Editorial 1 : The Centre is notional, the States the real entities
Context
Utilisation of the country’s resources needs to be decided jointly by the Centre and the States. The changed political situation after the general election makes this feasible.
The current status of Democratisation
- The results of the general election 2024 have thrown up a surprise. They portend greater democratisation in the country, with the regional parties doing well.
- These parties will share space on the ruling party benches as well as on the Opposition side in Parliament.
- This will help strengthen federalism, which is so crucial for a diverse nation such as India.
- Centre-State relations became contentious during the campaigning for the general election.
- The Supreme Court, expressing its helplessness, recently said that Centre-State issues need to be sorted out amicably.
- With federalism fraying, discord has grown between the Centre and the Opposition-ruled States.
- There is a huge diversity among the States — Assam is unlike Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh is very different from Tamil Nadu. A common approach is not conducive to the progress of such diverse States.
- They need greater autonomy to address their issues in their own unique ways. This is both democracy and federalism.
- So, a dominant Centre forcing its will on the States, leading to the deterioration in Centre-State relations, does not augur well for India.
Financing and conflict is one issue
- States face three broad kinds of issues. Some of them can be dealt with by each State without impacting other States such as in education, health and social services.
- But infrastructure and water sharing require States to come to an agreement. Issues such as currency and defence require a common approach.
- Expenditures have to be financed to achieve goals, and that results in conflict.
- Revenue has to be raised through taxes, non-tax sources and borrowings.
- The Centre has been given a predominant role in raising resources due to the efficiency in collecting taxes centrally.
- Among the major taxes, personal income tax (PIT), corporation tax, customs duty and excise duty are collected by the Centre.
- GST is collected by both the Centre and the States and shared. So, the Centre controls most of the resources, and they have to be devolved to the States to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities.
- A Finance Commission is appointed to decide on: the devolution of funds from the Centre to the States, and the share of each State.
- The Centre sets up the Commission and has mostly set its terms of reference. This introduces a bias in favour of the Centre and becomes a source of conflict between the Centre and States.
- Further, there has been an implicit bias in the Commissions, that the States are not fiscally responsible. This reflects the Centre’s bias — that the States are not doing what they should and that they make undue demands on the Centre.
- The States also pitch their demands high to try and get a larger share of the revenues.
- They tend to show lower revenue collection and higher expenditures in the hope that there will be a greater allocation from the Commission. The Commission becomes an arbiter, and the States the supplicants.
Inter-State tussles, Centre-State relations
- The States cannot have a common position as they are at different stages of development and with vastly different resource positions.
- The rich States have greater resources while the poor ones need more resources in order to develop faster and also play catch up.
- So, the Finance Commission is supposed to devolve proportionately more funds to the poorer States. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the 15 Finance Commissions so far, the gap remains wide.
- The Centre allocates resources to the States in two ways.
- First, on account of the Finance Commission award.
- Second, the Centre is notional while the States are real. Thus, all expenditures by the Centre are in some State.
- The amount spent in each State is also a transfer. This becomes another source of conflict.
- Expenditures lead to jobs and prosperity in a State. Benefits accrue in proportion to the funds spent. As a result, each State wants more expenditure in its territory.
- The autonomy of States is not to be confused with a freedom to do anything. It is circumscribed by the need to function within a national framework for wider good.
Issues in federalism
- The Sixteenth Finance Commission has begun work. It should try to reverse fraying federalism and strengthen the spirit of India as a ‘Union of States’.
- The Commission could suggest that there is even-handed treatment of all the States by the Centre and also less friction among the rich and poor States when proportionately more resources are transferred to poor States so as to keep rising inequality in check.
- The issue of governance, both at the Centre and in the States, needs to be flagged. It determines investment productivity and the pace of development..
- To reduce the domination of the Centre over the States, the devolution of resources from the Centre to the States could be raised substantially from its current level of 41%.
- The Centre’s role could be curtailed. For instance, the Public Distribution System or MGNREGS are joint schemes, but the Centre asserts that it be given credit. It has penalised States that have not done so.
