This approach operates at the intersection of the government, grassroots nonprofits, and academic/research institutions. Together, their contribution helps in building consensus, identifying and addressing policy gaps, proving large-scale successes, forming necessary alliances, creating public resources, enhancing systems’ capabilities, shifting mindsets, and unlocking funding.

Yet, the systems change journey is neither straightforward nor simple. Practitioners often grapple with questions such as: What exactly is systems change? Which systems should I engage with? How can I navigate this complex process? What tools can I utilise? What internal skills do I need to develop? While there exists a wealth of global knowledge on systems change, there is a lack of contextually relevant Indian examples in this domain.

To bridge this gap, The Convergence Foundation (TCF) and India Impact Sherpas released a report titled Systemic Change Exemplars: Unique Approaches Towards Solving India’s Development Challenges. The report captures learnings from 20 organisations that have actively adopted a systems change lens in their work, and provides an in-depth analysis of the practices incorporated by these organisations as well as the internal development they had to undergo to drive systems change at scale.

This article draws from the report and identifies the combination of practices used by these organisations to create impact based on the context of their work. These practices are:

1. Involve communities in decision-making

Often when organisations design a programme, they focus on the ‘supply’ side—that is, they go in with a solution already in mind. But systems change means working with the communities first. The exemplars identified by TCF started their work on the ‘demand’ side by investing time in engaging deeply with the locals to understand their needs, challenges, and the problems they were keen to prioritise. They also sought these groups’ help with solution design and delivery.

Moreover, the power dynamic shifts subtly when people decide which problems and solutions to prioritise, instead of the organisation telling them what to do. This shift in power is an important characteristic of systems change.

SEARCH, a nonprofit whose stated mission is ‘Arogya Swaraj’ or placing people’s health in people’s hands, organised health fairs for people from 50–60 tribal villages to help them identify their health priorities. Some of the priorities—for example, malaria and infant mortality—were expected for the organisation, while others such as backache and vaginal discharge for women were unexpected. Further, its work involving community mobilisation in primary healthcare has resulted in innovations such as home-based newborn child care (HBNCC) and community health workers, which have since been adopted across India and multiple developing nations around the globe.

2. Use data, evidence, and research to develop solutions

Almost all organisations studied use data and evidence to develop the theory of change for their intervention. They conduct extensive research to identify the problem, understand the root causes, generate insights, and develop evidence-based solutions. All of this is necessary to establish credibility and build a robust case for the solutions. It also makes it easier for other stakeholders such as partner organisations to understand why a particular intervention has been developed, making them more willing to adopt it themselves. 

Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy is an independent think tank that carries out legal research to make better laws and improve governance for the public good. It uses evidence-based legal research to support the creation of new laws and the amendment of existing ones, and for generating favourable judgements in court or shaping public narratives—all of which holds for their work towards decriminalising drug consumption as well.

Vidhi studied the drug decriminalisation issue in Punjab for more than two years. Only then did it put out a point of view stating that it needs to be seen as less of a law issue and more of a public health one. The organisation collated a report based on district-wise data on people—primarily farmers smoking at the end of the day—being imprisoned for using poppy husk rather than ‘hard’ drugs. This meant that the solution to the problem was de-addiction centres and not jail.

3. Aim to influence policy

A key lever to bringing about systems change is focusing on policy advocacy and design. For instance, some organisations surveyed by TCF began by influencing policy and later moved towards ensuring that these policies could be effectively implemented. Others initially concentrated on delivering programmes. They then used the evidence and technical inputs they gathered to inform the drafting of better policies. Simultaneously, they also sought to create support for policy changes by raising awareness on relevant issues among government officials, the media, and civil society.

Central Square Foundation (CSF) began its work on foundational literacy and numeracy (FLN) by first highlighting the importance of the issue. It engaged with government officials in NITI Aayog, the Finance Commission, and the New Education Policy (NEP) drafting committee. At the state level, it interacted with senior bureaucrats to explain why FLN was crucial. In 2020, CSF worked with the Ministry of Education to design the NIPUN Bharat mission and flesh out operational documents. The organisation built an FLN microsite and published articles and blogs to spread the word about FLN, why it matters in the NEP, and the NIPUN Bharat mission. It also supports 11 state governments in designing and implementing FLN.

