Strategies for Boosting Biotech Industry, Stem Cell Research, Genome Engineering, Computational Biology and Drug Discovery were Outlined at a Strategy meet on Biotechnology

Strategies for Boosting Biotech Industry, Stem Cell Research, Genome Engineering, Computational Biology and Drug Discovery were Outlined at a Strategy meet on Biotechnology

The Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India is completing 30 years and will be celebrating its 30^th Foundation Day in February 2016. It was felt appropriate at this point to assess and analyze in consultation with all Stake-holders the 4P’s- Progress, Promises, Problems and Plans for Future. In this connection a Strategy Meet was organized by Department of Biotechnology (DBT) on 31^stAugust, 2015 at NCR Biotech Science Cluster, Faridabad. The Minister Science & Technology and Earth Sciences, Dr. Harsh Vardhan presided over the meeting. The meeting was attended by the Directors and Senior Faculty of DBT aided Autonomous Institute’s, Senior Experts across the Country and Senior Members of the Civil Society. Secretary and all Officers of DBT were present.

In his Opening Address, Secretary, DBT gave an overview and detailed assessment of the impact over the years and highlighted how DBT has contributed significantly through its efforts towards:

Supporting Key Missions

Spear heading cutting edge research

Building Institutional and Human Resource Capacity

Forging Industry Academic partnership

Leveraging international strength through collaborations and

Guiding policy thinking and analysis

The Minister Science & Technology and Earth Sciences, Dr. Harsh Vardhan in his Inaugural Address highlighted the importance of Biotechnology Sector to contribute to the society. He said that it would be important to develop a new sense of urgency and work towards preparing an Action Plan and address key strategies for the future to deliver perceptible and measurable impact to the benefit of society.

The Minister also stated that the Biotechnology Sector which has an important role and cuts across all other sectors, takes forward its strategy in partnership with other S&T Ministry / Departments and State Governments.

He appreciated the good work that DBT is doing in taking forward Biotechnology Research in the country and stressed the necessity to fix 3 to 4 focus areas with achievable targets in the next 2 to 3 years.  The Hon’ble Minister added that malnutrition could be one of the key focus areas elaborating that whereas there has been much research on nutrition, the research needed to be translated to yield benefits for people.

In response to questions from management and social sector experts on perceptible and measurable strategies of DBT over the next couple of years, Secretary DBT underlined the following:

Biotech will see at least a 20 % increase in new companies, 20% more biotech incubators, 20% more social-sector partnerships, and 20% more Med-tech devices each year over the next three years

Results from stem-cell research will see impact on Sickle-cell anemia and Thalassemia treatments in three years

Work on maternal health, pre-term birth and stunted growth will result in significant improvement in nutrition and anemia treatment - programs for women within 2-3 years

India will establish a substantial presence in genome engineering and computational biology in coming three (3) years.

Mapping of the biodiversity of our islands and the coral reefs will be completed next year from which drug discovery centres will have access to novel compounds in two years

Major international collaborations will be established this year and the next following high-level exchanges with Japan (Stem-cells), France (Marine Biology) Canada (Stem cells), Netherlands (Vaccines), UK (Agri-plant), Netherlands (vaccines), US (Energy, Vaccines)

The Hon’ble Minister Science & Technology highlighted that while the overall strategy of the DBT was clear, each institution and each unit of DBT should have measurable targets over the next couple of years.

The DBT aided Autonomous Institutions have contributed significantly to the specific domain areas of expertise and concerted efforts has been made to take basic research through translation to product development.

From the analysis it was noted that a number of technologies, products and patents have been generated and DBT has worked towards promoting Industry Innovation Research.

Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC), which is a Public Sector of DBT focusses on promoting the innovation ecosystem and today a large number Startups and young Innovators have benefited from the support provided. A number of products and technologies have been delivered.