Way forward
The Centre’s undue assertiveness undermines federalism. Funds with the Centre are public funds collected from the States and spent in the States. The Centre is notional and constitutionally created, while States and local bodies are the real entities, where economic activity occurs and resources are generated. It is time that the utilisation of the country’s resources is jointly decided by the Centre and the States on the basis of being equal partners.
Editorial 2 : Remoulding the Global Plastics Treaty
Context
As an instrument to end plastic pollution, it needs to ensure social justice and equity principles for the informal recycling worker
Need of a Legally binding treaty
- As discussions still continue for an international legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, it becomes crucial to consider how it can support a fair transition for individuals who collect and recycle waste informally.
- According to the OECD Global Plastic Outlook, global production of plastic waste was 353 million tonnes in 2019 — more than double since it was in 2000, and is set to triple by 2060.
- Only 9% of this was recycled, 50% sent to landfills, 19% incinerated, and 22% disposed of in uncontrolled sites or dumps. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, of the 9% recycled, 85% was done by informal recycling workers.
- These workers collect, sort and recover recyclable and reusable materials from general waste, alleviating municipal budgets of financial burdens around waste management and, at large, subsidising the environmental mandate of the producers, consumers and the government.
- The Centre for Environment Justice and Development has also observed that they promote circular waste management solutions and help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, valuably contributing to sustainability.
- Their efforts significantly reduce plastic content in landfills and dump sites, effectively preventing plastic leaking into the environment.
The need for recognition
- Yet, these workers are often overlooked and remain highly vulnerable in plastic value chains.
- They face risks such as increasing privatisation of waste management, waste-to-energy or incineration projects, and exclusion through other public policy interventions in plastic waste management in the norms of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
- The informal waste and recovery sector (IWRS) is more than a minor player in worldwide municipal solid waste management systems.
- According to the UN-Habitat’s Waste Wise Cities Tool (WaCT), the informal sector accounts for 80% of municipal solid waste recovery in many cities.
- A recent study by UN-Habitat and the University of Leeds estimates that around 60 million tonnes of plastic from municipal solid waste pollute the environment, including waterbodies, due to inadequate collection services and mismanagement of solid waste.
- Without the IWRS, the volume would be higher.
- However, as highlighted in the recent Leave No One Behind Report, strategies to reduce plastic pollution often neglect to effectively involve the recovery capacities, skills, and knowledge of the IWRS.
- This oversight worsens livelihood vulnerabilities and undermines existing informal recovery systems.
Global treaty, need for a just transition
- The Global Plastics Treaty is a significant attempt to establish a legally binding agreement aimed at reducing and eliminating plastic pollution.
- The decision to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was made in early 2021 during the fifth UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya.
- The final INC-5 meeting in South Korea will continue to see active participation from the International Alliance of Waste Pickers (IAWP).
- The IAWP, a vocal participant in the UNEA Plastic Treaty process, emphasises the importance of supporting the formalisation and integration of informal waste pickers into discussions on addressing plastics.
- These measures aim to acknowledge waste pickers’ historical contributions, protect their rights, and promote effective and sustainable plastic waste management practices.
- There is no universally agreed-upon terminology for a just transition or a formal definition of the informal waste sector and its workforce.
India’s voice is important
- As a key representative from the Global South, India promotes an approach that enhances repair, reuse, refill, and recycling without necessarily eliminating the use of plastics altogether.
- India has also stressed the importance of adopting country-specific circumstances and capacities. Hence, India’s informal waste pickers, who are indispensable, remain central to the discussion.
- We, therefore, need to rethink the formulation of our EPR norms and raise questions on how to integrate this informal worker cohort into the new legal framework.
Way forward
- As the final round of negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty approaches the INC-5, a key question remains — on how a global instrument to end plastic pollution can enable a just transition for nearly 15 million people who informally collect and recover up to 58% of global recycled waste, thereby shaping a sustainable future.
- By incorporating their perspectives and ensuring their livelihoods are protected, the treaty can embody social justice and equity principles while leaving no one and no place behind.
