12 issues picked from 138 PIB releases · about 2 minutes each · written by UPSC Grade, each fact checked against its PIB release or by a second model
How to readRead “Why in news” and “What it is” for every issue. Open For Prelims or For Mains for the exam you’re preparing for, then Test yourself at the foot of each card. Half the news questions in Prelims are answered from background, not the news itself.
GS3 Economy: Mining and mineralsGS3 Industry and steelPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026 the Government notified coking coal as a Critical and Strategic Mineral under the MMDR Act, 1957, by amending the Act's First Schedule.
What it is
The MMDR Act, 1957 regulates mining and mineral development in India. Its First Schedule lists minerals in parts, and Part D lists Critical and Strategic Minerals, which get a faster and easier regulatory path. Coking coal is the coal grade used to make coke for blast-furnace steelmaking.
Legal route
The Centre used Section 11C of the MMDR Act to amend the First Schedule. Coking Coal is now in Part D.
Part A wording
In Part A, 'Coal' now reads 'Coal, including Coking Coal'.
Resources and location
India has an estimated 37.37 billion tonnes of coking coal resources, mostly in Jharkhand.
Regulatory benefits
Critical mineral mining is exempt from public consultation and can use degraded forest land for compensatory afforestation.
Revenue to States
Under Section 11D(3), royalty, auction premium and other payments continue to go to the State Governments even when the Centre runs auctions.
Don’t confuse with Coking coal vs thermal coal: Coking coal makes coke for steel blast furnaces. Thermal coal is burnt for power.
Economy terms and data: 42 Prelims questions since 2013, rising in recent years; they test what a term or instrument means. In Mains, 12 news-triggered questions.
Why it matters
Reduces import dependence and foreign exchange outgo for steel, supporting self-reliance.
Faster approvals and private participation can speed exploration, including deep-seated deposits.
Supports supply-chain resilience and the National Steel Policy.
Problems
Much Indian coking coal is of high ash and low quality, needing washing and beneficiation.
Exempting public consultation may weaken local community and environmental safeguards.
Deep-seated deposits need costly technology and long gestation.
Way forward
Invest in beneficiation and washery capacity and mining technology.
Keep environmental and community safeguards in place despite the exemptions.
Share auction revenue transparently with States and speed up block auctions.
Put in your answer
Federal revenue point: Section 11D(3) keeps royalty and auction premium with States even in Centre-run auctions.
GS3 Infrastructure: EnergyGS2 Centre-State relationsPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, the Power Ministry told the Lok Sabha that the draft Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is still at the stakeholder consultation stage. Comments on the draft were invited on 9 October 2025.
What it is
The Electricity Act, 2003 is the main law for generation, transmission, distribution, trading and tariffs in India's power sector. It created regulatory commissions (CERC at the Centre, SERCs in States) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The 2025 draft amends this Act to fix distribution finances and widen competition.
Tariff reform
The draft mandates cost-reflective tariffs and lets regulatory Commissions fix tariffs suo motu, effective 1 April each year.
Energy transition
To reach 500 GW non-fossil capacity by 2030, CERC would get power to introduce market-based instruments, and non-fossil energy obligations would be made enforceable.
Regulatory accountability
Governments may refer complaints against CERC and SERC Members, with wider grounds for removal; a 120-day timeline for adjudicatory decisions; APTEL strength to rise.
Telegraph Act link
Powers for installing and maintaining electric lines move from the repealed Telegraph Act, 1885 into the Electricity Act, 2003, with States framing the compensation framework.
Shared networks
Distribution licensees could supply power over shared networks, subject to regulatory approval and charges, to cut network duplication.
Subsidies
State Governments may continue to fund subsidies for specified consumer categories, including tribal households, under Section 65.
Don’t confuse with CERC vs SERC: CERC regulates central generating companies and inter-State transmission and trade; SERCs regulate tariffs and distribution within a State.
Don’t confuse with APTEL vs regulatory commissions: APTEL is the appellate body hearing appeals against orders of CERC and SERCs; the commissions are the primary regulators.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
Cost-reflective tariffs could ease discom losses and improve supply reliability.
Market instruments and enforceable non-fossil obligations support the 500 GW non-fossil target by 2030.
Faster adjudication and shared networks can cut costs and delays.
Problems
Electricity is a Concurrent List subject; States may resist central changes affecting tariffs and subsidies.
Cost-reflective tariffs may hurt farmers and poor households unless subsidies are funded in time.
Wider grounds for removing commission members may be seen as eroding regulatory independence.
Way forward
Continue consultation with States and stakeholders to build consensus.
Fund subsidies transparently through direct benefit transfer so tariffs stay cost-reflective.
Safeguard commission independence with a transparent removal process.
Put in your answer
500 GW non-fossil target: India aims for 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030; the draft proposes enforceable obligations to meet it.
Section 65 subsidies: State-funded, transparent subsidies for specified categories continue under Section 65.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
Test yourself
Prelims practice · Single answer
Ours, not from a UPSC paper
Consider the following statements regarding the draft Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2025:
Which one of the following is correct?
True or false?
1 of 7
Statements the way Prelims prints them. Say first, then see the fact.
1.The draft Bill proposes that regulatory Commissions may determine tariffs suo motu, effective 1 April each year.
True. Suo motu tariff determination effective 1 April each year is proposed.
2.The draft Bill proposes to empower the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to introduce market-based instruments for renewable capacity addition.
False. It is CERC that would be empowered to introduce market-based instruments.
3.The draft Bill links its non-fossil energy obligations to the Energy Conservation Act.
True. Enforceable non-fossil obligations are proposed to align the Electricity Act with the Energy Conservation Act.
4.The draft Bill proposes a 120-day timeline for adjudicatory decisions and an increase in APTEL's strength.
True. Both a 120-day timeline and larger APTEL strength are proposed.
5.The draft Bill proposes to cap assessment for unauthorised use of electricity at three years.
False. The cap proposed is one year.
6.The Electricity Act, 2003 provides for Appellate Tribunal for Electricity to hear appeals against orders of regulatory commissions.
True. APTEL hears appeals against CERC and SERC orders under the 2003 Act.
7.Under the draft Bill, the powers over electric lines move from the Telegraph Act, 1885 to the Electricity Act, with compensation frameworks framed by the Centre.
False. States would frame the compensation framework.
Written by us from the release, not by UPSC; checked by a second model.
Mains practice
15 marks · 250 words
The Centre has issued the draft Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which proposes cost-reflective tariffs, a larger role for CERC in market-based instruments for non-fossil energy, shared distribution networks and stronger regulatory accountability. Examine the key provisions of the draft Bill and discuss the challenges they may raise for the financial health of distribution companies and for State autonomy in a concurrent-list subject.
GS3 Science and technology: Nuclear energyGS2 Laws and regulatory bodiesPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, the Minister of State Dr Jitendra Singh told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply what safeguards the SHANTI Act has for private participation in nuclear energy.
What it is
The SHANTI Act is the law that governs nuclear energy and ionising radiation in India. It allows private entities to take part in nuclear power and non-power uses under a Central Government licence and safety authorisation from the regulatory Board. It keeps sensitive activities under the Centre's exclusive control.
Licence and safety authorisation
Private participation needs a licence from the Central Government and a Safety Authorization from the regulatory Board.
What private players may do
They can build, own and operate nuclear power plants, fabricate nuclear fuel and carry out peaceful R&D.
Non-power uses
Ionising radiation can be used in medicine, agriculture and industry.
Licensee duties
Licensees must monitor and account for nuclear material, manage waste, pay prompt compensation for nuclear damage and handle decommissioning.
Exclusive Central control
Enrichment and isotopic separation, spent fuel management and heavy water production stay under the Centre.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
Private capital and expertise can help expand nuclear power for clean energy and net-zero goals.
Non-power uses in medicine, agriculture and industry can grow.
Problems
Public trust and safety concerns over private operators of nuclear plants.
Ensuring adequate compensation and clear liability for nuclear damage.
Way forward
Strengthen the regulator's independence and capacity.
Keep sensitive stages under state control and ensure transparent oversight of licensees.
Put in your answer
Reserved Central activities: Enrichment, spent fuel management and heavy water production stay with the Centre, balancing private entry with security.
Licensee responsibilities: Licensees bear duties for waste, compensation and decommissioning.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
Test yourself
Prelims practice · Statements
Ours, not from a UPSC paper
Consider the following statements:
1.Under the SHANTI Act, private entities can build, own and operate nuclear power plants.
2.Private participation under the Act needs only a safety authorisation from the regulatory Board, with no Central Government licence.
3.Enrichment and isotopic separation of prescribed substances remain under the exclusive control of the Central Government.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
True or false?
1 of 6
Statements the way Prelims prints them. Say first, then see the fact.
1.Under the SHANTI Act, private entities can build, own and operate nuclear power plants.