In the presentations made by the Directors of DBT Autonomous Institutions and other experts a broad overview of various thematic areas was presented highlighting specifically where we stand vis-à-vis the global scenario, the challenges faced and future action plan.

At the end of the meeting after detailed deliberations, a clear road map for the future was prepared. The targeted mission is to “Accelerate the pace of growth of Biotechnology Sector to achieve a target of $110 billion by 2025”.

It was agreed to focus on:

Building a skilled workforce and leadership.

Encouraging basic and discovery research and connecting this to our society.

Nurturing innovation, translation and entrepreneurship to transform our society.

Ensuring a transparent and globally best regulatory environment.

Building and fostering partnerships both at National and International level.

It was also agreed that for effective implementation of these strategic decisions it is important that we create a matrix of the measurements of process as well as outcome.

Key Missions are also being formulated to address major National Challenges on Healthcare, Energy, Food Security and Human Resource.

Coping with regional disparitie

Eleven states in India have 'special category' status. This extra-Constitutional status, introduced for the first time in 1969, was granted by the National Development Council, composed of the prime minister, Union ministers, chief ministers and members of the erstwhile Planning Commission. These 11 have hilly and difficult terrain, lowpopulation density, a sizeable share of the population as tribals, strategic location along the borders, economic and infrastructural backwardness, and a non-viable nature of state finances.

Bihar does not satisfy all the criteria. Yet, Chief MinisterNitish Kumar has been demanding the status for a while. The story is similar to "reservation", introduced constitutionally, initially for 10 years, and only forScheduled Tribes (ST) and Scheduled Castes (SC). The demand for the extension of special category status to other states is similar to the demands for the extension of reservation to groups other than SC and ST.

Special category states enjoy a number of benefits such as excise and income tax concessions, an earmarked 30 per cent of the normal central Plan assistance and 90 per cent of such assistance as grants (compared to only 30 per cent for other states). Given that 11 per cent of normal central plan assistance was allocated to Bihar during the Eleventh Plan according to the Gadgil-Mukherjee formula, it is difficult to see how Bihar can be declared to be special category without augmenting the earmarked 30 per cent of normal central Plan assistance.

At a public rally in Arrah on August 18, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a Rs 1.25-lakh-crore special package for Bihar for building infrastructure. Bihar badly needs such infrastructure as roads, railways, airport, refinery and power plants. Bihar Vidhan Sabha elections are due before year-end, and the opposition ascribes electoral motives behind the announcement. Leaving the politics aside, it brings the question of regional disparities in India into sharp relief.

In terms of regional disparities, India in a way is a mini-Asia, but with less accentuated differences. In Asia, in 2012, according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), smaller countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei Darussalam, South Korea and Taiwan had per capita gross national income between $21,620 and $54,040. These high-flyers had per capita income more than 20-50 times that of the Asian countries at the bottom of the ladder. At the bottom were Afghanistan, Nepal, Cambodia, Tajikistan and Bangladesh with per capita income between $690 and $1,010. Furthermore, economic performance of conflict-affected countries, such as Afghanistan, was poor. Though Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Manipur, for example, are not Afghanistan, the law and order problems in these states nevertheless appear to be taking its toll on economic performance.

In India, among all the states or Union territories, smaller ones like Goa, Delhi, Sikkim, Chandigarh and Puducherry are at the top, with per capita net state domestic product (NSDP) at factor cost at current prices between Rs 1,43,677 and Rs 2,24,138 in 2013-14, more than 1.9 times the all-India per capita net domestic product (NDP) of Rs 75,420. In the same year, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, Assam and Jharkhand, at the bottom of the ladder, had per capita NSDP between Rs 31,199 and Rs 46,131, less than 61 per cent of the all-India NDP.

Of course, disparities across countries can be expected to be more than across regions within a country. Within a country, generally, with free mobility across regions, people can be expected to migrate from poorer to richer areas and reduce disparities in the process. Furthermore, countries in a continent may emulate each other's policies to some extent, but unlike states within a country, do not operate under the same central policy regime. Yet, there are lessons to be learnt from the regional disparities across countries in Asia.

