News at a Glance
- Telangana: GHMC Launches Mobile App for Real-Time Road Safety Inspections
- Telangana High Court Stays Human Rights Commission Proceedings Against Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society
- Polity and Governance: India’s New Tribal Affairs Policy
- 8th Central Pay Commission: Fiscal Prudence over Pension Populism
- International Relations: Trump–Xi Bonhomie and the “G-2” Reference: Implications for India and the Quad
- Economy: Centre’s Gene-Edited Rice Claims Under Scrutiny
- Science and Technology: Introducing Artificial Intelligence in School Education
- Environment and Ecology: Kunming Biodiversity Fund: Supporting Nature-Friendly Agriculture in Developing Countries
GHMC Launches Mobile App for Real-Time Road Safety Inspections
Source: Telangana today
TGPSC Relevance: Governance
Context: Mobile App for Real-Time Road Safety Inspections
Why in News?
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has launched a Periodic Public Safety Inspection App using ArcGIS Field Maps for real-time road safety and infrastructure monitoring.
Introduction
- In a significant step towards enhancing urban road safety and infrastructure management, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has launched a Periodic Public Safety Inspection App, developed using ArcGIS Field Maps technology.
- The initiative aims to digitize and modernize the process of road safety inspections through real-time data collection, monitoring, and decision-making.
About the Initiative
- The Periodic Public Safety Inspection (PPSI) App is a mobile-based platform designed to enable GHMC engineers to conduct on-site inspections and report road-related issues instantly.
- By integrating Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, the app ensures accurate and location-based reporting of road defects and hazards.
- The app has been developed to support comprehensive and continuous public safety monitoring across Hyderabad’s extensive road network. It reflects GHMC’s broader goal of improving transparency, accountability, and efficiency in urban governance.
Key Features of the App
- Real-Time Reporting: Field engineers can instantly record and upload road safety issues such as:
- Potholes and uneven surfaces
- Open manholes and damaged catch pits
- Protruding iron bars or stones
- Broken or missing footpath slabs
- Improper barricading around ongoing works
- Open electrical boxes or unsafe street installations
- GIS-Enabled Data Capture: The use of ArcGIS Field Maps allows engineers to collect geo-referenced data, ensuring every issue is tagged to its precise location for quicker identification and resolution.
- Evidence-Based Monitoring: Each report includes geo-tagged photographs and GPS data, creating a verifiable digital record of field observations.
- Centralised Dashboard: A central monitoring dashboard tracks every issue — from inspection to resolution — allowing supervisors and higher officials to monitor progress in real-time.
- Transparency and Accountability: The system ensures greater visibility into road maintenance operations, reducing the scope for delays or unreported hazards.
- Decision Support System: The centralized data pool aids in data-driven decision-making, prioritizing repairs based on urgency, frequency, and location-specific safety risks.
(Image Source: Telangana Today)
Significance of the Initiative
- Enhanced Public Safety: Real-time detection and rectification of road hazards will reduce accidents, pedestrian injuries, and vehicle damage.
- Smart Governance: The initiative aligns with the Smart City objectives by leveraging digital technologies for civic management and public service delivery.
- Operational Efficiency: The automation of inspections and reporting minimizes manual paperwork, enabling faster coordination between engineers, contractors, and monitoring authorities.
- Transparency and Citizen Trust: Geo-tagged data and visual evidence improve accountability and promote citizen confidence in municipal governance.
- Data-Driven Urban Planning: The accumulated data on road conditions can help GHMC plan long-term infrastructure improvements and budget allocations based on real evidence.
Wider Implications
- Model for Other Urban Bodies: The initiative can serve as a replicable model for municipal corporations across India to adopt GIS-based tools for urban infrastructure monitoring.
- Integration with Smart City Systems: The app’s real-time capabilities can be integrated with Hyderabad’s Smart City Command and Control Centre, improving coordination among departments such as Roads, Electricity, and Sanitation.
- Support for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Well-maintained roads directly contribute to smoother traffic flow, lower vehicle emissions, and enhanced commuter safety—key elements of sustainable urban transport.
Conclusion
- The GHMC’s launch of the Periodic Public Safety Inspection App marks a progressive move toward technology-driven governance and safer urban living.
CARE MCQ
Q1. With reference to the Periodic Public Safety Inspection App recently launched by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), consider the following statements:
- The app uses GIS-based technology to record and monitor road safety issues in real-time.
- It allows field engineers to capture geo-tagged photographs and GPS data of road defects directly from the field.
- The data collected through the app is integrated into a centralized dashboard for evidence-based decision-making.
- The app has been developed under the Smart Cities Mission of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1, 2 and 3 only
(c) 1, 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer 1- B
Explanation
- Statement 1 is correct: The Periodic Public Safety Inspection App launched by GHMC uses GIS-based technology (ArcGIS Field Maps) to record and monitor road safety issues in real time. This ensures precise, location-specific data collection for timely identification and rectification of infrastructure problems.
- Statement 2 is correct: Field engineers can use the app to capture geo-tagged photographs and GPS data of road defects such as potholes, open manholes, or damaged footpaths directly from the field. This feature ensures evidence-based tracking and improves the reliability of inspection reports.
- Statement 3 is correct: The app’s design includes a centralized dashboard that compiles field data for supervisory review, enabling evidence-based decision-making, transparency, and accountability throughout the inspection-to-resolution process.
- Statement 4 is incorrect: The app is a GHMC initiative developed using ArcGIS technology for Hyderabad’s municipal governance. It was not launched under the national Smart Cities Mission of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
- Therefore, option B is the correct answer.
Telangana High Court Stays Human Rights Commission Proceedings Against Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society
Source: Telangana Today
TGPSC Relevance: Governance
Context: Human rights issue in Telangana
Why in News?
The Telangana High Court stayed proceedings by the State Human Rights Commission against Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society.
Introduction
- In a significant development concerning the limits of quasi-judicial powers, the Telangana High Court has stayed the proceedings initiated by the Telangana State Human Rights Commission (TGHRC) against Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society.
- The stay order was issued by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, which observed that the matter raised serious questions regarding the jurisdiction and statutory authority of the Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
(image Source: Telangana Today)
Background of the Case
- The case arose from a complaint filed before the TGHRC against the Sultan-ul-Uloom College of Pharmacy, an institution under the Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society.
- The Commission had taken cognisance of issues related to the remarks in conduct certificates and issuance of academic documents, which the complainant alleged constituted violations of human rights.
- Challenging the Commission’s intervention, the College filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court, asserting that such issues were purely academic and administrative in nature and therefore fell outside the purview of the Human Rights Commission.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the TGHRC had no jurisdiction under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to entertain or inquire into matters relating to the internal administration of educational institutions. Key arguments included:
- Statutory Limitation: Under Section 2(d) of the Act, “human rights” refer specifically to rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or international covenants. Administrative issues such as conduct certificates or academic documentation do not qualify as human rights violations.