True. Private entities may build, own and operate nuclear power plants.
2.Private participation under the Act needs only a safety authorisation from the regulatory Board, with no Central Government licence.
False. Both a Central Government licence and the Board's Safety Authorization are needed.
3.Enrichment and isotopic separation of prescribed substances remain under the exclusive control of the Central Government.
True. Enrichment, spent fuel management and heavy water production are exclusive Central activities.
4.The Act allows private entities to manage spent fuel and produce heavy water.
False. Spent fuel management and heavy water production are under exclusive Central control.
5.Licensees are responsible for paying prompt compensation to victims of nuclear incidents.
True. Licensees must pay prompt compensation for nuclear damage.
6.The Act permits private use of ionising radiation only for power generation, not for medicine or agriculture.
False. Private entities may also use ionising radiation in medicine, agriculture and industry.
Written by us from the release, not by UPSC; checked by a second model.
Mains practice
15 marks · 250 words
The SHANTI Act opens nuclear energy to private participation under a Central licence and safety authorisation, while keeping sensitive activities with the Centre. Examine the main provisions of the Act and discuss the safeguards and challenges in involving the private sector in India's nuclear power programme.
GS2 Polity: Judiciary and dispute resolutionGS2 Mediation Act, 2023Prelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, the Law Ministry told the Rajya Sabha how many commercial disputes were settled through pre-institution mediation (Section 12A) since the 2018 amendment of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
What it is
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 sets up special courts and divisions for commercial disputes of a specified value. The 2018 amendment added Section 12A, which makes mediation before filing a suit mandatory unless urgent interim relief is sought. The aim is to cut pendency and speed up resolution of business disputes.
Origin of Section 12A
The 2018 amendment to the 2015 Act added the Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) mechanism under Section 12A.
When PIMS is mandatory
It applies to commercial disputes of specified value that do not contemplate urgent interim relief. Parties must exhaust it before going to court.
Time limit
Under Rule 3 of the 2018 PIMS Rules, mediation must finish within three months, extendable by two months with consent of both parties.
Rules
The Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules, 2018 lay down the manner and procedure of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A.
Mediation institute
Under Section 3(l) read with Section 42 of the Mediation Act, 2023, a mediation institute trains, provides continuing education and certifies mediators.
Mediator pool
NALSA had around 22,398 mediators across the country as of November 2025.
Don’t confuse with Section 12A mediation vs court-annexed mediation: Section 12A mediation is before a suit is filed. Court-annexed mediation happens after filing, on referral by the court.
Don’t confuse with Commercial Courts Act, 2015 vs Mediation Act, 2023: The 2015 Act creates commercial courts and mandates pre-suit mediation. The 2023 Act is a general law on mediation, including institutes and certification.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
Mandatory pre-suit mediation can reduce commercial litigation and court pendency.
It supports ease of doing business through faster, cheaper dispute resolution.
Problems
Most applications fail to start mediation: 30,353 of 47,218 in 2025-26 (up to September) were non-starters.
Settlement numbers are very low compared with applications, so it may act as a procedural hurdle.
Limited trained mediators and awareness among parties.
Way forward
Build capacity through mediation institutes and certified mediators under the Mediation Act, 2023.
Encourage respondents to take part, with incentives or consequences for non-participation.
Track outcomes and cost savings regularly to refine the mechanism.
Put in your answer
Mediator strength: NALSA had about 22,398 mediators as of November 2025.
Statutory time limit: Three months, extendable by two, shows the aim of time-bound resolution.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
Test yourself
Prelims practice · Single answer
Ours, not from a UPSC paper
With reference to pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, consider the following statements:
1.Section 12A was part of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as originally enacted.
2.Pre-institution mediation is mandatory for commercial disputes of specified value that do not contemplate urgent interim relief.
3.Under the 2018 Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement Rules, the mediation period of three months can be extended by a further two months with the consent of the applicant and the opposite party.
4.The procedure for Section 12A mediation is laid down only in the Mediation Act, 2023, and not in any rules under the Commercial Courts Act.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
True or false?
1 of 4
Statements the way Prelims prints them. Say first, then see the fact.
1.Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was part of the original Act as passed in 2015.
False. It was inserted by the 2018 amendment.
2.Under the 2018 PIMS Rules, mediation must be completed within three months, extendable by a further two months with consent of the parties.
True. Rule 3: three months, plus two months with consent.
3.The PIMS mediation period can be extended by six months at the discretion of the mediator alone.
False. Extension is only two months and needs consent of the applicant and the opposite party.
4.Under the Mediation Act, 2023, a mediation institute provides training and certification of mediators.
True. Section 3(l) read with Section 42 covers training, continuing education and certification.
Written by us from the release, not by UPSC; checked by a second model.
Mains practice
15 marks · 250 words
The Law Ministry told the Rajya Sabha in January 2026 that mediation settled only a small share of the lakhs of applications filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 since the 2018 amendment. Examine the rationale for mandatory pre-institution mediation. Critically analyse the challenges in its working and suggest a way forward to reduce pendency in commercial disputes.
GS3 Science and technology: Intellectual property rightsPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, DPIIT released a Concept Note proposing amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. It also proposes that India join the Riyadh Design Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement.
What it is
The Designs Act, 2000 protects the new and original shape, pattern or ornament of an article that appeals to the eye. It replaced the Designs Act, 1911 and was enacted to meet India's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. It is administered by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks.
Proposed treaty accessions
The Concept Note proposes that India accede to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty and the Hague Agreement on international registration of industrial designs.
Virtual designs
Protection would be extended to virtual designs by changing the definitions of 'article' and 'design'.
Grace period
A full grace period of 12 months is proposed.
Deferred publication
Applicants could defer publication of a design for up to 30 months.
Other proposals
The note also proposes statutory damages, a revised term of protection, multiple designs in one application and division of applications.
Administering authority
The Designs Act, 2000 is administered by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks under DPIIT.
Don’t confuse with Designs vs patents: A design protects the appearance of an article. A patent protects an invention's function and technical idea.
Don’t confuse with Riyadh DLT vs Hague Agreement: The Riyadh DLT harmonises design filing formalities. The Hague Agreement allows one international application for registration in many countries.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
Covering virtual designs would protect digital and immersive products.
Alignment with global treaties would ease filing for Indian designers abroad.
Problems
Defining virtual designs without overlapping copyright and other IP law is hard.
The Patent Office needs capacity to handle higher filing volumes and international applications.
Way forward
Consider stakeholder comments in the consultation and draft the amendment Bill carefully.
Build examination capacity and awareness among MSMEs and designers.
GS3 Economy: Inflation and statisticsPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, MoSPI released the Expert Group report on comprehensive updation of the CPI. It explains the new CPI 2024 series, which will be released on 12 February 2026.
What it is
The Consumer Price Index measures changes in retail prices of a fixed basket of goods and services bought by households. MoSPI compiles it, and it is the main measure of retail inflation in India. The base year and item basket are revised periodically so that they match current household spending.
Publisher
MoSPI released the report. The Expert Group had academics and senior officers from RBI and the Government of India.
Classification
The new series adopts COICOP 2018 up to subclass level to classify items.
Basket structure
The basket has 358 weighted items, grouped into 12 Divisions, 43 Groups, 62 Classes and 192 Sub-classes.
Data source for weights
Weights come from the Household Consumption Expenditure Survey 2023-24, run by NSO under MoSPI.
Don’t confuse with CPI vs WPI: CPI tracks retail prices paid by households and is compiled by MoSPI. WPI tracks wholesale prices and is compiled by the Office of the Economic Adviser, DPIIT.
Don’t confuse with CPI-Combined vs CPI-IW: CPI (Rural, Urban, Combined) covers all households and is the RBI's inflation target measure. CPI-IW covers industrial workers and is compiled by the Labour Bureau.
Reports and indices: 14 Prelims questions since 2013; they test who publishes a report and what it measures.
Why it matters
A new base and basket capture current spending patterns, so inflation readings become more accurate.
CPI is the anchor for the RBI's inflation target, so a better CPI improves monetary policy.
Problems
A lower food weight and new methods can break comparability with older series.
Collecting reliable rent and online price data at scale is hard.
Way forward
Publish back series and methodology clearly so users can link the old and new series.
Revise the base more often, with regular checks on the basket.
Put in your answer
CPI 2024 basket: 358 weighted items under 12 Divisions, 43 Groups, 62 Classes and 192 Sub-classes.
Methodological upgrades: The group recommended using online/e-commerce and administrative data, and a better house rent index.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
Test yourself
Prelims practice · Single answer
Ours, not from a UPSC paper
Consider the following statements about the new Consumer Price Index (CPI) 2024 series:
1. The Expert Group report on the base revision was released by the Reserve Bank of India.
2. The item basket and weights are updated using the Household Consumption Expenditure Survey 2023-24.
3. The item basket has 358 weighted items mapped to 12 Divisions and 43 Groups.
4. The Expert Group recommended leaving out online and e-commerce price data to stay consistent with past series.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
True or false?