Since 1973, ADB has been focusing on its relatively backward member countries with the Asian Development Fund (ADF). To the poorest of ADB member countries, to "bridge the development gap", the ADF provides grants, as well as loans for 32 years with a grace period of eight years and interest of 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent during the grace and amortisation period, respectively. ADF-recipient status in Asia and special category status in India appear to be somewhat similar.

Prima facie, there is no overwhelming evidence that grant of the special category status has delivered accelerated development in these 11 states. Similarly, the relatively poorer ADF countries are growing slower than the rest in Asia and falling further behind the non-ADF countries. Seven economies - China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Thailand and Malaysia - continue to lead Asia's march to prosperity.

There are three lessons from the ADF that appear relevant for addressing regional disparities in India. First, law and order and conflict resolution constitute priority number one for growth. The extremely low project success rate in Afghanistan has been a frustrating experience for development practitioners. Peace-building and state-building are preconditions for better development outcomes. Little can be expected in a state where the government is unable to perform its basic functions effectively.

Second, interventions for promoting regional integration often provide very high returns. A case in point is the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Cooperation Program. Increasing connectivity through physical infrastructure and the transforming of transport corridors into economic corridors across borders; and improving competitiveness through efficient facilitation of cross-border movement of people and goods and the integration of markets, production processes, and value chains provide rich returns for poor countries. Lao PDR and Cambodia in GMS are good examples. It appears that often moving people to jobs in a planned way is easier than moving jobs to people.

Third, successful implementation requires the local authority's buy-in into policies and ownership of projects. Throwing money without a home-grown conviction about the need, for example, for a road, school or hospital, does not deliver the appropriate outcomes. There is need to help the relatively backward states or countries, but only in the appropriate way.

Coping with regional disparitie

Eleven states in India have 'special category' status. This extra-Constitutional status, introduced for the first time in 1969, was granted by the National Development Council, composed of the prime minister, Union ministers, chief ministers and members of the erstwhile Planning Commission. These 11 have hilly and difficult terrain, lowpopulation density, a sizeable share of the population as tribals, strategic location along the borders, economic and infrastructural backwardness, and a non-viable nature of state finances.

Bihar does not satisfy all the criteria. Yet, Chief MinisterNitish Kumar has been demanding the status for a while. The story is similar to "reservation", introduced constitutionally, initially for 10 years, and only forScheduled Tribes (ST) and Scheduled Castes (SC). The demand for the extension of special category status to other states is similar to the demands for the extension of reservation to groups other than SC and ST.

Special category states enjoy a number of benefits such as excise and income tax concessions, an earmarked 30 per cent of the normal central Plan assistance and 90 per cent of such assistance as grants (compared to only 30 per cent for other states). Given that 11 per cent of normal central plan assistance was allocated to Bihar during the Eleventh Plan according to the Gadgil-Mukherjee formula, it is difficult to see how Bihar can be declared to be special category without augmenting the earmarked 30 per cent of normal central Plan assistance.

At a public rally in Arrah on August 18, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a Rs 1.25-lakh-crore special package for Bihar for building infrastructure. Bihar badly needs such infrastructure as roads, railways, airport, refinery and power plants. Bihar Vidhan Sabha elections are due before year-end, and the opposition ascribes electoral motives behind the announcement. Leaving the politics aside, it brings the question of regional disparities in India into sharp relief.

In terms of regional disparities, India in a way is a mini-Asia, but with less accentuated differences. In Asia, in 2012, according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), smaller countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei Darussalam, South Korea and Taiwan had per capita gross national income between $21,620 and $54,040. These high-flyers had per capita income more than 20-50 times that of the Asian countries at the bottom of the ladder. At the bottom were Afghanistan, Nepal, Cambodia, Tajikistan and Bangladesh with per capita income between $690 and $1,010. Furthermore, economic performance of conflict-affected countries, such as Afghanistan, was poor. Though Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Manipur, for example, are not Afghanistan, the law and order problems in these states nevertheless appear to be taking its toll on economic performance.