- Ultra Vires Action: The petitioner claimed that the Commission’s actions — including its recommendations and directions — were ultra vires (beyond the powers conferred by law), amounting to statutory overreach.
- Autonomy of Educational Institutions: The intervention was described as an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of an autonomous educational body, undermining its independence and governance framework.
High Court’s Observations
- Taking note of the submissions, the Bench held that the case raised a substantial question of law regarding the scope and limits of the Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction in dealing with disputes arising from educational or administrative matters.
- The Court emphasized the need to carefully delineate between genuine human rights violations and routine institutional or academic grievances, to prevent misuse or overextension of the Commission’s powers.
- Accordingly, the High Court:
- Stayed the ongoing proceedings before the TGHRC against the Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society.
- Admitted the writ petition for detailed examination on the issue of jurisdictional overreach.
- Directed that the matter be listed for further hearing after notice to the respondents.
Legal Significance
- The case highlights the boundaries of quasi-judicial authority under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It brings to the forefront the need to distinguish between statutory human rights violations and administrative grievances, especially in the education sector.
- The High Court’s intervention underscores two important legal principles:
- Jurisdictional Restraint: Statutory bodies must act strictly within the scope defined by the parent legislation.
- Autonomy of Institutions: Educational institutions enjoy a degree of autonomy in academic and administrative matters, which should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory rights.
Way Forward
- The case will now proceed for further hearing, where the Telangana High Court will determine whether the Human Rights Commission exceeded its statutory mandate in entertaining complaints related to academic administration.
- The outcome is expected to set an important judicial precedent on the jurisdictional limits of human rights commissions vis-à-vis autonomous educational institutions — balancing institutional autonomy with protection of individual rights.
CARE MCQ
Q2. With reference to the recent Telangana High Court order staying the State Human Rights Commission’s proceedings against Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society, consider the following statements:
- Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Human Rights Commissions can inquire into all types of administrative and academic disputes.
- Section 2(d) of the Act defines “human rights” as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or international covenants.
- The High Court held that the Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction over internal matters of autonomous educational institutions.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, and 3
Answer 2- B
Explanation
- Statement 1 is incorrect: The Human Rights Commissions do not have the authority to inquire into all administrative or academic disputes. Their jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violations of fundamental human rights such as life, liberty, equality, and dignity under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
- Statement 2 is correct: As per Section 2(d) of the Act, “human rights” are defined as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or international covenants and enforceable by courts in India.
- Statement 3 is incorrect: The Telangana High Court stayed the proceedings precisely because it found that the Commission’s interference in the internal affairs of an autonomous educational institution exceeded its jurisdiction.
- Therefore, option B is the correct answer.
India’s New Tribal Affairs Policy
Source: Indian Express
UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity and Governance
Context: Tribal Affairs Policy
Why in News
The Union Tribal Affairs Ministry’s new policy framework redefines India’s conservation approach by emphasizing community rights and sustainable human–tiger coexistence instead of forced relocations.
Background
- The India’s evolving conservation strategy is at a critical juncture.
- The new policy framework introduced by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) marks a significant shift from the traditional fortress conservation model—where humans are excluded from protected areas—to one that views conservation as a social contract.
- This framework recognizes that forest-dwelling and tribal communities are stakeholders, not trespassers, in the process of preserving India’s rich biodiversity, including its iconic tiger population.
From Fortress Conservation to Community-Centred Models
- Historically, India’s conservation efforts, particularly in tiger reserves and national parks, followed a fortress conservation approach inspired by colonial and Western practices.
- Under this model, local populations were relocated or excluded from forest areas to create inviolate spaces for wildlife.
- While this approach helped increase tiger numbers—from around 1,411 in 2006 to over 3,000 in 2023—it often marginalized indigenous communities, violated their rights, and created social conflicts.
- The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 was enacted to correct this imbalance by recognizing the individual and community rights of forest dwellers.
- However, its implementation has remained inconsistent, often subordinated to conservation imperatives led by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
Recent Policy Developments (2023–2025)
The new MoTA policy aims to reaffirm a rights-based and participatory conservation model. Its major provisions include:
- Protection Against Premature Relocation: No community can be relocated from forest areas until the FRA process is completed. This ensures due recognition of land and resource rights before any displacement.
- Relocation as an “Exceptional” Measure: The policy overturns the 2024 NTCA directive that called for the mass removal of villages from tiger reserves. Relocation will now be treated as a last resort, emphasizing coexistence rather than exclusion.
- Coexistence and Sustainable Models: It promotes research and pilot projects on sustainable human–tiger coexistence, seeking a socially legitimate model of conservation that values both ecological and cultural sustainability.
- Legal Safeguards and Redress Mechanisms: The policy invokes provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against unlawful evictions. It also establishes a three-tier grievance redress system, ensuring accountability and justice for affected communities.
- Community-Centred Conservation Framework:nThe proposed National Framework for Community-Centred Conservation and Relocation seeks to institutionalize participation and ensure that conservation outcomes are equitable and inclusive.
Balancing Rights and Ecology: The Core Challenge
- While the policy strengthens social justice and legal protections, it also raises complex ecological questions.
- Forest-dependent communities have diverse aspirations: some seek modern amenities such as education and healthcare, while others prioritize traditional ways of life and cultural autonomy.
- Tigers and other apex predators require extensive, undisturbed core areas to thrive, which some conservationists argue is incompatible with human presence.
- Therefore, the challenge lies in designing fine-grained, locally sensitive mechanisms that balance both conservation imperatives and community needs—an objective that requires collaboration beyond the capacity of central ministries.
Implementation and Institutional Challenges
- Despite its progressive intent, several institutional and operational challenges may affect the policy’s success:
- Resistance from Conservation Establishments: Traditional conservation agencies may resist the shift, viewing it as a dilution of efforts to consolidate tiger habitats.
- State-Level Variations: As forest management is a state subject, the degree of FRA enforcement and community participation varies widely. Some states may continue forced relocations despite the new policy.
- Dual Policy Risks: The possibility of dual or conflicting policies on the ground—one under MoEFCC emphasizing exclusion, and another under MoTA emphasizing inclusion—may create administrative confusion.
- Weak Implementation of Compensation Norms: Even where relocation occurs with consent, compensation and rehabilitation standards are often violated, eroding trust and undermining the legitimacy of conservation efforts.
The Way Forward: Towards Inclusive and Resilient Conservation
- A truly effective conservation model for India must rest on scientific, social, and ethical foundations. Key steps forward include:
- Integrated Governance: Establish coordination mechanisms between MoTA, MoEFCC, and State Forest Departments to ensure policy coherence.