4. Build scalable solutions

Most of the organisations in the report adopted a two-pronged approach. They used their programmes to test and improve their solutions and then applied these learnings to identify the bottlenecks that need to be addressed. Using programme-level evidence to design policies and public goods is key to scaling programmes and driving systemic change.

One such example is SaveLIFE Foundation (SLF), which was set up with the aim of improving road safety and emergency care in India. It collected and analysed data on road accidents and fatalities. This helped the organisation come up with the ‘zero fatality corridor’ model, which they tested on the Mumbai–Pune expressway. This model led to a 58 percent decrease in fatalities despite increased traffic on the expressway. Having proven the efficacy of its approach, SLF is now working with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to address the problem in the 100 most dangerous highways in the country.

5. Leverage technology for scale

A few of the exemplars focused on building platforms that are open source, modular, and can be customised to work in different contexts. Such platforms enable multiple partners working in the same ecosystem to draw from it while also adding solutions to the platform. This allows for innovation to emerge from different partners, which in turn can be accessed by everyone.

EkStep Foundation, for example, wanted to address the urgency of accessing learning content for 200 million children during the pandemic. It developed the Sunbird platform as a digital public good that comprises several modular blocks such as translation tools and data analysis models. Another block is the QR codes that EkStep added to textbooks to provide students with immediate access to digital learning content.

All the innovations offered by the platform can be used either individually or in combination depending on the requirements of the organisation working with education and children. Given its reusable and replicable nature, Sunbird was adopted by the Government of India to create and expand DIKSHA—a platform for school education.

6. Help strengthen institutional capacity in government

Almost all the organisations studied engaged closely with the government at various levels—central, state, and district—to ensure that the population-scale impact is sustainable over time. They used learnings from the communities, knowledge of solutions that work, the use of technology, and the evidence generated over the years to create an environment that encouraged adoption within the government.

To achieve its goal of driving systems transformation in education, Piramal Foundation for Education Leadership (PFEL) works directly with the government to understand the latter’s needs and co-create solutions. It hand-holds the stakeholders through the legal and policy finalisation process, identifies the processes involved in getting policy approved and implemented, and garners support by building a narrative that reflects the benefits of the ideas. Finally, the organisation works towards administrative feasibility to make sure that red tape doesn’t obstruct the process of policy formulation. All of this is done through capability building, engagement, and ownership within the government setup.

7. Partner with organisations to scale

It is important to identify every stakeholder who will be involved in the process of systems change. These are entities that can help remove constraints and obstacles, and make the system more efficient, effective, and equitable. The organisations in the report understood the roles played by each stakeholder as well as their capabilities and identified how the two were complementary. Using this knowledge, they created a coalition of sorts and incentivised the stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of the system they were devising.

Building such coalitions is not easy; it requires energy and tenacity to convince other organisations to get on board and requires letting go of control and ceding space. However, once established, these alliances can then be used to implement solutions at the population level.

CHILDLINE, which works in child protection, has built collaborative relationships with more than 1,100 partner nonprofits to work on a national level. It started with identifying, selecting, training, and monitoring organisations and policy. The core team also collaborated with government stakeholders such as the police and hospitals to make them part of the solution. They engaged them in initiatives and campaigns like ‘Childline Se Dosti’ and ‘Police Chacha’, to create a strong connection between the organisation and frontline workers in law enforcement and healthcare. At the same time, they co-developed strategy and operational plans with partner organisations. This collaborative approach, which is at the core of CHILDLINE’s management model, saw local partners take pride in the initiative and have a sense of ownership.

8. Create viable markets for the under-privileged

The conversation around systems change is incomplete without addressing the needs of vulnerable and excluded populations. Some of the organisations focused specifically on creating products and solutions that not only worked on a certain problem, such as energy or finance, but also created opportunities for social and economic mobility of marginalised groups. They redesigned how a particular commercial process works, thereby making the market more accessible for underserved communities. Their innovative and low-cost commercial business models attract more players into the space, which leads to the creation of a large and thriving market.