In India, among all the states or Union territories, smaller ones like Goa, Delhi, Sikkim, Chandigarh and Puducherry are at the top, with per capita net state domestic product (NSDP) at factor cost at current prices between Rs 1,43,677 and Rs 2,24,138 in 2013-14, more than 1.9 times the all-India per capita net domestic product (NDP) of Rs 75,420. In the same year, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Manipur, Assam and Jharkhand, at the bottom of the ladder, had per capita NSDP between Rs 31,199 and Rs 46,131, less than 61 per cent of the all-India NDP.

Of course, disparities across countries can be expected to be more than across regions within a country. Within a country, generally, with free mobility across regions, people can be expected to migrate from poorer to richer areas and reduce disparities in the process. Furthermore, countries in a continent may emulate each other's policies to some extent, but unlike states within a country, do not operate under the same central policy regime. Yet, there are lessons to be learnt from the regional disparities across countries in Asia.

Since 1973, ADB has been focusing on its relatively backward member countries with the Asian Development Fund (ADF). To the poorest of ADB member countries, to "bridge the development gap", the ADF provides grants, as well as loans for 32 years with a grace period of eight years and interest of 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent during the grace and amortisation period, respectively. ADF-recipient status in Asia and special category status in India appear to be somewhat similar.

Prima facie, there is no overwhelming evidence that grant of the special category status has delivered accelerated development in these 11 states. Similarly, the relatively poorer ADF countries are growing slower than the rest in Asia and falling further behind the non-ADF countries. Seven economies - China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Thailand and Malaysia - continue to lead Asia's march to prosperity.

There are three lessons from the ADF that appear relevant for addressing regional disparities in India. First, law and order and conflict resolution constitute priority number one for growth. The extremely low project success rate in Afghanistan has been a frustrating experience for development practitioners. Peace-building and state-building are preconditions for better development outcomes. Little can be expected in a state where the government is unable to perform its basic functions effectively.

Second, interventions for promoting regional integration often provide very high returns. A case in point is the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Cooperation Program. Increasing connectivity through physical infrastructure and the transforming of transport corridors into economic corridors across borders; and improving competitiveness through efficient facilitation of cross-border movement of people and goods and the integration of markets, production processes, and value chains provide rich returns for poor countries. Lao PDR and Cambodia in GMS are good examples. It appears that often moving people to jobs in a planned way is easier than moving jobs to people.

Third, successful implementation requires the local authority's buy-in into policies and ownership of projects. Throwing money without a home-grown conviction about the need, for example, for a road, school or hospital, does not deliver the appropriate outcomes. There is need to help the relatively backward states or countries, but only in the appropriate way.