- Localised Conservation Planning: Develop context-specific conservation strategies that recognize the ecological sensitivity of regions while respecting the rights and aspirations of local communities.
- Scientific Zonation: Maintain human-free core areas for tigers based on ecological science, while allowing buffer and transition zones for community-based livelihoods and stewardship.
- Capacity Building and Monitoring: Strengthen the institutional capacity of local bodies, gram sabhas, and forest rights committees for participatory management and transparent monitoring.
- Social and Ecological Research: Promote long-term studies on human–wildlife coexistence models to inform adaptive management and policy refinement.
| Who are Tribes?
Constitutional Provisions for Scheduled Tribes The framers of the Constitution provided special safeguards for the protection, welfare, and development of STs across political, social, and economic dimensions. 1. Identification and Safeguards
2. Political Safeguards
3. Administrative and Special Governance Provisions
Fifth Schedule:
Sixth Schedule:
4. Protective and Developmental Provisions
Major Government Initiatives for Tribal Welfare A. Institutional Mechanisms
B. Developmental and Welfare Schemes
C. Legal and Protective Measures
|
Conclusion
- The new policy framework marks a progressive shift in India’s conservation philosophy—from exclusion to engagement, from control to collaboration.
- By reaffirming the Forest Rights Act and positioning conservation as a shared social contract, it recognizes that protecting biodiversity is inseparable from protecting people.
CARE MCQ
Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the Union Tribal Affairs Ministry’s new policy framework on conservation and relocation:
- The policy prohibits the relocation of forest-dwelling communities until the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 process is completed.
- It treats relocation as an exceptional measure and promotes research on sustainable human–tiger coexistence.
- The policy allows unlawful evictions in critical tiger habitats for the purpose of creating inviolate zones.
- It invokes the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for protection against unlawful evictions and provides a three-tier grievance redress system.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a) 1 and 2 only
b) 2, 3 and 4 only
c) 1, 2 and 4 only
d) 1, 3 and 4 only
Answer 1- C
Explanation
- Statement 1 is correct: The policy ensures that no relocation can take place until the FRA process is completed.
- Statement 2 is correct: It redefines relocation as an exceptional measure and promotes coexistence research.
- Statement 3 is incorrect: The policy prohibits unlawful evictions, not allows them.
- Statement 4 is correct: It invokes the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and introduces a three-tier redress mechanism for affected communities.
- Therefore, option C is the correct answer.
UPSC PYQ
Q. Consider the following statements about Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in India: (2019)
- PVTGs reside in 18 States and one Union Territory.
- A stagnant or declining population is one of the criteria for determining PVTG status.
- There are 95 PVTGs officially notified in the country so far.
- Irular and Konda Reddi tribes are included in the list of PVTGs.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1, 2 and 3
(b) 2, 3 and 4
(c) 1, 2 and 4
(d) 1, 3 and 4
Ans: (c)
8th Central Pay Commission: Fiscal Prudence over Pension Populism
Source: New Indian Express
UPSC Relevance: GS2 Polity and Governance
Context: 8th Central Pay Commission
Why in News?
- The Centre’s Terms of Reference (ToR) for the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC) emphasize fiscal prudence by including the “unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes,” signalling no return to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
Background
- The Union Government’s recent notification of the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC) marks a significant policy stance in India’s public finance management.
- While the formation of every pay commission since independence has been a routine administrative exercise aimed at revising the pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits of Central Government employees, the 8th CPC—headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai—reflects a notable shift in emphasis.
- Unlike earlier commissions, the latest ToR explicitly instructs the panel to consider the “unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes”, signalling the Centre’s intent to uphold fiscal prudence and resist pressure for reverting to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
(Image Source: New Indian Express)
Background: From OPS to NPS and UPS
- Until December 31, 2003, Central Government employees were covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) — a non-contributory, defined benefit system where the entire pension liability was borne by the government.
- In 2004, the National Pension System (NPS) was introduced for all new entrants to Central Government service (except armed forces), marking a paradigm shift to a contributory, defined contribution framework. Both employee and employer contribute a fixed percentage of salary, and the final pension depends on market returns.
- In recent years, a Unified Pension Scheme (UPS)—an upgraded, partially guaranteed version of the NPS—was introduced, seeking to balance employee welfare with fiscal sustainability.
- However, sections of employees recruited after 2004 continue to demand restoration of the OPS, arguing that it provides financial security through assured lifelong pension and family benefits, unlike the market-dependent NPS.
The 8th CPC and its Terms of Reference
- The 8th CPC was notified with a five-point Terms of Reference, focusing on balancing the need for equitable compensation with the imperatives of fiscal discipline and national development priorities.
Key Components of the 8th CPC ToR:
- Economic Conditions and Fiscal Prudence
- The Commission must assess the prevailing macroeconomic environment and ensure that pay revisions align with fiscal realities and sustainability.
- Availability of Resources for Development and Welfare
- The ToR emphasises that adequate public funds should continue to be available for developmental expenditure, ensuring that wage and pension bills do not crowd out welfare investments.
- Unfunded Cost of Non-Contributory Pension Schemes
- A new addition, this clause directs the panel to consider the financial burden of the OPS, which lacks a dedicated corpus and relies entirely on current revenues, posing long-term fiscal risks.
- Impact on State Finances
- Since States often follow the Centre’s pay recommendations, the ToR instructs the Commission to examine the likely impact on State Governments, which already face mounting salary and pension liabilities.
- Parity with Public and Private Sector Emoluments
- The Commission must review pay and benefits vis-à-vis Central Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs) and the private sector, ensuring competitiveness and rationality.
Comparison with the 7th CPC ToR
- The 7th CPC, chaired by Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur, was tasked with a broader review of emoluments, allowances, and benefits across Central Government services, including industrial and non-industrial employees, All India Services, Union Territories, Indian Audit and Accounts Department, members of statutory regulatory bodies (except RBI), and officers of the Supreme Court.
- However, a major difference in the 8th CPC’s ToR lies in the explicit mention of “unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes”, absent in the 7th CPC’s mandate.
- This inclusion is widely interpreted as the government’s policy signal against reinstating the OPS, reflecting its commitment to sustainable fiscal management amidst growing demands for reverting to the older pension structure.
Fiscal Concerns: The Case Against OPS
- The OPS is non-contributory and fiscally unsustainable, as current taxpayers fund the pensions of retired employees without any dedicated investment corpus.
According to estimates from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Department of Expenditure, pension liabilities have become one of the fastest-growing components of government expenditure, particularly at the State level. - States that reverted to OPS—such as Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh—have seen pension liabilities double within a few years, raising concerns about long-term fiscal stress.