1 of 3
Statements the way Prelims prints them. Say first, then see the fact.
1.The Expert Group report on the CPI base revision was released by the Reserve Bank of India.
False. It was released by MoSPI; RBI officers were only members of the Expert Group.
2.The CPI 2024 item basket has 358 weighted items mapped to 12 Divisions.
GS3 Environment · BiodiversityGS2 Statutory bodiesPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change said the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) disbursed Rs 17 lakh to the Biodiversity Management Committee of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation under the ABS mechanism. Cumulative ABS disbursements have crossed Rs 144.37 crore.
What it is
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) is a statutory body under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, headquartered in Chennai. It regulates access to India's biological resources and associated knowledge by commercial users and foreign entities. Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) requires users to share benefits with the providers and local communities, in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.
Amount and recipients
Rs 1.19 crore went to 29 State Biodiversity Boards and one UT Biodiversity Council.
Basis of allocation
Because resources were bought through markets or traders, individual benefit claimers could not be identified. Shares were set in proportion to estimated cultivation areas.
Use of funds
Funds must be used only for activities under Section 32(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
Legal basis and seat
NBA was set up under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and is headquartered in Chennai.
COP 17
COP 17 of the CBD is scheduled for 19-30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia.
Top sector
The agri-seed sector gave the largest share, Rs 7.16 crore, followed by food and beverages.
Cumulative since 2008
NBA has realised about Rs 278 crore through ABS and disbursed over Rs 200 crore for conservation and benefit claimers.
Disbursal route
Funds go through State Biodiversity Boards and UT Biodiversity Councils to support People's Biodiversity Registers and Biodiversity Management Committees.
Legal basis and HQ
NBA is a statutory body under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, headquartered in Chennai.
Amended framework
The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024 have strengthened the framework under the 2002 Act. States are urged to align their rules with it.
ABS funds shared
The NBA has shared over ₹200 crore of ABS funds with farmers, communities, BMCs, SBBs, UTBCs and research institutions.
Local bodies
The Minister called for making the more than 2.76 lakh Biodiversity Management Committees functional.
International reporting
India submitted its 7th National Report to the CBD and its 1st National Report on the Nagoya Protocol.
NBA basis and seat
The NBA is a statutory body under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, headquartered in Chennai.
Amount sanctioned
₹8.23 crore was sanctioned to 27 State Biodiversity Boards and 5 UT Biodiversity Councils, from bitter gourd, okra, chilli and onion.
Distribution basis
The resources came from the open market or traders, so no individual providers could be traced. Shares go to States by area under cultivation, as published by the Agriculture Ministry.
Legal basis
The NBA was established in 2003 under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and is headquartered in Chennai. It is a statutory, autonomous body.
Three-tier structure
The Act sets up the NBA at the national level, State Biodiversity Boards in States, and Biodiversity Management Committees at local body level.
Okra component
The largest part is for okra: Rs. 3.51 crore released to 32 SBBs and UTBCs, from money paid by Nunhems India.
Distribution modality
Since the resources came from markets and traders, the share is split among States and UTs where the resource is cultivated, as recommended by an Expert Committee and approved by the Authority.
Cumulative total
Total ABS disbursed by the NBA has crossed Rs. 191 crore.
Amount and source
Rs. 15.52 crore came from Pioneer Overseas Corporation, which developed ten mustard hybrids using Indian biological resources.
Intermediary rule
Where the resource came through intermediaries, ABS is shared among the SBBs/UTBCs of the areas where it is cultivated.
Unidentified source of access
Where resources were accessed via markets, traders or intermediaries, the source could not be identified, so the NBA used benefit-sharing modalities prepared by an Expert Committee.
Basis of distribution
Money was shared among SBBs/UTBCs of States where the crops are grown, using cultivation-area data of the Agriculture Ministry.
Local structures
State Biodiversity Boards and Biodiversity Management Committees are set up under the Act; the NBA is at the national level.
Payer
The money came from Pioneer Overseas Corporation, an international seed company that used Indian rice varieties to develop hybrids.
State share basis
Rs 5.75 crore went to 33 State Biodiversity Boards and UT Councils, allocated by each State's rice-growing area. Uttar Pradesh got the most.
Global link
The initiative contributes to Target 13 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, on fair and equitable benefit sharing.
Headquarters
The NBA is headquartered in Chennai.
Where the money goes
If the geographical source of a resource can be established, the ABS amount goes to the State Biodiversity Boards. If not, it stays in the National Biodiversity Fund under Section 27 of the Act.
Basis of State shares
State allocation is proportional to each State's area under cotton, using AICRP (ICAR) data.
Total released
Total ABS funds released by the NBA have reached Rs 152.24 crore.
Effect of notification
Notification regulates or prohibits collection of the species and provides for its rehabilitation and conservation. The Centre may delegate the power to States.
Numbers notified
159 plant and 173 animal species notified as threatened, across 17 States and 3 UTs.
Who the SOP helps
It assists State Biodiversity Boards and UT Biodiversity Councils, which recommend species to the State Government for notification.
Link to ABS Regulations
The 2025 ABS Regulations treat benefit-sharing differently where the resource belongs to a species notified as threatened under Section 38.
Money realized
NBA has realized over Rs 266 crore through ABS since 2008, including Rs 21.26 crore in FY 2025-26.
Transfer rule
Under the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024, NBA transfers 85-90 per cent of the ABS amount to State Biodiversity Boards for disbursal.
Reach
Benefits reached over 10,500 Biodiversity Management Committees across 23 States and 4 Union Territories.
Leadership
Dr P. L. Gautam, a former head of the NBA and PPVFRA, chairs the committee. The PPVFRA Chairperson is Co-Chair.
Age of the committee
It has been an advisory body of the NBA since 2005 and is reconstituted periodically.
Scope of work
It examines seed sector issues, reviews guidelines for international collaborative research, and recommends measures to conserve threatened native crop varieties and livestock breeds.
International link
The committee gives inputs on India's engagement with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).
NBA headquarters
The NBA is headquartered in Chennai.
People's Biodiversity Register
A BMC prepares the PBR in consultation with local people. It records resources, habitats, landraces and traditional knowledge.
National Biodiversity Authority Fund
The NBAF is a statutory fund created under section 27 of the Act. It supports benefit sharing and conservation.
Section 39 repositories
The Central Government can designate institutions as repositories for biological resources. Twenty institutions have been designated so far.
Nagoya Protocol
It is a legally binding supplementary agreement to the CBD, adopted in October 2010 at COP-10 in Nagoya, on fair sharing of benefits from genetic resources.
Prior registration for IPR
Applicants covered under Section 7 must get a Certificate of Registration from the NBA before seeking IPR, including patents, based on Indian biological resources.
2025-26 numbers
The NBA received 1,077 IPR applications and issued 885 CoRs between April 2025 and March 2026.
2024-25 numbers
Around 857 IPR applications were received and 792 CoRs issued from April 2024 to March 2025.
International basis
The Act implements the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; the Nagoya Protocol (2010) deals with access and benefit sharing.
Who got the money
Biodiversity Management Committees in 24 districts across nine States and one Union Territory received the current release. One Haryana dairy farmer was also paid for supplying Murrah buffalo.
Cumulative ABS
Total ABS disbursements at the national level have crossed ₹145 crore, about USD 16 million.
Resources behind the funds
The funds came from commercial use of microorganisms, marine microalgae and seaweed, among others, plus plants such as Tulsi, Moringa, neem and ashwagandha.
International commitments
The NBA implements India's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol, and contributes to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Who receives benefits
Benefits go to institutes, local communities, farmers and Biodiversity Management Committees that provided the parental lines of seeds.
Payout
NBA released Rs 45.05 lakh through State Biodiversity Boards and UT Biodiversity Councils to benefit claimers.
Resources used
Benefits came from insects, soil and water microorganisms and cultivated Red Sanders.
International links
NBA advances India's obligations under the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol on ABS.
Amount released
The NBA released Rs 17 lakh to the Mumbai civic body's Biodiversity Management Committee, routed through the Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board.
Source of benefit
The money comes from the commercial use of soil micro-organisms of the Bacillus genus in probiotic products.
National total
Cumulative ABS disbursements have crossed Rs 144.37 crore, about USD 16 million.
Maharashtra's position
Maharashtra is the second major beneficiary State, next to Andhra Pradesh, whose figure is driven by Red Sanders.
Global frameworks
The outcomes are linked to Targets 13 and 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Latest payout
The NBA released ₹45 lakh to Andhra Pradesh farmers through the State Biodiversity Board.