Clock begins to tick as 98 smart cities identified

Clock begins to tick as 98 smart cities identified

Amid an outcry of poor civic amenities in cities bursting at seams, work on the Smart cities with state of the art facilities-- automatic traffic lights, sprawling solar panels dotting neat dwellings, clean green campuses, digitalized working, round the clock vigil through close circuit cameras, has picked up momentum. Visions are coming on drawing boards and future 98 smart cities identified. Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir have to pick up one each soon to touch 100 cities mark.             With the announcement of future smart cities list, the clock has started ticking. The Narendra Modi Government is pursuing the smart city project to give it a desired momentum with copious funds. Allocations plans have already been announced. In a related development, after recent meltdown in the Chinese financial markets and its cascading impact the world over, focus on infrastructure activities has increased. Development, especially roads and highways, would have a multiplier effect and boost rural jobs. Experts say the infrastructure is the backbone of the smart city mission which is all set to get boost due to these developments.             Finance Minister Arun  Jaitley recently said India can act as one of the “other engines” of world economic growth with China changing to slower gears. "So the world needs other engines to carry the growth process. And in a slowdown environment in the world, an economy which can grow at 8-9 per cent like India certainly has viable shoulders to provide the support to the global economy," Mr Jaitley said. He said the priority of the National Democratic Alliance Government is to ease the business environment for the global investors from the Central government, down to states and local bodies. Land acquisition, corruption, private investment with greater space for public are the main challenges which, experts say, must be tackled to ensure desired results in a stipulated period with political consensus to realize the mission.             The list of cities, unveiled recently by Urban Development Minister M Venkaiah Naidu after a nationwide "competition" between states includes Varanasi, Allahabad, Lucknow, Ghaziabad, Bareilly and Agra from Uttar Pradesh, Tiruchirapalli, Thanjavur, Salem, Vellore, Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai from Tamil Nadu, Nashik, Thane, Solapur, Nagpur, Navi Mumbai, Aurangabad and Pune from Maharashtra, and Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, Gwalior and Ujjain from Madhya Pradesh. It also encompasses Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar and Baroda in Gujarat, and Bhagalpur and Muzaffarpur in Bihar.             Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have the maximum number of 12 cities under the list followed by Maharashtra with 10, Madhya Pradesh with seven, Karnataka and Gujarat with six each, Rajasthan with four, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Punjab with three each. Of those chosen for the project, 24 are capital cities, as many as business hubs and 18 cultural centers. The two remaining two smart cites aspirants will be decided in due course as J&K sought more time to decide on its choices for the project and UP has reported that Meerut and Raibareilly have been tied in the valuation and this is to be decided which will be the selected one.             The smart cities aspirants had been chosen through an intra-state competition. Each state and Union Territory has evaluated all the urban local bodies in respective states and Union territories, based on existing service levels, financial and institutional capacities and past track record and reforms and nominated the top scores, as per the slots given to each state and UT. Eight smart cities nominees have a population of one lakh and below, while 35 cities and towns between one to five lakh. There are 21 cities, with a population ranging between five to 10 lakh, 28 cities above 10 lakh and below 25 lakh. A set of five cities are in the population range of 25 to50 lakh.             Four cities- Chennai, Greater Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Greater Mumbai-have population of above 50 lakh. Population statistics suggest that 64 towns and cities are in the category of small to medium, while the remaining 34 are large ones. Nine capital cities- Itanagar, Patna, Shimla, Bengaluru, Daman, Thiruvananthapuram , Puducherry, Gangtok and Kolkata could not be nominated for smart cities development. “In one sense, this non-inclusion goes to prove that the selection of first stage of competition was not swayed by the status or importance of cities and the selection was objective and as per the stipulated criteria’’, Mr. Naidu clarified.             Names were finalized after competitive selection process taking into consideration all parameters including job opportunities and enhanced economic activities. Strategies are being drawn to involve locals in evolving smart solutions. Locals will be involved in urban interventions. Declaration of names, however, has caused acrimony among those left out in the 98 cities list. The firming up of almost all smart city aspirants, the ‘city challenge’ competition has now entered the second stage.             In the next couple of days, the Government will release Rs 2 crore for each of the 98 cities for preparation of smart city plans. The region-wise panels of reputed agencies for assisting smart cities aspirants for preparation of smart city plans have been formed by the urban ministry. In the second stage of the city challenge competition, all smart city plans received by the Urban Development ministry will be evaluated, based on a set of six broad criteria. The top scoring 20 cities in the first round of competition in the second stage will be chosen for financing during this financial year. The remaining will be asked to address the deficiencies identified before participating in the second and the third rounds of competition. Forty cities each will be identified for financing during the second and third rounds.             The Central government proposes to give financial support to Mission to the extent of Rs 48,000 crore over five years. The chosen smarty city will be given Rs 100 crore per city per year over the next five years. Accordingly, the Central government has made a provision of Rs 48000 crore for the next five years for the smart cities mission. The States/UTs and Urban local bodies have to make an equal matching contribution. This in effect means that Central and state governments and ULBs will invest about Rs 1 lakh crore over the next five years for making 100 chosen cities smart.             