MHFC was set up with the intent to solve home loan requirements for lower-income families that are usually unable to get a home loan based on the market’s criteria. Many Indians are excluded from the housing finance market because traditional credit assessment methods lack the tools to measure the incomes of those employed in the unorganised sector. MHFC addressed this by developing a new approach to credit assessment. It involved personal interaction with potential customers to understand their income sources and expenses. Their ability to pay was assessed based on their motivations which were documented by field officers through a tool developed by MHFC.

The easy-to-use tool for creditworthiness assessment not only enabled several people to become eligible for a loan but also eliminated the need for time-consuming paperwork. The profitable and proven business model along with a willingness to share learnings with key stakeholders such as National Housing Bank, HDFC, and other housing finance companies including competitors has helped bridge the housing loan need gap for the economically weaker sections.

A combination of these eight practices can be used by organisations to make large-scale systemic impact based on the aspirations and context of their work. Different regions in India have their own unique challenges that should be taken into account when thinking of system-level solutions.

—

Know more

• Read more about what systems change looks like in practice.
• Learn more about navigating systems change through five approaches for impact.
• Listen to this podcast that answers key questions about systems change.

Despite countries adopting an array of policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change—such as investing in clean energy and energy-efficient technologies and installing early warning systems—it is evident that these efforts alone will not suffice to prevent all climate-related disasters. Even if global warming is miraculously limited to the 1.5°C threshold, the intensity, frequency, and unpredictability of extreme weather phenomena will continue to cause unavoidable and irreversible loss and damage for years to come. This holds true for both rapid-onset events (such as cyclones, floods, and landslides) and slow-onset developments (such as desertification, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, and rising temperatures and sea levels).

As for developing economies, strained resources are further taxed by the additional costs of climate damage. They bear the brunt of climate change more heavily than developed nations. According to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the average mortality from floods, storms, and droughts in particularly vulnerable countries , is 15 times higher compared to countries with very low vulnerability. In India, the potential income loss from the reduction of labour capacity due to extreme heat was estimated to be USD 159 billion, or 5.4 percent of the country’s GDP, in 2021. The L&D fund has primarily been established to support vulnerable countries with the resources they need to recover from climate impacts,both economic and non-economic. Loss of livelihood, crops, property, and ultimately the national GDP count as economic losses because they can be assigned a monetary value. On the other hand, injury to and loss of life, health, rights, biodiversity, ecosystem services, indigenous knowledge, and cultural heritage are categorised as non-economic losses. Loss of income from working days forfeited to heatwaves is an example of an economic loss, while the displacement of communities from coastal villages due to beach erosion would count as a non-economic loss.

Is it the same as adaptation finance?

The L&D fund has emerged as the third pillar of climate finance alongside adaptation finance and mitigation finance; it is meant to help communities restore and rebuild what is lost and damaged. The fund can be utilised, for example, to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by extreme weather events, establish resettlement colonies, set up alternative livelihood programmes, offer counselling services, and initiate projects to commemorate the loss of life and cultural heritage. Some reparative actions—for example, a resettlement housing colony for people displaced by rising sea levels—could be categorised either as adaptation or as loss and damage. However, the commonly understood threshold separating one from the other is that loss and damage includes impacts that are beyond the limits of adaptation. Put simply, it’s when loss and damage occurs even after adaptation measures have been deployed, either because the measures are ineffective or due to the unanticipated severity of the climate impact. The more effective and timelier the adaptation strategies, the lower the risk of loss and damage.  

How did the fund originate?

The L&D fund was operationalised at the 28^th Conference of the Parties (COP 28) held in Dubai in November 2023. However, it has been more than thirty years in the making. The proposal for climate-related financial assistance was mooted as early as 1991, when the UNFCCC was being drafted. At the time, Vanuatu, the Pacific Island nation representing the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), rallied for a globally contributed insurance scheme to assist countries impacted by rising sea levels. The proposal was ignored.

It was in 2007, at the COP 13 in Bali, that the term ‘loss and damage’ first appeared in a UNFCCC decision. Inked into the Bali Action Plan, it outlined three thematic areas of work: assessing the risk of loss and damage, exploring a range of approaches to address it, and defining the Convention’s role in implementing the approaches. In 2013, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage was formed to enhance knowledge of risk management approaches to address loss and damage, strengthen dialogue and coordination between stakeholders, and mobilise financial, technological, and capacity-building support for it.