- By contrast, the NPS and UPS aim to distribute the burden between employee and employer, while ensuring partial funding through investment-based returns.
Implications for Employees and Pensioners
- Many employees and pensioners covered under the OPS interpret the new ToR as a signal of reduced government empathy towards staff welfare. They argue that by foregrounding fiscal prudence, the government is prioritising macroeconomic stability over social security of employees.
- However, from a broader economic perspective, the ToR underscores the intergenerational equity principle — ensuring that future taxpayers are not burdened by today’s pension promises.
- This approach aligns with the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) framework, which seeks to contain revenue expenditure and debt accumulation.
Expert Perspective
- Public finance experts view the 8th CPC’s ToR as a mature fiscal reform step, aligning India’s compensation and pension systems with global best practices.
- By mandating the consideration of unfunded pension liabilities, the government is institutionalising a fiscally responsible pay revision model, where employee welfare is balanced with the need for developmental fiscal space.
- At the same time, they note that the 8th CPC must also ensure fair wage growth, particularly in the lower and middle pay bands, to maintain morale, productivity, and parity with inflation trends.
Unified Pension Scheme (UPS)
- The Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) was introduced by the Union Government in 2024 following recommendations of the T.V. Somanathan Committee.
- It aims to address employee dissatisfaction with the National Pension System (NPS) while ensuring fiscal sustainability—avoiding a return to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), which was non-contributory and fiscally burdensome.
- Key Features of UPS
| Feature | Description |
| Assured Pension | 50% of the average basic pay (plus DA) drawn over the last 12 months before retirement for a minimum of 25 years of service; proportionately reduced for 10–25 years of service. |
| Minimum Pension | Guaranteed ₹10,000 per month for employees retiring with at least 10 years of service. |
| Family Pension | 60% of the pension last drawn by the retiree to be paid to the surviving spouse/family. |
| Inflation Indexation | Dearness relief linked to the All India Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW). |
| Lump-sum Payment | On retirement, a lump sum equal to 1/10th of monthly emoluments (pay + DA) for every 6 months of completed service, in addition to gratuity, without affecting the pension amount. |
| Employee Contribution | 10% of basic pay + DA. |
| Government Contribution | 18.5%. |
| Choice of Scheme | Employees can choose between NPS and UPS only once; the option is irreversible. |
National Pension System (NPS)
- The NPS was introduced on 1 January 2004, replacing the Old Pension Scheme for Central Government employees (except armed forces).
- It is regulated by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) under the PFRDA Act, 2013.
- Key Features
| Feature | Description |
| Nature | Defined contribution scheme — market-linked returns, not guaranteed. |
| Employee Contribution | 10% of basic pay + DA. |
| Government Contribution | 14% of basic pay + DA (for Central Government employees). |
| Investment Options | Subscribers can choose investment mix and pension fund manager. |
| Withdrawals | Up to 60% of the corpus can be withdrawn tax-free at retirement; remaining 40% used to buy annuity. |
| Tax Benefits | Deductions up to 14% of government contribution under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (both old and new regimes). |
| Regulator | Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA). |
Key Differences: UPS vs. NPS vs. OPS
| Feature | Old Pension Scheme (OPS) | National Pension System (NPS) | Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) |
| Nature | Non-contributory, defined benefit | Contributory, defined contribution | Contributory, partially guaranteed |
| Pension Formula | 50% of last basic pay + DA | Market-based annuity | 50% of average of last 12 months’ basic pay + DA |
| Employee Contribution | None | 10% of basic + DA | 10% of basic + DA |
| Government Contribution | 100% (fully funded by govt.) | 14% | 18.5% |
| Minimum Pension | ₹9,000 per month | None (market-dependent) | ₹10,000 per month |
| Family Pension | 50–60% of pension | Based on annuity plan | 60% of last drawn pension |
| Inflation Indexation | Yes (Dearness Relief) | No guaranteed indexation | Yes, linked to CPI-IW |
| Lump-sum Payment | 40% commutation allowed | Up to 60% withdrawal | Additional lump sum (1/10th of monthly pay per 6 months of service) |
| Tax Benefits | No contribution, hence no deduction | Up to 14% govt. contribution deductible | Not yet clarified |
| Fiscal Impact | Unfunded, high burden | Low, funded | Moderate, partially funded |
| Social Security Level | High | Moderate | High (with fiscal balance) |
Conclusion
- The 8th Central Pay Commission reflects an evolving governance approach where economic sustainability, fiscal prudence, and public sector efficiency guide administrative decisions.
- While employee unions continue to advocate for the Old Pension Scheme, the government’s policy direction is clear: the future of India’s pension architecture lies in contributory, partially funded models, not in fiscally burdensome, unfunded entitlements.
CARE MCQ
Q2. With reference to the 8th Central Pay Commission (CPC), consider the following statements:
- The 8th CPC is headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
- For the first time, the ToR includes consideration of the unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes.
- The 8th CPC’s mandate excludes examining the fiscal impact of its recommendations on State Governments.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, and 3
Answer 2- A
Explanation
- Statement 1 is correct: The 8th Central Pay Commission is chaired by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, a former Supreme Court judge, entrusted with reviewing pay, allowances, and pension structures for Central Government employees.
- Statement 2 is correct: For the first time, the Terms of Reference explicitly mention that the Commission must consider the “unfunded cost of non-contributory pension schemes”, highlighting the government’s emphasis on fiscal prudence and its decision not to revert to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
- Statement 3 is incorrect: The ToR specifically directs the 8th CPC to assess the likely impact of its recommendations on the finances of State Governments, as many States adopt CPC recommendations with modifications.
- Therefore, option A is the correct answer.
UPSC PYQ
Q. Who among the following can join the National Pension System (NPS)? (2017)
(a) Resident Indian citizens only
(b) Persons of age from 21 to 55 only
(c) All State Government employees joining the services after the date of notification by the respective State Governments
(d) All Central Government employees including those of Armed Forces joining the services on or after 1st April, 2004
Ans (c)
Trump–Xi Bonhomie and the “G-2” Reference: Implications for India and the Quad
Source: The Hindu
UPSC Relevance: GS2 International Relations
Context: US China relations and impact on India
Why in News?
The Trump–Xi summit in Busan revived the idea of a U.S.–China “G-2” partnership, raising concerns about its impact on India’s trade position and the future of the Quad in the Indo-Pacific.
Introduction
- The recent U.S.–China summit in Busan, South Korea (October 30, 2025), between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, has generated significant geopolitical ripples across Asia, particularly for India and the Quad grouping (India, the U.S., Japan, and Australia).