Smart city plans will be implemented by a special purpose vehicle to be set up for each identified city to enable a focused effort for effective implementation. States/UTs and Urban local bodies will have 50:50 equity in SPV. Private sector can also be roped in with equity with the management control remaining with states/UTs.             Under the Smart cities and the Atal Missions, about 80 per cent of the country’s urban population would be reached out with the objective of enhancing the quality of life, which is the need for the hour. The prime objective of the Smart cities mission is to enhance quality of urban life. Smart cities will have the core infrastructure and will give a quality and decent life to citizens. It will enable a clean environment and provide smart solutions to problems. More than a dozen leading countries have expressed keen interest to associate themselves with this mission. These include the US, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, China, Singapore, Israel and Australia.             The smart cities mission seeks to ensure basic infrastructure services to enable a decent quality of life in urban pockets and a clean and sustainable environment and adoption of smart solutions and providing more public spaces to poor.            It will be implemented through areas based approach consisting of retrofitting, re-development, pan city initiatives and development of new cities. The project would herald a qualitative change in the living standards of the lucky residents as it would have clean energy with lush green campuses and good quality of air quotient and speedy but pollution free private and public transport. Even schools will have digitalized facilities to ensure regular monitoring of both teachers and students. The proposed cities will be bereft of slums and industrial units will be organized in the manner to have zero impact on the civic life despite high production in the industrial peaceful units.                         Urban population, according to 2011 census, was about 37 crore accounting for 31 per cent of total population. Currently, 31% of India’s population lives in cities; these cities also generate 63% of the nation’s economic activity. These numbers are rapidly increasing, with almost half of India’s population projected to live in its cities by 2030.             Mr Naidu says the need today is a Smart livable city with transparency & accountability. Revenue generation & mobilization should be the main focus of Urban Local Bodies. He has encouraged the Urban Local Bodies, “Be bold enough to raise user charges.”             A statutory town is one that has a municipal body. There are 4,041 statutory cities/ town as per 2011 records. Out of these, about 500 cities with a population of above one lakh each, are focus of AMRUT. These 500 cities account for 73 per cent of India’s population. Number of cities that can be nominated for AMRUT so far are like this : A&N ( 1), Andhra Pradesh (31), Arunachal Pradesh (1 ),  Assam(7), Delhi( 1), Karnataka( 27), Kerala( 18), Uttar Pradesh (54), WB (28) Maharashtra ( 37), Bihar ( 27), Jharkhand(11) etc. While assigning the 100 smart city slots among states/UTs, geographical equity has been taken in to consideration to ensure that each state/UT gets at least one smart city. Cities nominated by each state will participate in the second stage of the inter city competition among all such 100 cities which a related to prepare smart city plans to be evaluated by the ministry’s panel of experts on a set of laid out criteria.             Pan city components could be interventions like intelligent transport solutions that benefit all residents by reducing commuting time. Both Smart city mission and AMRUT are linked with are virtually biologically linked. AMRUT, entailing an investment of Rs50,000 crore, envisages proper infrastructure services relating to water supply, sewerage, seepage management, storm water drains, transport and development of green spaces and parks with special plans of meeting needs of children.          The Mission inter alia aims at achieving urban reforms such as e-governance, building of professional municipal cadre, devolving funds and functions to urban local bodies, review of building bye laws, improvement in assessment and collection of municipal taxes, credit rating of urban local bodies, energy and water audit and citizen centric urban planning. The AMRUT Mission will be implemented in 500 cities and towns each with a population of one lakh and above. It will also be carried out in some cities situated on stems of main rivers, a few capital cities and important cities located in hilly areas, islands and tourist areas.             The smart city initiative planners have agenda for core infrastructure services like adequate and clean water supply, sanitation and solid waste management, efficient urban mobility and public transport, affordable housing for the poor, power supply, robust IT connectivity, governance, especially-governance, security and safety of inhabitants, well developed health, education services besides sustainable urban development. The Mission inter alia aims at achieving urban reforms such as e-governance, building of professional municipal cadre, devolving funds and functions to urban local bodies, review of building bye laws, improvement in assessment and collection of municipal taxes, credit rating of urban local bodies, energy and water audit and citizen centric urban planning.             A reform matrix with timelines will be circulated to states in the guidelines. Sources said the government has already approved central funding under AMRUT to the projects sanctioned under JNNURM and not completed. JNNURM projects relating to the urban development sanctioned during 2005-2012 and achieved physical progress of fifty per cent availing 50 per cent central assistance released and those sanctioned during 2012-2014 will be supported till March 2017. Accordingly, 102 and 296 projects will get central support for balance funding to complete these projects.             “The Ball is now in the court of states & urban local bodies to take full advantage of this enthusiasm by being appropriately pro-active .The next 10 years are‘ Very crucial’ for rewriting our urban landscape . We can’t afford to miss this opportunity. It is like perform or perish for the states & urban bodies. The Clock has begun to tick.” says Mr Venkaiah Naidu.