Statutory status and seat
The NBA is a statutory body under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, with headquarters in Chennai.
Red Sanders share
Over ₹104 crore of the total has gone to Andhra Pradesh for Red Sanders conservation, protection and benefit claimers.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs SBB vs BMC: NBA is the national body. State Biodiversity Boards work at State level. Biodiversity Management Committees are local bodies under the same Act.
Don’t confuse with CBD vs Nagoya Protocol: The CBD is the parent treaty. The Nagoya Protocol is its supplementary agreement on access and fair benefit sharing.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs State Biodiversity Board: NBA is the national regulator at Chennai. State Biodiversity Boards regulate use by Indians at the state level and channel benefits.
Don’t confuse with Nagoya Protocol vs Cartagena Protocol: Nagoya concerns access and benefit sharing of genetic resources. Cartagena concerns the biosafety of living modified organisms.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs National Green Tribunal: The NBA is a regulator under the Biological Diversity Act. The NGT is a judicial body under the NGT Act, 2010.
Don’t confuse with Nagoya Protocol vs Kunming-Montreal Framework: Nagoya is a legal protocol on ABS under the CBD; the Kunming-Montreal Framework is a 2022 global target set, with Target 13 on benefit sharing.
Don’t confuse with Section 38 vs IUCN Red List: Section 38 notification is a legal act under Indian law that restricts collection. The IUCN Red List is a global assessment with no legal force in India.
Don’t confuse with Section 38 vs Wild Life (Protection) Act Schedules: Section 38 of the Biological Diversity Act covers threatened species and regulates collection; the Wild Life (Protection) Act uses Schedules to protect wild animals and plants.
Don’t confuse with Rs 266 crore vs Rs 145 crore: Rs 266 crore is realized from users; Rs 145 crore is what has been disbursed to beneficiaries so far.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs PPVFRA: The NBA works under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and regulates access and benefit sharing. The PPVFRA works under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 and registers plant varieties and protects farmers' rights.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs State Biodiversity Boards: The NBA is the national body. State Biodiversity Boards regulate certain uses within their states, and Biodiversity Management Committees work at the local level.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs State Biodiversity Boards vs BMCs: The NBA is national, the SBBs work at state level, and BMCs are local bodies that prepare PBRs.
Don’t confuse with Convention on Biological Diversity vs Nagoya Protocol: The CBD is the parent treaty of 1992. The Nagoya Protocol is its supplementary agreement dealing specifically with access and fair sharing of benefits from genetic resources.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs SBB: NBA is the national regulator. State Biodiversity Boards regulate at State level, and BMCs work at local body level.
Don’t confuse with NBA vs Biodiversity Management Committees: Biodiversity Management Committees are local-level bodies that document local biodiversity. The NBA and State Boards sit above them.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
Channels commercial gains from biological resources back to conservation and local communities.
Shows agriculture as a new source of ABS funds, supporting agricultural biodiversity.
ABS ties commercial use of biological resources to conservation and local community benefit.
It operationalises India's commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.
ABS funds can give tangible benefits to communities and link livelihoods to conservation.
Aligned State rules help implement India's CBD and Nagoya Protocol commitments uniformly.
Turns the fair and equitable benefit-sharing principle into money reaching States for conservation and communities.
Supports India's commitments under the CBD, Nagoya Protocol and Kunming-Montreal Framework Target 13.
Channels commercial gains from biological resources back to conservation and communities.
Strengthens State-level institutions for biodiversity documentation and restoration.
Channels commercial gains from genetic resources to conservation and local communities.
Puts the Nagoya Protocol and Target 13 of the Kunming-Montreal Framework into practice.
Links commercial use of genetic resources to community welfare and conservation funding.
Supports India's commitments under the Nagoya Protocol and the Global Biodiversity Framework.
Turns commercial use of genetic resources into funds for conservation and for research institutions.
Shows India applying the Nagoya Protocol's benefit-sharing principle in practice.
Reinvests commercial gains from biological resources into conservation and local livelihoods.
Gives a workable model for benefit sharing when resources come through traders and no claimant can be identified.
Uniform scientific method for States can reduce arbitrary or delayed listing of threatened species.
Supports India's NBSAP 2024-2030 Target 4 and the Kunming-Montreal Framework.
Links conservation to community income, backing the idea that those who protect biodiversity should gain from its use.
Helps India meet Nagoya Protocol and Kunming-Montreal Target 13 commitments.
Links agricultural research and seed exports with biodiversity law and benefit sharing.
Supports conservation of native crop varieties and livestock breeds, which aids climate-resilient farming.
Gives a legal route for local communities to share in profits from their biological resources and knowledge.
Local registers and BMCs bring community participation into conservation.
Prior registration links patents to benefit sharing, checking biopiracy of India's biological resources and traditional knowledge.
Clear approval pathways ease research and industry access while keeping conservation aims.
ABS gives local communities a direct economic reason to conserve biodiversity.
It helps India meet its CBD, Nagoya Protocol and Kunming–Montreal commitments.
ABS payments give money to local communities and farmers who hold biological resources and knowledge, linking livelihoods to conservation.
It shows India implementing its Nagoya Protocol obligations through domestic law.
ABS payments give communities a share of commercial gains, which links livelihoods to conservation.
It supports India's commitments under the CBD, Nagoya Protocol and Kunming-Montreal Framework.
Links conservation with local livelihoods by returning a share of commercial gains to communities.
Shows microbial resources have commercial value, and strengthens India's case under the CBD and Nagoya Protocol.
Links conservation of an endangered, endemic species with direct income for farmers.
Puts into practice the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from biological resources.
Problems
When resources are bought through traders, actual providers cannot be identified, so area-based proxies are used.
Amounts are small relative to the commercial value of biological resources.
Receipts are small and concentrated in a few sectors and firms, mainly agri-seed.
Local communities and BMCs may have weak capacity to document knowledge and claim benefits.
Many Biodiversity Management Committees exist on paper but are not functional.
States and UTs need to align rules and build capacity, and People’s Biodiversity Registers need better quality.
When resources are bought on the open market, source communities cannot be identified, so area-based sharing may miss real knowledge holders.
State boards and local committees have uneven capacity to use funds and keep People's Biodiversity Registers updated.
Market-sourced resources cannot be traced to specific farmers or communities, so benefits reach States rather than holders of knowledge.
Capacity of SBBs and local committees to document and use funds well is uneven.
Where sources are traders and intermediaries, individual providers cannot be traced, so benefits reach States, not communities.
Funds may be poorly used by Boards and local committees if registers and Biodiversity Management Committees are weak.
Resources accessed through markets and traders make the original source hard to trace, forcing area-based sharing.
Small local bodies may lack capacity to use funds well or reach the actual custodian communities.
Few users come forward, so compliance depends on detecting unreported use of resources.
Funds may not reach local farmers and knowledge holders who conserved the varieties.
Tracing the source of resources that pass through traders and intermediaries is hard.
Individual conservers and communities may not receive direct benefit when funds go to State boards.
Many States lack taxonomic expertise and data to assess species; only 17 States and 3 UTs have notified species so far.
Notification may restrict local communities' collection of resources, risking livelihood conflicts.
Collections are concentrated: Red Sanders, seeds and pharma/AYUSH give about 91 per cent, so the base is narrow.
Rs 266 crore realized against Rs 145 crore disbursed shows a gap, and funds pass through several layers before reaching communities.
Balancing ABS compliance with the freedom of agricultural research and plant breeding.
The committee is advisory only, and its term is short at one year.
Many BMCs and PBRs may exist on paper only, with uneven quality and updating.
Balancing research and industry access against fair benefit sharing is difficult.
Balancing ease of doing business with strict benefit sharing to local communities.
Weak capacity of Biodiversity Management Committees and uneven documentation of traditional knowledge.
Not all applications get CoRs, so processing time and compliance burden remain concerns.
The amount paid so far is small compared with the scale of commercial use and the number of BMCs.
Many BMCs have weak capacity, thin documentation and poor People's Biodiversity Registers, which delays benefit claims.
Compliance depends on companies applying; the NBA itself urges all sectors to comply.
Benefits must actually reach grassroot providers through BMCs, and procedures must stay simple without weakening safeguards.
Many benefit claimers and BMCs are yet to document resources or receive payments.
Simplified rules for ease of doing business must not dilute community interests.
Payouts are uneven across States and depend on a few high-value resources such as Red Sanders.
Many Biodiversity Management Committees have limited capacity to document resources and use funds well.
Benefit claimers must be identified and reached, and delays in payouts can weaken trust.
Illegal trade in Red Sanders continues to threaten the species.
Way forward
Strengthen Biodiversity Management Committees and People's Biodiversity Registers to identify benefit claimers.
Improve compliance monitoring and transparent tracking of fund use by State Boards.