- The meeting, held on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, resulted in a temporary thaw in U.S.–China economic relations and the revival of an old concept — the “G-2”, or a strategic condominium between the two largest global powers.
Key Outcomes of the Trump–Xi Summit
- Tariff Truce: The U.S. agreed to reduce tariffs on Chinese imports to 47%, establishing a one-year truce on trade tariffs and export restrictions on rare earth minerals. As a result, India and Brazil now face the highest tariffs at 50%, creating competitive disadvantages in global trade.
- Revival of the “G-2” Concept: President Trump referred to the U.S. and China as the “G-2”, emphasizing their shared global responsibilities as the world’s two leading economies. This terminology, absent from official discourse since 2009, suggests a potential strategic alignment or power-sharing arrangement between Washington and Beijing.
- Proposed High-Level Engagements: Trump announced plans to visit China in April 2026 and host Xi Jinping in the U.S. later that year — signaling sustained bilateral engagement.
Conversely, the Quad Summit in India, earlier planned for 2025, now appears unlikely to take place this year.
(Image Source: The Hindu)
Historical Context: The G-2 Idea
- The “G-2” concept first emerged during the Obama–Hu Jintao summit in 2009. It proposed a U.S.–China partnership to manage global challenges like trade, climate change, and nuclear non-proliferation.
- However, the idea was never institutionalized, as subsequent years witnessed growing U.S.–China rivalry, leading to the “Pivot to Asia” strategy and later the Indo-Pacific and Quad frameworks to balance China’s rise.
- The recent revival of the term by President Trump thus signals a possible policy reorientation — from strategic competition to conditional cooperation.
India’s Response
- The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has maintained a non-committal stance, with spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stating that India is still “examining the implications” of the summit.
- This cautious reaction reflects India’s need to balance its strategic autonomy while assessing the evolving contours of U.S.–China engagement.
Implications for India
1. Economic and Trade Implications
- The U.S. decision to reduce tariffs on China but retain high tariffs (50%) on India and Brazil could undermine India’s export competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing and technology sectors.
- India’s ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S. remain unresolved, including the retaliatory tariffs (25%) and an additional 25% levy linked to oil imports from Russia.
- This asymmetry could strain India–U.S. trade relations and compel India to diversify export destinations and deepen South–South cooperation.
2. Strategic and Security Implications
- The reemergence of a U.S.–China understanding may dilute the strategic rationale of the Quad — which was originally conceived to ensure a “free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific”.
- If the U.S. begins to accommodate China’s regional ambitions, it may reduce its commitment to Indo-Pacific coalitions and undermine India’s role as a key balancing power in Asia.
3. Diplomatic and Geopolitical Concerns
- India’s foreign policy rests on the idea of a multipolar world order, not a bipolar arrangement dominated by two superpowers.
- A G-2 framework could redefine global decision-making into spheres of influence, marginalizing emerging powers like India.
- Such a shift would challenge India’s strategic autonomy, a core principle of its external engagement since the Non-Aligned Movement.
4. Regional Balance of Power
- A U.S.–China entente could reshape Asian geopolitics, with Beijing potentially gaining greater leverage in South China Sea disputes, Taiwan policy, and influence over ASEAN.
- For India, this could mean reduced U.S. support in border tensions with China and a weakened strategic deterrence posture along the Himalayan frontier.
Implications for the Quad
- The Quad’s strength lies in shared democratic values and a collective commitment to regional security, maritime freedom, and supply chain resilience.
However, Trump’s renewed outreach to China and postponement of the 2025 Quad Summit in India raises concerns that: - U.S. strategic focus could shift away from the Indo-Pacific.
- The Quad’s agenda might be overshadowed by G-2 diplomacy.
- Internal cohesion among Quad members could weaken if U.S.–China ties improve while Beijing continues to pressure India and Japan regionally.
Way Forward for India
- Reinforce Strategic Autonomy: India must continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, engaging both the U.S. and China pragmatically without aligning with any one bloc.
- Deepen Partnerships Beyond the U.S.: Strengthen ties with Japan, Australia, the EU, ASEAN, and the Global South to ensure strategic balance and economic resilience.
- Accelerate Trade Diplomacy: Revive negotiations for a bilateral trade deal with the U.S., explore new FTAs, and leverage platforms like IPEF (Indo-Pacific Economic Framework) to safeguard market access.
- Strengthen the Quad’s Relevance: India should encourage other Quad members to sustain joint initiatives in defence cooperation, technology, critical minerals, and infrastructure, even if U.S.–China relations temporarily improve.
- Engage China Constructively but Cautiously: Maintain diplomatic channels with Beijing, but remain vigilant regarding border security, regional influence, and technological dependencies.
Conclusion
- The Trump–Xi bonhomie and the resurrection of the “G-2” narrative mark a potentially transformative moment in global geopolitics.
- For India, this development presents both challenges and opportunities — demanding strategic prudence, diversified partnerships, and a reaffirmation of its vision for a multipolar, rules-based Indo-Pacific order.
- India’s diplomatic task ahead lies in ensuring that the G-2 revival does not translate into a G-minus-one scenario where its own strategic space is constrained.
CARE MCQ
Q3. Consider the following statements:
Assertion (A): The revival of the U.S.–China “G-2” framework poses strategic challenges for India’s position in the Indo-Pacific and may weaken the Quad’s collective influence.
Reason (R): The “G-2” framework promotes shared global leadership between the U.S. and China, potentially leading to a bipolar world order that sidelines emerging powers like India.
a) Both A and R are correct, and R is the correct explanation of A.
b) Both A and R are correct, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
c) A is correct, but R is incorrect.
d) A is incorrect, but R is correct.
Answer- A
Explanation
- Assertion (A) is correct: The re-emergence of the U.S.–China G-2 idea could dilute the Quad’s strategic significance by shifting the U.S. focus from multilateral cooperation in the Indo-Pacific toward bilateral engagement with China. This could reduce India’s influence in regional security and economic affairs.
- Reason (R) is correct: The G-2 framework envisions a bipolar global order led by the U.S. and China, allowing them to coordinate on major global issues. Such an arrangement inherently marginalizes middle and emerging powers like India that advocate a multipolar world order.
- Therefore, both A and R are correct, and R correctly explains A.
UPSC PYQ
Q. “Belt and Road Initiative” is sometimes mentioned in the news in the context of the affairs of : (2016)
- (a) African Union
- (b) Brazil
- (c) European Union
- (d) China
Ans: D
Centre’s Gene-Edited Rice Claims Under Scrutiny
Source: Down To Earth
UPSC Relevance: GS 3 Economy- Agriculture
Context: gene-edited rice varieties
Why in News?