‘Focus on Image, Innovation, Initiative and Interaction’: Javadekar

‘Focus on Image, Innovation, Initiative and Interaction’: Javadekar

Environment Minister Addresses Conference of Forest, Wildlife Officers

The Minister of State (Independent Charge) of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Javadekar, today emphasised that forest and wildlife officers must focus on the 4 ‘I’s – Image, Innovation, Initiative and Interaction. Addressing the inaugural session of the two-day Conference of all Principal Chief Conservators of Forests and Wildlife Wardens here today, Shri Javadekar said that maintaining and improving the quality of forests is a major challenge. He said, “We must ensure that degraded forest must be converted into moderately dense forest in 10 years and moderately dense forest must be converted into dense forests in 5 years. To that end, water harvesting and changing some species is a must. Forest research institutes must draw up a distinct plan of improving the quality of each forest, taking the existing flora and climate into consideration”. He laid emphasis on ensuring people’s participation in changing the quality of forests. He also urged the officers to provide solutions to various challenges. The Minister said that a lot of good work is being done and such success stories and initiatives must be highlighted prominently.

The two-day Conference will discuss various issues related to forest and wildlife, such as Forest Conservation Act, Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZs) and minimising human-wildlife conflict. Seventy-five PCCFs and higher officials representing all the 32 States are participating in the Conference.

Shri Javadekar released a report – “Management effectiveness evaluation of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in India, 2006-2014”. The agreement to establish the world’s first centre of World Natural Heritage & Training at the Wildlife Institute of India was signed on the occasion. The Union Cabinet had recently given its approval for signing of agreement between UNESCO and the Government of India and had authorised Director General (Forests) and Special Secretary to Government of India to sign this agreement on behalf of the Government of India. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO, has initiated a process of decentralisation and empowerment of the member countries of the UNESCO convention. As a part of this process, UNESCO has identified nine countries in the world for establishment of Category 2 centres for protection of cultural heritage. In the field of natural heritage, UNESCO has selected India for the establishment of the world’s first centre of World Natural Heritage Management & Training at the Wildlife Institute of India.

Speaking on the occasion, Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Ashok Lavasa, said that there is a greater need to adhere to the prescribed timelines. He also said that since last year, there has been an increased transparency in the functioning of the Ministry. 