Strengthen BMCs and People's Biodiversity Registers so communities can claim benefits.
Widen compliance monitoring and tracking of users across sectors, including AYUSH and biotechnology.
Train and fund BMCs, and make People’s Biodiversity Registers dynamic inputs for local planning.
Ensure transparent ABS distribution so benefits reach local communities.
Strengthen Biodiversity Management Committees and PBRs so providers can be traced and paid directly.
Publish State-wise utilisation data and audit how funds are spent.
Ensure funds reach Biodiversity Management Committees and local communities, with public reporting of use.
Complete People's Biodiversity Registers and strengthen monitoring of ABS agreements.
Build capacity of State Boards and Biodiversity Management Committees and track fund use under Section 32.
Strengthen documentation through People's Biodiversity Registers so sources can be traced.
Strengthen People's Biodiversity Registers and BMCs so benefits reach local custodians directly.
Improve traceability and monitoring of how States use ABS funds.
Strengthen Biodiversity Management Committees and People's Biodiversity Registers so local holders can claim benefits.
Track fund use by State Boards and report it publicly.
Strengthen People's Biodiversity Registers and Biodiversity Management Committees so that sources can be documented.
Track how State Biodiversity Boards use the funds.
Build capacity of State Biodiversity Boards with BSI, ZSI and academic institutions, and involve Biodiversity Management Committees.
Follow notification with funded recovery plans, regular monitoring and periodic review.
Widen compliance across more sectors and users, and track unreported use of biological resources.
Speed up and publish disbursal to BMCs, and strengthen their capacity and People's Biodiversity Registers.
Give clear and consistent guidance on seed exports and collaborative research approvals.
Align ABS rules with the ITPGRFA and farmers' rights.
Update, verify and digitise PBRs and link them to the ABS portal.
Build capacity of BMCs so benefits reach communities.
Strengthen BMCs and People's Biodiversity Registers so benefits reach local communities.
Ensure timely, transparent disposal of applications and track benefit-sharing outcomes publicly.
Strengthen BMCs with training, funding and updated People's Biodiversity Registers.
Improve tracking of commercial users so that benefit-sharing is paid on time and transparently.
Strengthen BMCs and people's biodiversity registers so providers can be identified and paid.
Widen compliance across sectors while keeping procedures simple and transparent.
Strengthen BMCs and complete People's Biodiversity Registers with traditional knowledge.
Build awareness and capacity among communities and industry for timely ABS compliance.
Strengthen Biodiversity Management Committees and People's Biodiversity Registers to track resource use.
Improve monitoring of commercial users so that benefit-sharing agreements are enforced, and spread payouts more widely.
Widen benefit sharing to more States and communities, and make payouts timely.
Strengthen documentation of local biodiversity and traceability of lawful Red Sanders trade.
Put in your answer
Section 32(2) activities: Funds go to documentation, conservation, local governance, research, capacity building and livelihoods.
Cumulative ABS: About Rs 278 crore realised since 2008, with over Rs 200 crore disbursed to benefit claimers.
ABS distribution: The NBA has shared over ₹200 crore of ABS funds with communities, local bodies and institutions.
ABS milestone: Cumulative NBA ABS disbursement now exceeds ₹200 crore.
Example of area-based sharing: Maharashtra gets a large share because it holds over 49 per cent of India's onion area.
Global target: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 13 calls for fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources.
ABS total: NBA has disbursed over Rs. 191 crore of ABS funds so far.
Okra example: Okra: Rs. 3.51 crore released to 32 SBBs and UTBCs, showing the market-sourced distribution modality.
Expert Committee modality: For resources accessed via intermediaries, benefit is shared among States where the resource is cultivated.
Global framework: The release links ABS to Targets 13 and 4 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Rice ABS payment: Rs 8.22 crore was shared from one seed company's use of Indian rice varieties, split between research institutions and State Boards.
Total ABS disbursed: Total NBA ABS disbursements across all sectors have crossed Rs 162 crore.
Global Biodiversity Framework: The initiative contributes to Kunming-Montreal Target 13 on fair sharing of benefits and Target 4 on conserving genetic diversity.
Species notified so far: 159 plant and 173 animal species notified as threatened across 17 States and 3 UTs.
NBSAP 2024-2030 Target 4: Target 4 aims to halt human-induced extinction, promote species recovery and maintain genetic diversity.
Local use of funds: Funds support medicinal plant parks, community gene banks and updating People's Biodiversity Registers.
Expert committees under Section 13: The NBA uses Section 13(1) to set up expert committees for specialised advice, as with agrobiodiversity.
ABS benefits released: Nearly Rs 145 crore has been released to beneficiaries, reaching about 11,000 BMCs.
ABS disbursement: Cumulative ABS payouts have passed ₹145 crore, showing the mechanism works at a modest scale.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: The Act is India's law implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and creates the three-tier institutional structure.
ABS payments to date: Cumulative ABS payments have crossed Rs 145 crore, about USD 16 million.
ABS disbursement total: Cumulative ABS disbursements have crossed Rs 144.37 crore, which can be cited as evidence of the Act's working.
Biotechnology contribution: The biotechnology sector has contributed about Rs 10 crore to the accrued ABS fund.
ABS releases to date: India's cumulative ABS releases exceed ₹143.5 crore, with most going to Andhra Pradesh for Red Sanders.
Recent payouts: In three months, ₹5.35 crore went to over 220 Red Sanders farmers in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Telangana.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
Test yourself
Prelims practice · Single answer
Ours, not from a UPSC paper
With reference to the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) mechanism in India, consider the following statements:
1. The NBA is a statutory body established under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
2. The headquarters of the NBA is in New Delhi.
3. In the latest disbursal, allocations to States were made in proportion to the estimated cultivation areas of the biological resources.
4. The funds disbursed to State Biodiversity Boards must be used exclusively for activities specified under Section 32(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
How many of the above statements are correct?
How many of the above statements are correct?
True or false?
1 of 53
Statements the way Prelims prints them. Say first, then see the fact.
1.The National Biodiversity Authority is a statutory body established under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
True. NBA is created by the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
2.The headquarters of the National Biodiversity Authority is in New Delhi.
False. NBA is headquartered in Chennai.
3.In the latest disbursal, allocations to States were made in proportion to the estimated cultivation areas of the biological resources.
True. Allocation followed estimated cultivation area, using official agricultural statistics.
4.The funds disbursed to State Biodiversity Boards must be used exclusively for activities specified under Section 32(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
True. Use of funds is restricted to Section 32(2) activities.
5.The Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism of the NBA gives effect to the Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
True. The Nagoya Protocol on ABS is a protocol to the CBD; India's ABS regime implements it.
6.The seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD is scheduled to be held in India.
False. COP 17 is scheduled in Yerevan, Armenia, 19-30 October 2026.
7.The National Biodiversity Authority is headquartered in New Delhi.
False. NBA is headquartered in Chennai.
8.ABS funds are disbursed through State Biodiversity Boards and Union Territory Biodiversity Councils.
True. Disbursal goes through State Biodiversity Boards and UT Biodiversity Councils.
9.Biodiversity Management Committees are constituted at the local body level under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
True. The Act provides for BMCs at local body level to promote conservation and document biodiversity through People's Biodiversity Registers.
10.The ABS mechanism in India is meant to give effect to the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing.
True. The Nagoya Protocol, under the CBD, deals with access and fair sharing of benefits from genetic resources.
11.The headquarters of the National Biodiversity Authority is in Bengaluru.
False. The NBA is headquartered in Chennai.
12.In the latest disbursement, the benefit share was distributed among States according to the area under cultivation of the crops.
True. Distribution was based on area under cultivation published by the Agriculture Ministry.
13.The funds received by State Biodiversity Boards must be used for activities listed under Section 32(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
True. Section 32(2) lists permitted uses such as PBRs, conservation and livelihoods.
14.The latest ABS proceeds were realised from farmers who had supplied the crops directly to seed companies.
False. The resources were accessed through the open market or traders, so individual farmers could not be traced.
15.The ABS framework under the Biological Diversity Act gives effect to the Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
True. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing is a CBD protocol that India implements through the Act and ABS regulations.
16.Biodiversity Management Committees are constituted by the National Biodiversity Authority at the State level.
False. BMCs are set up by local bodies at village, panchayat or municipal level; State Biodiversity Boards operate at State level.
17.The funds disbursed to State Biodiversity Boards are to be utilised as per Section 32 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
True. Section 32 governs use of the benefit-sharing funds by SBBs and UTBCs.
18.The Access and Benefit-Sharing regime in India gives effect to the Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
True. ABS rules implement the CBD's Nagoya Protocol.
19.The largest ABS component in this disbursement relates to watermelon.
False. The largest component relates to okra (Rs. 3.51 crore).
20.Among the major recipients in this disbursement, Gujarat received the highest amount, followed by West Bengal.