ICAR’s own trial data showed no consistent yield or early maturity advantage for the government-promoted gene-edited rice varieties — DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1 — challenging official claims.
Introduction
- Recently the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare announced the release of two genome-edited rice varieties—DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1—with the promise of higher yield, early maturity, and improved tolerance to drought and salinity.
- Developed using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology by public research institutes under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the initiative was hailed as a landmark step toward sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture.
- However, a recent analysis of ICAR’s trial data (2023–24) by the Coalition for a GM-Free India, a network of scientists, farmers, and activists, has raised significant questions about the veracity of the government’s claims.
- The findings reveal inconsistencies between ICAR’s internal data and the claims made during the varieties’ release, prompting demands for an independent review.
(image Source: Down To earth)
Background: The Government’s Claims
- The Union Government introduced the two genome-edited rice varieties as part of its efforts to modernize Indian agriculture through science and technology.
- DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) was developed by the ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research (ICAR-IIRR), Hyderabad, based on the popular variety Samba Mahsuri (BPT-5204).
- Pusa DST Rice 1 was developed by the ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, derived from Cotton Dora Sannalu (MTU 1010).
- The government claimed that both varieties:
- Offer 17–30% higher yield than their parent varieties.
- Exhibit early maturity, saving up to 20 days, thereby conserving water and fertilizers.
- Possess enhanced drought and salinity tolerance.
- Are environmentally sustainable, potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
- Are non-transgenic, as no foreign DNA has been inserted during genome editing.
- These claims positioned the varieties as “revolutionary innovations” in Indian rice breeding, signaling a shift toward new plant breeding techniques (NBTs) such as CRISPR.
Findings from ICAR’s Trial Data (2023–24)
- The Coalition for a GM-Free India, after analyzing data from ICAR’s All India Coordinated Rice Improvement Project (AICRIP) annual reports, found that the performance of both varieties did not substantiate the government’s claims.
1. Pusa DST Rice 1
- In 2023 trials, no data was available for drought or salinity tolerance due to limited seed quantity, contradicting claims of superior stress tolerance.
- In 12 out of 20 trial locations, yields were equal to or lower than the parent variety, MTU 1010.
- The overall mean yield was 4.8% lower in several sites.
- In 2024, trials in saline and alkaline soils showed no significant advantage, with only a 1.6% marginal gain in alkaline conditions.
- Despite this, ICAR’s reports highlighted a “30% yield improvement”, allegedly by selectively reporting data from a limited set of locations.
- The analysis concluded that the government’s claims of “superior yield and salinity tolerance” were not supported by comprehensive field data.
2. DRR Rice 100 (Kamala)
- Derived from BPT-5204 (Samba Mahsuri), Kamala was promoted as yielding 17% more and maturing 20 days earlier.
- In 2023, Kamala underperformed in 8 of 19 locations.
- In Eastern and Central zones, yields were significantly lower than the parent variety.
- The overall mean yield was 4% less, and no data supported claims of early maturity.
- The Days to 50% Flowering (DFF) showed minimal differences—Kamala averaged 101 days versus 104 days for the parent, with variations of only 2–7 days earlier in some zones and up to 9 days later in others.
- This indicated inconsistency and lack of reproducibility, fundamental parameters for varietal validation.
Concerns Raised by Experts and Civil Society
- The Coalition for a GM-Free India characterized the government’s promotion as a “hasty endorsement of underperforming varieties”, aimed at bypassing public scrutiny and resistance to genetically modified (GM) technologies.
- Key concerns include:
- Lack of transparency: Trial data and methodology were not fully disclosed for independent verification.
- Scientific inconsistency: Performance results lacked uniformity across zones and seasons.
- Regulatory oversight: Genome-edited crops, though claimed to be non-transgenic, still involve genomic alterations that warrant strict biosafety assessments.
- Seed sovereignty risks: Dependence on CRISPR technology, largely developed and patented abroad, could increase reliance on multinational corporations (MNCs) for seed technologies.
- Agricultural activist Kavitha Kuruganti warned that “bad science in agriculture, especially from the public sector, directly affects farmers’ livelihoods,” urging greater scientific rigor and public accountability.
| Gene Editing
Difference between Gene Editing and Genetic Modification (GMOs)
Regulation in India
Oversight provided by Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) and Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC). |
Broader Implications
1. Scientific and Policy Integrity
- The controversy underscores the need for robust, evidence-based validation before the public release of gene-edited crops. Scientific credibility of public institutions like ICAR depends on transparent data sharing and independent peer review.
2. Biosafety and Regulatory Oversight
- India’s 2022 genome-editing guidelines classify gene-edited crops without foreign DNA as non-GM, exempting them from stringent biosafety regulation. The current episode calls for a reassessment of this regulatory distinction, as even minimal edits can have unforeseen effects on plant metabolism and ecology.
3. Public Trust in Agri-Biotechnology
- Premature promotion of unverified technologies risks undermining public confidence in legitimate scientific innovations. India’s experience with Bt brinjal and GM mustard debates shows that public trust hinges on transparency and participatory decision-making.
4. Farmer Welfare and Seed Sovereignty
- If gene-editing technologies are commercialized without due diligence, farmers could face economic vulnerabilities, including dependency on patented seed technologies and loss of traditional varietal diversity.
Conclusion
- The controversy over DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1 highlights a crucial lesson for India’s agricultural policy: scientific innovation must be backed by transparent evidence, not narrative enthusiasm.
- While gene-editing holds promise for climate-resilient and sustainable agriculture, its adoption must follow rigorous evaluation, ethical oversight, and democratic accountability.
CARE MCQ
Q4. With reference to India’s gene-edited rice varieties released in 2025, consider the following statements:
- DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1 were developed using the CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technique by ICAR institutes.
- The government stated that these genome-edited rice varieties do not contain any foreign DNA.
- The Coalition for a GM-Free India demanded an independent review of ICAR’s field trial data and claims.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer 4-D
Explanation
- Statement 1 is correct: Both DRR Rice 100 (Kamala) and Pusa DST Rice 1 were developed using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology by ICAR-IIRR, Hyderabad, and ICAR-IARI, New Delhi, respectively.
- Statement 2 is correct: The government clarified that no foreign DNA was introduced into these rice varieties, making them non-transgenic genome-edited crops.
- Statement 3 is correct: The Coalition for a GM-Free India called for an independent and transparent review of ICAR’s field trial data due to inconsistencies between reported claims and actual results.
- Therefore, option D is the correct answer.
UPSC PYQ
Q. Bollgard I and Bollgard II technologies are mentioned in the context of (2021)
- Clonal propagation of crop plants
- Developing genetically modified crop plants
- Production of plant growth substances
- Production of biofertilizers
Ans: (b)
Introducing Artificial Intelligence in School Education
Source: The Hindu
UPSC Relevance: GS 3 Science and technology
Context: Artificial Intelligence in School Education
Why in News?