‘Focus on Image, Innovation, Initiative and Interaction’: Javadekar

‘Focus on Image, Innovation, Initiative and Interaction’: Javadekar

Environment Minister Addresses Conference of Forest, Wildlife Officers

The Minister of State (Independent Charge) of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Javadekar, today emphasised that forest and wildlife officers must focus on the 4 ‘I’s – Image, Innovation, Initiative and Interaction. Addressing the inaugural session of the two-day Conference of all Principal Chief Conservators of Forests and Wildlife Wardens here today, Shri Javadekar said that maintaining and improving the quality of forests is a major challenge. He said, “We must ensure that degraded forest must be converted into moderately dense forest in 10 years and moderately dense forest must be converted into dense forests in 5 years. To that end, water harvesting and changing some species is a must. Forest research institutes must draw up a distinct plan of improving the quality of each forest, taking the existing flora and climate into consideration”. He laid emphasis on ensuring people’s participation in changing the quality of forests. He also urged the officers to provide solutions to various challenges. The Minister said that a lot of good work is being done and such success stories and initiatives must be highlighted prominently.

The two-day Conference will discuss various issues related to forest and wildlife, such as Forest Conservation Act, Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZs) and minimising human-wildlife conflict. Seventy-five PCCFs and higher officials representing all the 32 States are participating in the Conference.

Shri Javadekar released a report – “Management effectiveness evaluation of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in India, 2006-2014”. The agreement to establish the world’s first centre of World Natural Heritage & Training at the Wildlife Institute of India was signed on the occasion. The Union Cabinet had recently given its approval for signing of agreement between UNESCO and the Government of India and had authorised Director General (Forests) and Special Secretary to Government of India to sign this agreement on behalf of the Government of India. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO, has initiated a process of decentralisation and empowerment of the member countries of the UNESCO convention. As a part of this process, UNESCO has identified nine countries in the world for establishment of Category 2 centres for protection of cultural heritage. In the field of natural heritage, UNESCO has selected India for the establishment of the world’s first centre of World Natural Heritage Management & Training at the Wildlife Institute of India.

Speaking on the occasion, Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Ashok Lavasa, said that there is a greater need to adhere to the prescribed timelines. He also said that since last year, there has been an increased transparency in the functioning of the Ministry. 

RBI declares SBI, ICICI Bank systemically important banks

The D-SIB framework requires the RBI to disclose the names of banks designated as D-SIBs every year in August starting from August 2015.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday declared State Bank of India and ICICI Bank as Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs). The RBI had issued the framework for dealing with Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) on July 22, 2014.

The D-SIB framework requires the RBI to disclose the names of banks designated as D-SIBs every year in August starting from August 2015, said RBI in a press release.

“The framework also requires that D-SIBs may be placed in four buckets depending upon their Systemic Importance Scores (SISs). Based on the bucket in which a D-SIB is placed, an additional common equity requirement has to be applied to it, as mentioned in the D-SIB framework,” it added.

The D-SIB framework specifies a two-step process of identification of D-SIBs. In the first step, the sample of banks to be assessed for systemic importance has to be decided. The additional Common Equity Tier-1 (CET1) requirements applicable to D-SIBs will be applicable from April 1, 2016 in a phased manner and would become fully effective from April 1, 2019. The additional CET1 requirement will be in addition to the capital conservation buffer, said RBI.

RBI also said that in case a foreign bank having branch presence in India is a Global Systemically Important Bank (G-SIB), it has to maintain additional CET1 capital surcharge in India as applicable to it as a G-SIB, proportionate to its risk weighted assets (RWAs) in India.

“RBI has named State Bank of India as Domestic Systemically Important Bank as expected.  However, the additional capital requirement of Tier-I capital has been lowered by 20 basis points as compared to draft guidelines.  SBI currently has a much higher level of Tier-I at 9.62 per cent as opposed to 7 per cent required under the current guidelines,” said Arundhati Bhattacharya, Chairman, SBI.

“Given our size and significant presence across the financial sector, it was expected that ICICI Bank would be classified as systemically important, said Chanda Kochhar, MD and CEO, ICICI Bank. According to Ms. Kochhar, the bank’s capital adequacy is well in excess of regulatory requirements