True. Gujarat got Rs. 88.79 lakh and West Bengal Rs. 78.09 lakh.
21.In the mustard case, the ABS share of each State was calculated on the basis of the area under mustard cultivation in it.
True. Shares were based on each State's mustard cultivation area.
22.In the mustard case, the ABS amount was paid directly to the farmers who supplied the parental lines.
False. The parental lines came from the open market and traders, so no farmer or community could be identified; money went to State Boards and UT Councils.
23.Utilisation of ABS money by State Biodiversity Boards is governed by Section 32 of the Biological Diversity Act.
True. Section 32 governs use of the funds.
24.The Nagoya Protocol deals with fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
True. The Nagoya Protocol is the CBD's ABS protocol.
25.The cultivation-area data used to calculate the State shares was sourced from the National Biodiversity Authority's own survey.
False. The figures came from ICAR-Indian Institute of Rapeseed-Mustard Research, Bharatpur.
26.The National Biodiversity Authority is headquartered in Chennai.
True. NBA headquarters is in Chennai.
27.India's Access and Benefit Sharing framework is aligned with the Nagoya Protocol.
True. The ABS framework follows the Nagoya Protocol.
28.Where the original source of access cannot be identified, the benefit-sharing amount is retained by the NBA and not passed to State Biodiversity Boards.
False. The NBA adopted Expert Committee modalities and disbursed the amount among SBBs/UTBCs of crop-growing States.
29.In the latest release, the amount was shared among States in proportion to cultivation-area data published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
True. Distribution used cultivation-area data of the Agriculture Ministry.
30.The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 gives effect to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was adopted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
True. The CBD was opened for signature at Rio in 1992 and the Act implements it in India.
31.The recipient boards may use the funds only for cash payments to individual farmers and not for conservation work.
False. Funds go to People's Biodiversity Registers, in-situ and ex-situ conservation, Biodiversity Heritage Sites, BMC capacity building and community development.
32.The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework's Target 13 deals with fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources.
True. Target 13 covers benefit sharing from genetic resources.
33.The National Biodiversity Authority is headquartered in Hyderabad.
False. The NBA is headquartered in Chennai.
34.Where the geographical source of a biological resource cannot be established, the ABS funds are retained in the National Biodiversity Fund.
True. Such funds stay in the National Biodiversity Fund and are used under Section 27 of the Act.
35.The Nagoya Protocol deals with the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the utilisation of genetic resources.
True. The Nagoya Protocol, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, covers access and benefit sharing.
36.The National Biodiversity Authority functions under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
False. The NBA functions under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
37.Section 38 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 deals with the notification of threatened species.
True. Section 38 covers notification of threatened species.
38.The Central Government may delegate its power to notify threatened species to State Governments.
True. The Act allows delegation of this power to States.
39.Notification of a species as threatened can regulate or prohibit its collection.
True. Notification regulates or prohibits collection and provides for rehabilitation.
40.The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 provides for State Biodiversity Boards and local Biodiversity Management Committees besides the NBA.
True. The Act has a three-tier structure: NBA, State Biodiversity Boards, Biodiversity Management Committees.
41.The 2025 ABS Regulations apply identical benefit-sharing obligations to all biological resources, including threatened species.
False. They provide differential treatment where resources belong to species notified as threatened under Section 38.
42.The Nagoya Protocol is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity dealing with access and benefit sharing.
True. Nagoya Protocol supplements the CBD on ABS.
43.Under the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024, NBA transfers 85-90 per cent of the ABS amount to State Biodiversity Boards for onward disbursal.
True. 85-90 per cent goes to State Biodiversity Boards.
44.Seeds accounted for the largest share of ABS realization, ahead of Red Sanders.
False. Red Sanders was largest at Rs 120 crore (45 per cent); seeds were second at 32.3 per cent.
45.The ABS framework contributes to Target 13 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework on fair and equitable benefit sharing.
True. Target 13 of the KMGBF concerns benefit sharing.
46.Benefits under the ABS framework have so far reached Biodiversity Management Committees in all States and Union Territories.
False. They reached over 10,500 BMCs across 23 States and 4 Union Territories.
47.The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 provides for Biodiversity Management Committees at the level of local bodies.
True. BMCs are the local-level tier under the Act.
48.The Nagoya Protocol, which the Biological Diversity Act helps implement, deals with the conservation of wetlands.
False. The Nagoya Protocol deals with access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of benefits; wetlands fall under the Ramsar Convention.
49.Benefit-sharing payments reach Biodiversity Management Committees through State Biodiversity Boards and UT Biodiversity Councils.
True. NBA disbursed the amount through State Biodiversity Boards and UT Biodiversity Councils.
50.The Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism in India gives effect to the Nagoya Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
True. NBA advances India's obligations under the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol on ABS.
51.Cumulative ABS payments made through the NBA have crossed Rs 145 crore.
52.Biodiversity Management Committees are constituted by the Central Government at the national level.
False. BMCs are constituted by local bodies under the Act.
53.The latest payout was generated only from wild-collected Red Sanders and did not involve microorganisms.
False. It also came from insects and microorganisms in soil and water, and Red Sanders was cultivated.
Written by us from the release, not by UPSC; checked by a second model.
Mains practice
15 marks · 250 words
The National Biodiversity Authority received Rs 9.68 crore in Access and Benefit Sharing payments in April-September 2026, mostly from the agri-seed sector. Examine the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 on access and benefit sharing and discuss the challenges in ensuring that local communities benefit from the use of India's biological resources.
On 29 January 2026, IEPFA, under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, invited public comments on draft amendments to its 2016 Rules to speed up refunds, especially low-value claims.
What it is
The Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (IEPFA) administers the Investor Education and Protection Fund set up under the Companies Act, 2013. Unclaimed dividends, shares, matured deposits and debentures are transferred to the Fund, and the Authority refunds them to rightful claimants. The IEPFA (Accounting, Audit, Transfer and Refund) Rules, 2016 set the procedure for transfers and refunds.
Parent ministry
IEPFA works under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and administers the Investor Education and Protection Fund.
Appeal mechanism
The draft adds a formal appeal for claimants whose claims are rejected, along with clearer company responsibilities and lighter documentation.
Dual role
IEPFA refunds money from the Fund and also runs nationwide investor education and awareness work.
Don’t confuse with IEPFA vs SEBI: IEPFA refunds unclaimed corporate amounts under the Companies Act and promotes investor education. SEBI is the securities market regulator under the SEBI Act, 1992.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
Faster refunds return investors' own money and build trust in capital markets.
Company-verified fast track for small claims cuts delay and paperwork for retail holders.
Problems
Relying solely on company verification may risk errors or misuse, so safeguards are needed.
Many small investors are unaware of unclaimed holdings or struggle with documentation.
Way forward
Add audit checks and penalties for false company reports.
Expand awareness drives and digital tracing of unclaimed assets.
Put in your answer
Low-value claim fast track: Example of simplified, trust-based procedure: 30-day disposal on company verification for small claims.
Formal appeal: Proposed appeal against rejection shows a move towards accountability and grievance redress in investor protection.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
No practice question for this one; the card may still help an answer. Why: Draft rule changes for investor refunds; a lasting body but a draft proposal, UPSC unlikely to set a question.
On 29 January 2026, the Minister of State for Food Processing Industries told the Lok Sabha in a written reply how PMFME supports micro food processing units through credit-linked grants, seed capital, common facilities, branding and formalisation help.
What it is
The PM Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises (PMFME) Scheme is a centrally sponsored scheme of the Ministry of Food Processing Industries. It supports existing micro food processing units to upgrade and formalise through credit-linked subsidy, training and common services. It also backs SHGs, FPOs and cooperatives, and follows a One District One Product (ODOP) approach.
Conclave
MoFPI is holding the PMFME Conclave on 24-25 August 2026 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, with over 500 stakeholders.
PMFME Bazaar
The Bazaar has exhibitors from 25 States and UTs showing ethnic and traditional food products.
MoUs
Three MoUs were signed with APEDA, ONDC and NABKISAN to strengthen market and institutional linkages for beneficiaries.
Launches
A coffee table book of 30 beneficiary success stories and the Ministry's quarterly magazine 'FoodNova' were launched.
PMFME 2.0
The Minister stressed the need for a stronger and more comprehensive PMFME 2.0.
Scheme type
PMFME is a centrally sponsored scheme launched in 2020 as part of Atmanirbhar Bharat, with a 2020-21 to 2025-26 period.
Outlay and period
Outlay of Rs 10,000 crore, approved for 2020-21 to 2024-25 and now extended till September 2026.
Subsidy for individual units
35% credit-linked subsidy for individual micro enterprises, up to Rs 10 lakh.
Seed capital
Seed capital of Rs 40,000 per SHG member engaged in food processing, for working capital and small tools.