The Ministry of Education has announced that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be introduced as part of the school curriculum from Class 3 onwards beginning in the academic year 2026–27, under the government’s ‘Skilling for AI Readiness’ initiative.
Background
- The Ministry of Education has recently announced that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be introduced as part of the school curriculum from Class 3 onwards, beginning in the academic year 2026–27.
- This follows the government’s ‘Skilling for AI Readiness’ initiative launched in July 2025, under which thousands of CBSE schools will start offering AI as a skill subject from Class 6.
- The initiative reflects India’s vision to build an AI-ready generation capable of understanding, using, and innovating with emerging technologies.
- However, this move has raised important questions about timing, implementation, and impact on education quality, equity, and values.
(Image Source: The Hindu)
The Rationale Behind Introducing AI in Schools
AI has become deeply integrated into everyday life — from virtual assistants to personalized learning tools. Introducing AI early can:
- Foster AI literacy: Help students understand how AI works, its uses, and its limitations.
- Develop critical thinking: Enable students to evaluate AI outputs rather than depend blindly on them.
- Prepare for future skills: Equip learners with competencies relevant to the digital economy.
- The curriculum design suggests a progression:
- In early grades (Class 3–5): Focus on AI literacy, integrated with numeracy, language, and reasoning.
- In higher grades (Class 11–12): Move towards AI skills, including programming, data handling, and natural language processing, for those interested in STEM careers.
Challenges in Designing an AI Curriculum
While the intent is forward-looking, several challenges make its implementation complex:
- Rapid technological change: AI evolves faster than traditional curriculum structures, making content quickly outdated.
- Infrastructure gaps: Unequal access to devices, electricity, and internet connectivity in many schools.
- Digital divide: Students and teachers in rural or economically weaker areas may lack digital exposure.
- Language barriers: Most AI models operate in English, excluding learners from regional-language backgrounds.
- Uncertain job trends: The future AI job landscape is fluid, making it difficult to align school-level training with industry needs.
- Without addressing these issues, the introduction of AI could risk widening existing inequalities rather than bridging them.
Impact on Learning and Work Ethic
- AI has immense potential to make learning more personalized and interactive. However, there is growing concern that overreliance on AI tools may weaken students’ intrinsic motivation and analytical ability. Studies have shown that when students use AI-generated answers, they often struggle to explain or replicate them independently.
- This raises a deeper concern — that excessive dependence on AI could lead to a phenomenon of “dis-education”, where students lose the drive for original thought and continuous learning. Such trends could undermine creativity and inter-generational knowledge transfer.
- At the same time, history shows that each technological wave — from radio to the Internet — brought similar fears, but education systems eventually adapted. With thoughtful integration and appropriate pedagogy, AI can enhance, not replace, human learning.
Age-Appropriate Introduction and Psychological Concerns
- Children today are already exposed to AI through smartphones, apps, and online platforms. Surveys show that a majority of students use AI tools as study companions, and many also interact with AI for social or emotional purposes.
- This early exposure calls for ethical guardrails to protect children’s mental health and data privacy. Chatbots and AI tools must be designed responsibly, ensuring that they do not manipulate or misinform young users. Strengthening laws and platform accountability for child data protection is essential.
- However, it is equally important to ensure that AI tools introduced in classrooms are tested for accuracy, safety, and bias, and that teachers are adequately trained to guide their use.
Teacher Training and Systemic Readiness
Teacher preparedness is critical to the success of AI education. Yet, India’s schooling ecosystem faces significant challenges:
- Around 9% of schools operate with only one teacher.
- 35% have fewer than 50 students and two teachers.
- Nearly half of teachers lack professional qualifications.
- Many schools lack electricity or computers.
- Therefore, AI teaching strategies must be context-sensitive. In areas with limited resources, “unplugged curricula” — that is, teaching AI concepts without digital devices — can help bridge learning gaps.
- Teachers should also receive continuous training to develop digital literacy, critical evaluation of AI-generated information, and adaptive teaching methods. They must be viewed as innovators and facilitators, not merely implementers.
Building an AI-Ready Generation
The goal of introducing AI in schools is not to make every child a coder, but to nurture skills and attitudes necessary for an AI-driven world:
- Critical awareness: Understanding how AI systems shape information and decisions.
- Ethical reasoning: Recognizing bias, fairness, and moral implications.
- Adaptability: Embracing lifelong learning in a rapidly changing world.
- Collaboration: Learning to work effectively alongside intelligent systems.
- A phased and age-appropriate approach can ensure balanced exposure:
- Till age 12: Focus on foundational learning, reasoning, and supervised AI exposure.
- Middle school (Classes 6–8): Introduce AI literacy — understanding data, patterns, and responsible use.
- Secondary stage (Classes 9–12): Offer AI skill development for students aiming for technology-related careers.
Conclusion
- Introducing AI into the school curriculum is both timely and necessary for India’s long-term educational and economic goals. However, success will depend on how it is implemented. A rushed or uniform approach could deepen inequalities, strain unprepared teachers, and weaken core learning outcomes.
- A phased, inclusive, and ethical framework — focusing first on AI literacy, teacher capacity-building, infrastructure readiness, and responsible technology use — is essential. AI should complement, not replace, foundational education.
CARE MCQ
Q5. Consider the following statements regarding the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in school curricula in India:
- The AI curriculum will be introduced from Class 3 onwards starting the academic year 2026–27.
- The ‘Skilling for AI Readiness’ initiative allows CBSE schools to offer AI as a skill subject from Class 6.
- The primary focus of the early-stage AI curriculum (Class 3–5) is to teach programming and coding skills.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a) 1 and 2 only
b) 2 and 3 only
c) 1 and 3 only
d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer 5- A
Explanation
- Statement 1 is correct: The Ministry of Education has decided to introduce an AI curriculum from Class 3 onwards starting with the academic year 2026–27 to build foundational awareness and literacy about Artificial Intelligence among students.
- Statement 2 is correct: Under the ‘Skilling for AI Readiness’ initiative launched in July 2025, thousands of CBSE schools will offer AI as a skill subject from Class 6, aimed at preparing students for future technological advancements.
- Statement 3 is incorrect: At the foundational level (Classes 3–5), the focus is on AI literacy—understanding how AI works and developing critical thinking and ethical reasoning, not on programming or coding. Advanced skills like Python programming and natural language processing are introduced only in higher classes (11–12).
- Therefore, option A is the correct answer.
