human impacts.
• Purpose: To evaluate and prioritise wetlands for conservation.
• Key Role: Wetlands form an integral part of ecological, economic, and social security.
• Varied Services: Provide multiple ecosystem services and values to society.
• Recognising Larger Dimensions:

1. Investigate physical, social, and economic factors affecting wetlands.
2. Study land use alterations within the catchment area.
3. Identify drivers of modifications in wetland surroundings.
4. Address ex-situ pressures contributing to wetland degradation.
5. Evaluate the governance structure of wetlands.

 

Conclusion

Wetlands act as a source as well as sink of carbon. Therefore, their role in climate change mitigation has to be carefully evaluated and monitored, something which is hardly attempted now. More effective and comprehensive management strategies are required in response to escalating stress from various climatic and anthropogenic factors. The present approach is insufficient to address all these issues. Wetland management warrants an innovative ecosystem-based approach and it should be mainstreamed within the development plan, as advocated during the Ramsar COP14.

 

Editorial 2: The steps that will shape India’s AI ambition

Context

If it wants to lead in the AI race, India must recognise that the challenge lies in whether market regulations will stifle its momentum.

 

Introduction

In the heart of Bengaluru, software developers find themselves racing against time to outbid Chinese rivals for major Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven projects with international clients. Despite being part of a skilled workforce, deals often slip away due to capabilities Indian firms struggle to match. This is not just a single developer’s dilemma. It is a glimpse into India’s crossroads.

• Faced with a three-way race to catch up with Silicon Valley while being chased by China and South East Asia, India is being subject to rigorous competition.
• But, if it wants to prevail at the forefront of the AI race, India must recognise that the challenge lies not in whether businesses prefer a local or foreign AI platform but in whether market regulations will inadvertently stifle India’s momentum.

 

The issues in India

• Export competitiveness: Hinges on the nationwide deployment of productivity-enhancing technologies.
• Indian services and consultancies: Must incorporate AI technologies to maintain their lead position in the global market.
• Concerns: Massive loss of routine jobs.
  1. Discriminatory algorithmic decision-making.
  2. Negative risks of human impersonation.
• Deepfakes: Undermine trust by spreading misinformation.
  1. Destabilise political processes, eroding credibility rapidly.
• AI adoption issues in India: Misinformation and intermediary liability are at the forefront of the AI discussion.
  1. Digital platforms have become primary conduits for information dissemination.
• Startups in India: General opinion is that intermediaries — usually foreign tech giants — often set the rules of engagement.
  1. Local startups struggle to compete.
• Increased tension: Indian app developers have filed a complaint against Google before the Competition Commission of India.
• Regulatory and administrative pressure: Will not necessarily resolve the core problem of monopolistic business practices.
• Regulating AI: Will interfere with technological adaptation.
  1. Leads to undesirable consequences on India’s relative competitiveness.
• India’s AI localisation: A significant portion of the AI value chain has already been localised.
• Compliance costs: Additional AI-related compliance costs may hamper India’s ability to outpace commercial rivals.
• Global context: China and the United States have decided to leave AI unregulated.

 

Navigating the global AI race

• India’s position: The world’s IT powerhouse gives it a unique advantage in the AI era.
• Global AI regulation: Attempts to govern and regulate AI occur as industrialised nations compete for industrial leadership.
  1. The European Union (EU) opted for strict regulation to address risks and societal impacts.
  2. The U.S. maintains a hands-off stance, prioritising innovation.
  3. India finds itself in a delicate balancing act between these two paths.
• Regulatory misconceptions: The sooner misconceptions about quickly outdated market rules addressing a limited set of hypothetical risks are set aside, the better India can focus on outpacing commercial rivals such as China and the U.S..
• EU’s need for legislation: The EU has chosen to legislate through binding laws mainly due to its unique structural deficiencies.
  1. The EU lacks a supranational constitution that safeguards human rights and protects citizens against AI-based surveillance or policing by its member-states.
  2. Unlike India, the EU must enact binding rules to pre-empt AI laws by national governments that will otherwise fragment its single market.
• India’s export concerns: The costs of regulatory failure are too high if India’s exporting capabilities are at stake, particularly given Chinese dominance in hardware and cloud technologies.
• Regulatory approach: India has previously taken inspiration from EU or U.S. laws.
  1. However, it must follow its own path and pursue its national interests based on its services-driven industrial profile.
• Risks of AI regulation: Introducing regulatory attempts that can impede AI development in India may allow businesses to repatriate from India.
  1. IT development and software R&D may relocate to AI-friendly nations.
  2. Indian IT services and consultancies held back by AI regulations run the risk of losing their global market hold.
• India’s strategic approach: The Indian government can use its diplomatic influence to ensure that open-source models remain open, accessible, and commercially viable.
  1. It can pair this with international strategic partnerships for energy security, computing resources, and international standardisation.

 

A case for regulatory clarity

• Public responsibility: Public officials must listen to political and social concerns amid the strong adoption of AI.
• India’s regulatory stance: India is not explicitly pursuing ex-ante product regulation on AI like Europe or California.
  1. However, various agencies have launched conflicting policies, leading to a minor power struggle and a fragmented policy landscape.
• Lessons from the EU and U.S.: Instead of new laws, there is a need to strengthen and future-proof existing laws.
  1. Transitional guidelines have demonstrated a feasible pathway to avoid overlapping liability or regulatory blindspots by re-interpreting existing legislation.
• India’s existing legal framework: India has a comprehensive framework covering antitrust, corporate liability, free speech, and public order.
  1. These laws already address AI development and use cases.
  2. India may not need AI-specific rules under legislation like the IT Act.

 

Conclusion

India must choose its own path according to its national interests. The challenge lies not in whether businesses prefer a local or foreign AI platform but in encouraging rapid adoption and supporting open-source and other alternatives accessible for fine-tuning and transferring learning in its IT industry.