Branding and marketing grant
50% grant for branding and marketing to groups such as FPOs, SHGs and cooperatives.
ODOP coverage
137 unique products identified across 726 districts in 35 States and UTs.
Incubation centres
80 common incubation centres approved, 31 commissioned.
Individual unit subsidy
Micro enterprises get a credit-linked capital subsidy of 35% of eligible project cost, up to Rs 10 lakh per unit.
Seed capital for SHGs
SHG members engaged in food processing get Rs 40,000 each for working capital and small tools, up to Rs 4 lakh per SHG Federation.
Common infrastructure
FPOs, SHGs, cooperatives and government agencies get a 35% credit-linked subsidy, up to Rs 3 crore, for common infrastructure. Other units and the public can use it on hire.
Branding and marketing
Groups of FPOs, SHGs, cooperatives or an SPV of micro food processing enterprises get a grant of up to 50% for branding and marketing.
Handholding by DRPs
District Resource Persons help with project reports, bank loans, training, approvals and hygiene standards. They also help with Udyam, FSSAI and GST registration.
GeM tie-up
An MoU with the Government e-Marketplace was signed on 14 November 2024 to market products of supported units.
Don’t confuse with PMFME vs PMKSY: PMFME targets micro food units, mainly unorganised. PM Kisan SAMPADA Yojana (PMKSY) funds larger food processing infrastructure such as mega food parks and cold chains.
Don’t confuse with APEDA vs NABKISAN: APEDA promotes exports of agricultural and processed foods. NABKISAN is a NABARD subsidiary that finances farmer-linked enterprises and FPOs.
Don’t confuse with Individual vs group subsidy cap: Individual units get 35% subsidy up to Rs 10 lakh. FPOs, SHGs and similar groups get 35% up to Rs 3 crore for common infrastructure.
Schemes: 52 Prelims questions since 2013, 10 in Prelims 2026 alone. They test features, the period and who funds it. In Mains, 33 news-triggered questions, mostly GS3.
Why it matters
Formalises the large unorganised micro food processing sector, improving credit access, quality and income.
Supports One District One Product, SHGs and FPOs, aiding rural jobs and value addition.
Formalises the roughly 25 lakh unregistered food processing units, widening their access to credit, food safety standards and markets.
Supports women and SHG-led rural enterprises, reducing post-harvest losses and raising farmers' income realisation.
Formalises informal micro food units through Udyam, FSSAI and GST registration, widening access to credit.
Builds local value chains and rural jobs by adding value to farm produce.
Problems
Micro units struggle with credit access, branding, packaging and quality standards.
Weak market linkages keep many beneficiaries limited to local sales.
Micro units often find bank credit, paperwork and compliance hard, so subsidy uptake depends on bank lending.
Many incubation centres and branding proposals are still not operational, so benefits reach only a small share of units.
Micro units often struggle to get bank loans needed for the credit-linked subsidy.
Weak quality standards and limited market access hold back small brands.
Way forward
Use the new MoUs with ONDC and APEDA to link units to digital commerce and exports.
Design PMFME 2.0 with stronger support for technology, capacity building and cluster-based common facilities.
Speed up commissioning of the remaining incubation centres and widen branding support beyond ODOP groups.
Improve bank linkage and handholding so more units can formalise and keep FSSAI compliance.
Strengthen DRP support and speed up bank loan sanction.
Expand market tie-ups and common facilities so more units meet quality standards.
Put in your answer
Market linkage MoUs: Partnerships with APEDA, ONDC and NABKISAN aim at domestic and export market access and digital commerce for micro enterprises.
Unorganised sector scale: About 25 lakh unregistered food processing enterprises form the target base of PMFME.
Reach among women: Of 1,96,270 individual units supported, more than 40% of beneficiaries are women.
GeM tie-up: MoFPI signed an MoU with GeM to help PMFME units onboard and get market assistance.
Subsidy ceiling: 35% credit-linked subsidy, up to Rs 10 lakh per unit, shows the scheme's support for micro units.
Employment link: The scheme is said to create direct and indirect jobs in rural and semi-urban areas by strengthening local food processing value chains.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
No practice question for this one; the card may still help an answer. Why: Scheme features (35% credit-linked grant, seed capital) are testable, but this reply is routine; schemes are 16% of news-linked Prelims questions.
GS1 Geography: Water resourcesGS3 EnvironmentPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, the Jal Shakti Minister told the Lok Sabha that the 2025 Dynamic Ground Water Resources Assessment by CGWB is complete. It puts the national Stage of Ground Water Extraction at 60.63%.
What it is
The Dynamic Ground Water Resources Assessment is an annual exercise. The Central Ground Water Board does it with State Governments. It estimates recharge, extractable resource and extraction for each assessment unit (block, tehsil or taluka). It then sorts units into Safe, Semi-critical, Critical and Over-exploited categories to guide conservation and regulation.
Who prepares it
CGWB prepares the assessment in coordination with State Governments.
Categories
Safe is below 70% SoE. Semi-critical is 70-90%, Critical is 90-100%, and Over-exploited is above 100%.
Trend 2017 to 2025
Safe units rose from 62.6% to 73.14%. Over-exploited units fell from 17.2% to 10.8%.
MGNREGS earmark
Under the National Initiative on Water Security (September 2025), at least 65% of MGNREGS funds in OE and Critical blocks, and 40% in Semi-critical blocks, go to water conservation.
Regulation
CGWA's 24.09.2020 guidelines set higher extraction charges and penalties in OCS blocks. New large-scale industries are barred only in OE blocks.
Don’t confuse with CGWB vs CGWA: CGWB is the technical body that assesses and maps groundwater. CGWA is the authority that regulates extraction.
Don’t confuse with Recharge vs extractable resource: Recharge is the total annual addition to groundwater (448.52 BCM). Extractable resource is the part that can be withdrawn (407.75 BCM). SoE uses the extractable figure.
Reports and indices: 14 Prelims questions since 2013; they test who publishes a report and what it measures.
Why it matters
The assessment gives a block-level base for targeting recharge, regulation and scheme funds such as MGNREGS.
Problems
Water is a State subject, so the Centre can only give technical and financial help.
Some blocks remain Over-exploited, Critical or Semi-critical, and a national average of 60.63% hides local stress.
Way forward
Prioritise recharge, rainwater harvesting and micro-irrigation in OCS blocks.
Scale up community-led management on the Atal Bhujal Yojana model, backed by NAQUIM 2.0 aquifer data.
Put in your answer
NAQUIM: Phase 1.0 mapped about 25 lakh sq km of mappable area. District aquifer maps and management plans were shared with local administrations.
Mission Amrit Sarovar: Nearly 69,000 Amrit Sarovars have been built or rejuvenated, adding to water storage and recharge.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
No practice question for this one; the card may still help an answer. Why: Annual CGWB report with categories (Safe below 70%, Semi-critical, Critical, Over-exploited) is useful background; routine annual data, reports are 4% of Prelims.
GS3 Infrastructure - Water resourcesGS2 Statutory bodiesPrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, the Jal Shakti Ministry told Lok Sabha that three specified dams are in Category-I after the 2025 post-monsoon inspections, and gave the status of DRIP-II.
What it is
The Dam Safety Act, 2021 provides for surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of specified dams to prevent dam failure disasters. It sets up the National Committee on Dam Safety and the National Dam Safety Authority at the Centre, and State Committees and State Dam Safety Organisations in States.
Who chaired the meeting
The 12th NCDS meeting was chaired by the Chairman of the Central Water Commission.
New regulation planned
The Committee agreed to work on a new regulation on surveillance and security of specified dams, given emerging threats.
Dam failures reviewed
Owners presented on recent failures including Luti Tank, Rajadera, Teesta Stage-III and Madhopur barrage.
Legal basis
The Dam Safety Act, 2021 is a Central law that creates the NCDS and the National Dam Safety Authority.
Specified dam
The Act covers dams above 15 m in height, or 10-15 m if they meet prescribed technical criteria.
Four-tier structure
NCDS is the apex body, NDSA the regulatory and implementing arm, with SCDS and SDSO in States.
Commencement
The Act came into force on 30 December 2021.
Penalties
Chapter X deals with offences. Obstruction or refusal to comply with directions can bring up to one year's imprisonment, a fine, or both. If it causes loss of life or imminent danger, imprisonment can go up to two years.
Dam ownership
State Governments own about 98.5% of specified dams (6,448).
NETRA
NDSA Engine for Tracking and Review using AI, built with WESEE, an Indian Navy R&D laboratory. It gives a conversational interface to NDSA documents.
DHARMA
National repository of dam safety data, covering more than 6,600 specified dams and thousands of inspection reports. NETRA is integrated with it.
Rashtriya Bandh Suraksha Darpan
Visualisation platform developed by C-DAC to present Dam Break Analysis results.