UPSC PYQ
Q. With the present state of development, Artificial Intelligence can effectively do which of the following? (2020)
- Bring down electricity consumption in industrial units
- Create meaningful short stories and songs
- Disease diagnosis
- Text-to-Speech Conversion
- Wireless transmission of electrical energy
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
(a) 1, 2, 3 and 5 only
(b) 1, 3 and 4 only
(c) 2, 4 and 5 only
(d) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
Ans: (b)
Kunming Biodiversity Fund: Supporting Nature-Friendly Agriculture in Developing Countries
Source: Down To Earth
UPSC Relevance: GS3 Environment and Ecology
Context: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)
Why in News?
Seven countries — Cook Islands, Madagascar, Mexico, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Uganda — have received $5.8 million from the Kunming Biodiversity Fund (KBF) to promote nature-friendly agriculture under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
Introduction
- In a significant step toward integrating biodiversity conservation with food systems, seven countries — Cook Islands, Madagascar, Mexico, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Uganda — have secured $5.8 million in grants from the Kunming Biodiversity Fund (KBF).
- Facilitated by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), this initiative seeks to promote nature-positive agricultural practices, community empowerment, and effective management of invasive species.
- This development aligns with the global commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), which aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and restore ecological balance by 2050.
Background: The Kunming Biodiversity Fund (KBF)
- The Kunming Biodiversity Fund was established in 2021 by China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment, in collaboration with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and other partners.
- Initial Contribution: 1.5 billion yuan (approximately $200 million) pledged by China.
- Objective: To support developing countries in implementing biodiversity-friendly projects and fulfilling the goals of the KMGBF.
- Launch Context: The fund was announced during Part I of the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
- The fund reflects China’s growing role in global environmental governance, emphasizing South-South cooperation and financial support for developing nations to meet biodiversity and sustainable agriculture goals.
(Image Source: Down To Earth)
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)
- Adopted in 2022 by 196 countries under the CBD, the KMGBF serves as a global roadmap to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.
- Key Goals (for 2050):
- Maintain and restore ecosystems and halt species extinction.
- Sustainably use biodiversity for the benefit of people and nature.
- Equitably share benefits from genetic resources and associated data.
- Mobilize financial and technical resources for biodiversity protection.
- Targets for 2030:
- The framework sets 23 measurable targets, including restoring degraded ecosystems, reducing the spread of invasive alien species, and promoting sustainable food systems.
- A key financial target (Target 19) aims to mobilize at least $200 billion annually from all sources by 2030, with $30 billion in international finance directed to developing countries.
- However, the biodiversity finance gap remains vast — estimated at around $700 billion per year. Funds like the KBF are thus crucial to closing this gap.
New and Complementary Funding Mechanisms
- The Kunming Biodiversity Fund is part of a wider trend of innovative biodiversity finance.
- For instance, the Cali Fund, launched in 2025, channels resources from companies using digital sequencing information (DSI) on genetic resources.
- At least 50% of its proceeds are directed to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, recognizing their pivotal role in conserving biodiversity.
- This initiative also represents a major step toward fair benefit-sharing from the commercial use of genetic materials and associated data.
Focus Areas of the $5.8 Million KBF Support
- The seven KBF-supported projects will focus on mainstreaming biodiversity into agricultural systems, empowering local communities, and managing invasive alien species.
1. Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Agrifood Systems
- (Madagascar, Uganda, Mexico)
- Aligning national biodiversity strategies and action plans with agricultural policies.
- Enhancing institutional capacity and policy frameworks.
- Promoting incentives for biodiversity-friendly farming.
- Facilitating knowledge exchange and farmer training on sustainable practices.
2. Empowering Communities
- (Cook Islands)
- Building ecosystem and biodiversity data systems.
- Promoting agroecology based on traditional and indigenous knowledge.
- Focusing on women and youth participation in sustainable farming initiatives.
3. Managing Invasive Alien Species
- (Nepal)
- Implementing community-based participatory methods to identify and eradicate invasive species.
- Protecting biodiversity and local livelihoods threatened by invasive flora and fauna.
4. Preventing and Controlling Invasive Species
- (Sri Lanka)
- Strengthening border biosecurity measures.
- Training frontline teams in detection and management.
- Raising public awareness and mobilizing community engagement for early response.
5. Strengthening Ecosystem Resilience around Lake Eğirdir
- (Turkey)
- Promoting water-efficient and biodiversity-friendly agriculture.
- Encouraging sustainable livelihoods compatible with ecosystem conservation.
- Conducting awareness campaigns for ecosystem and biodiversity protection.
FAO’s Role and Perspective
- The FAO, which played a central role in mobilizing and implementing these projects, views the initiative as a model of integrated action linking food security, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience.
- FAO Director-General QU Dongyu emphasized that the funding will:
- Help developing countries achieve biodiversity goals through sustainable agriculture.
- Strengthen food diversity and ecosystem resilience.
- Support climate change mitigation by promoting nature-based solutions.
Significance for Global Environmental Governance
- The KBF initiative underscores a broader shift in global environmental policy — from isolated conservation efforts to holistic, cross-sectoral approaches that integrate agriculture, biodiversity, and community well-being.
- It also strengthens the implementation of KMGBF targets by:
- Addressing the biodiversity finance deficit,
- Promoting South-South cooperation, and
- Building institutional and community capacity in developing countries.
Conclusion
- The $5.8 million allocation under the Kunming Biodiversity Fund is a small but symbolically powerful step toward mainstreaming biodiversity in agriculture.
- It reflects the growing global consensus that food systems and ecological systems are interdependent, and sustainable agriculture must lie at the heart of biodiversity protection.
CARE MCQ
Q6. With reference to the Kunming Biodiversity Fund (KBF), consider the following statements:
- It was launched by China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment in collaboration with the UN Environment Programme.
- The Fund aims to help developing countries implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
- The Fund was established during the 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) to the UNFCCC held in Glasgow.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer 5- A
Explanation
- Statement 1 – Correct: The Kunming Biodiversity Fund (KBF) was launched by China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other stakeholders. The Fund was established as part of China’s commitment to support biodiversity conservation efforts in developing countries.
- Statement 2 – Correct: The objective of the KBF is to assist developing nations in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), which seeks to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 through measures such as restoring ecosystems, promoting sustainable agriculture, and managing invasive species.
- Statement 3 – Incorrect: The Fund was not launched during COP26 of the UNFCCC held in Glasgow (2021). It was announced during Part I of COP15 to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), hosted in Kunming, China, in October 2021.
- Therefore, option A is the correct answer.
UPSC PYQ
Q. “Momentum for Change: Climate Neutral Now” is an initiative launched by (2018)
(a) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(b) The UNEP Secretariat
(c) The UNFCCC Secretariat
(d) The World Meteorological Organisation
Ans: (c)