Inspections
More than 13,000 inspection reports are generated each year from pre-monsoon and post-monsoon dam inspections.
Old dams in the register
The National Register of Specified Dams 2025, compiled by the National Dam Safety Authority, lists 1,681 specified dams over fifty years old.
Owner's duty
Under the Act, each owner of a specified dam must inspect it every year before and after the monsoon.
Three categories
Inspections sort dams by urgency of repair. Category-III needs minor remedial work, Category-II major deficiencies needing prompt action, and Category-I the most serious deficiencies that may lead to failure.
Don’t confuse with NCDS vs NDSA: The National Committee on Dam Safety evolves policies and recommends regulations. The National Dam Safety Authority implements policy, resolves inter-State issues and acts as the regulator.
Don’t confuse with State Committee vs State Dam Safety Organisation: The State Dam Safety Organisation does the field work of surveillance and inspection, while the State Committee on Dam Safety reviews it at State level.
Don’t confuse with DRIP Phase I vs Phases II and III: Phase I (2012-2021) was World Bank supported and covered 223 dams in seven states. Phases II and III began in October 2021, are co-financed by the World Bank and AIIB, and cover 736 dams.
Don’t confuse with NDSA vs CWC: The Central Water Commission is the older technical body under the Jal Shakti Ministry. The NDSA is a separate statutory authority under the 2021 Act.
Don’t confuse with National Committee on Dam Safety vs National Dam Safety Authority: The Committee oversees dam safety policies and recommends regulations. The Authority implements policy, maintains the national register and resolves disputes between State bodies, among other tasks.
Don’t confuse with DRIP vs the Dam Safety Act: DRIP is a funded rehabilitation scheme with external financing. The Act is the legal framework for surveillance and safety of specified dams.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
Ageing dams and recent failures make uniform safety standards across States important for protecting lives and downstream property.
Gives dam safety a statutory basis with fixed owner duties and timelines. Earlier, safety depended on State practice.
Uniform standards across States address dam failure risk as 26% of dams are over 50 years old.
Digital tools help track many dams and inspection reports, making safety oversight more data-driven.
Dam break visualisation supports risk assessment and emergency planning for downstream areas.
Annual inspections and categorisation let repairs be prioritised before failures occur.
Ageing dams pose risks to life, property and water security, so a statutory framework matters.
Problems
Many State Dam Safety Organisations are weak, and compliance with evaluations, emergency plans and risk studies lags.
Reservoir sedimentation and security threats are emerging issues without clear regulation.
State ownership of about 98.5% of dams means safety depends on State capacity and funds.
Ageing and sedimentation reduce safety and storage; CWC data on 439 reservoirs show an average 19% loss of storage.
Many dams are owned by States, so consistent compliance and data entry vary.
Ageing dams and extreme rainfall raise failure risk beyond what digital tools alone can fix.
Owners hold primary responsibility, and capacity and funds vary across States and agencies.
Rehabilitation is slow: Rs 2,029 crore had been spent under DRIP-II by 31 December 2025, against Rs 5,107 crore outlay for the phase.
Way forward
Build State capacity through training with institutions like IITs and NITs, and enforce statutory deadlines.
Frame regulations on dam surveillance, security and sedimentation management.
Ensure owners earmark funds for maintenance, and use DHARMA data for risk-based prioritisation.
Complete rehabilitation under DRIP and build expertise through the Centres of Excellence.
Ensure States keep DHARMA data updated and act on inspection findings.
Link dam break analysis to Emergency Action Plans and local disaster management.
Speed up approved DRIP-II works and follow up on Category-I and II dams, including Medigadda.
Strengthen State dam safety organisations and publish inspection findings and Emergency Action Plans.
Put in your answer
Dam Safety Act, 2021 compliance push: The NCDS asked States to complete evaluations, emergency action plans and risk assessments for all specified dams by December 2026.
Scale of oversight: DHARMA covers more than 6,600 specified dams.
Inspection volume: Over 13,000 inspection reports are generated each year.
Old dams: 1,681 specified dams are over fifty years old (NRSD 2025), showing the scale of ageing infrastructure.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
Test yourself
Prelims practice · Statements
Ours, not from a UPSC paper
Consider the following statements:
1.The National Dam Safety Authority is a constitutional body established under Article 262 of the Constitution.
2.NETRA, the AI platform launched for dam safety, was developed by the National Dam Safety Authority in collaboration with a laboratory of the Indian Navy.
3.The Dam Safety Act, 2021 provides for State Dam Safety Organisations as well as national-level bodies.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
True or false?
1 of 7
Statements the way Prelims prints them. Say first, then see the fact.
1.NETRA, the AI platform launched for dam safety, was developed by NDSA in collaboration with a laboratory of the Indian Navy.
True. WESEE, an Indian Navy R&D laboratory, was the partner.
2.Rashtriya Bandh Suraksha Darpan was developed by the Central Water Commission to visualise Dam Break Analysis results.
False. It was developed by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC).
3.DHARMA is the national repository of dam safety data covering more than 6,600 specified dams.
True. DHARMA holds data on over 6,600 specified dams plus inspection reports.
4.The National Dam Safety Authority is a constitutional body established under Article 262 of the Constitution.
False. It is a statutory body set up under the Dam Safety Act, 2021.
5.The Dam Safety Act, 2021 provides for State Dam Safety Organisations in States as well as national-level bodies.
True. The Act sets up the National Committee on Dam Safety, NDSA, State Committees and State Dam Safety Organisations.
6.Dam inspections under the framework are conducted once a year, before the monsoon only.
False. Inspections are done both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon.
7.The Dam Safety Act, 2021 applies to specified dams, including those above 15 metres in height.
True. Specified dams include those over 15 m, and those 10-15 m meeting certain design conditions.
Written by us from the release, not by UPSC; checked by a second model.
GS3 Agriculture: Digital agriculturePrelims and Mains
Why in news
On 29 January 2026, the Agriculture Ministry held a National Workshop on AgriStack and AI in Agriculture in New Delhi. It followed up on action points from the 5th Conference of Chief Secretaries (26–28 December 2025).
What it is
AgriStack is the Digital Public Infrastructure for agriculture, run by the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare. It is built as a federated database of farmers and their land, so that schemes and services can be targeted and delivered digitally. It rests on three registries: Farmer Registry, Geo-referenced Village Maps and Crop Sown Registry.
Nature
AgriStack is described as a foundational, federated and interoperable digital infrastructure for agriculture, meant to improve targeting, transparency and efficiency.
Kharif 2026 target
Farmer IDs, geo-referencing of land and Digital Crop Survey in all districts are to be completed by Kharif 2026.
Dynamic updating
The Farmer Registry is to be updated whenever the Records of Rights (RoR) change.
Institutional set-up
States are urged to create AgriStack Commissionerates or Directorates, supported by Project Management Units.
Integration scope
AgriStack is to be integrated across DBT, inputs, credit, insurance, storage and procurement.
Three registries
AgriStack comprises the Farmer Registry, the Geo-referenced Village Maps and the Crop Sown Registry.
Don’t confuse with AgriStack vs Agri-Stack Digital Agriculture Mission: AgriStack is the data infrastructure (registries). The Digital Agriculture Mission is the wider programme under which it is funded and promoted.
Don’t confuse with Farmer ID vs PM-KISAN beneficiary record: Farmer ID is a unique digital identity in the Farmer Registry linked to land records. PM-KISAN is an income-support scheme that can use it for targeting.
Schemes: 52 Prelims questions since 2013, 10 in Prelims 2026 alone. They test features, the period and who funds it. In Mains, 33 news-triggered questions, mostly GS3.
Why it matters
Reliable farmer and land data can improve targeting of DBT, credit, insurance and procurement, and reduce leakages.
Crop-level data supports AI-based advisories and better disaster relief.
Problems
Land records are often outdated or disputed, and tenant farmers may be left out of the registry.
Weak State capacity, data privacy concerns and the digital divide can limit coverage and trust.
Way forward
Keep records current through dynamic updating and include tenants and sharecroppers.
Build strong data protection rules and State-level institutions with trained staff.
Put in your answer
Time-bound target: Saturation of Farmer IDs, land geo-referencing and Digital Crop Survey is set for Kharif 2026.
State use-cases: States showcased AgriStack in MSP procurement, fertiliser supply chains, disaster relief and DBT.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
No practice question for this one; the card may still help an answer. Why: Lasting digital agriculture infrastructure (Farmer ID, digital crop survey); workshop item gives action points but few hard facts for a question.
The Government has notified coking coal as a Critical and Strategic Mineral under the MMDR Act, 1957, by amending its First Schedule, while about 95% of the steel sector's coking coal need is met by imports. Examine the provisions and benefits of this classification and discuss the challenges in reducing India's import dependence on coking coal.