However, the crucial ground plan for funding remained sketchy. The economics of reparative action was once again left out of the 2015 Paris Agreement, in which loss and damage was covered in Article 8. It spelled out the importance of averting, minimising, and addressing loss and damage, and formulated potential scenarios of loss and damage that nations, particularly vulnerable ones, were likely to encounter in the future.

It was finally in 2022, at COP 27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, that money was (notionally) placed on the table, when Parties agreed to operationalise a dedicated fund to address loss and damage. A transitional committee—comprising representatives of 24 developing and developed countries—was appointed to discuss its governance and institutional framework, funding arrangements, and implementation. Over the course of a year, the committee held five meetings, two workshops, two ministerial meetings, and a dialogue. After protracted negotiations, it submitted its report to the Conference of the Parties. And thus, the Loss and Damage Fund was operationalised on November 30, 2023, at COP 28 in Dubai. This also marked a first in the history of the summit: the adoption of a monumental decision on day one. An independent secretariat and governing board were appointed. The World Bank was appointed interim trustee and tasked with hosting the fund for four years. It would oversee the coordination, collection, and allocation of resources in consultation with the Warsaw Mechanism, the International Monetary Fund, and the Santiago Network.

Why are critics sceptical?

More talk, less action:

Since November 2023, the L&D fund has received USD 661.39 million in pledges from several countries, with others expected to contribute later: Italy and France pledged USD 108 million each, Germany and the UAE USD 100 million each, the UK USD 50.6 million, Japan USD 10 million, while the US—the world’s largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter after China—pledged only USD 17.5 million. Experts say the money that all of these countries have pledged in sum is inadequate and covers less than 0.2 percent of what developing countries need, which is a minimum of $400 billion a year as per The Loss and Damage Finance Landscape report. Developing country members of the Transitional Committee proposed that the fund programme a minimum of USD 100 billion a year by 2030.  

The gulf between what developing countries need and what they receive has not only severely compromised their ability to adapt to climate change, but has also heightened the risk of greater loss and damage in the future—risks already amplified by the delay in mobilising accessible climate finance. A report by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) estimates that India itself may require USD 1 trillion between 2015 and 2030 for adaptive actions. The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) pegs the country’s investment needs for adaptation-based development at USD 14–67 billion annually, for the same 15-year period.

Concerns around climate justice:

Climate justice is anchored in a principle of international law called ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR), which acknowledges that even as all countries are called to take mitigative steps to reduce climate impacts, some have a higher responsibility—and capability—to address climate challenges than others.

By this measure, developed nations, which have had a long head start in building and benefiting from their fossil fuel-based economies and are the primary drivers of climate change—ought to pay a proportionate price towards climate finance, one that helps developing countries deal with it effectively. Who pays, and how much they ought to pay, are vital questions that need to be addressed. The Adaptation Gap Report 2023 emphasises that “a justice lens underscores that loss and damage is not the product of climate hazards alone but is influenced by differential vulnerabilities to climate change, which are often driven by a range of socio-political processes, including racism and histories of colonialism and exploitation.” Critics point out that the fund falls short on delivering on climate justice by failing to set clear, fair, and time-bound expectations on payment, and by doing so, undermines the principles of equity, historic responsibility, and polluter pays, which are codified into the Paris Agreement.

Lack of clarity on operationalisation:

The hard-won voluntarism written into the body text of the COP 28 decision text absolves developed countries of all liability. By inviting them to contribute instead of requiring them to compensate for their relative contributions to global warming, the treaty shields them from potential litigation claims by developing countries. Moreover, there is no floor set for the quantum of the fund. Had developed countries been held to account, they would have had to pay far more than they pledged. By one calculation, the US’s fair share of loss and damage finance in 2022 alone was USD 20 billion, rising to USD 117 billion annually by 2030. The lack of legally binding commitments also has advocacy groups concerned about the long-term stability of the fund. Timing is another concern. With developed countries having delayed nominating members to the Loss and Damage Board, one worry is that efforts to operationalise the fund in time will be hampered.

One way to address the technical shortcomings of the mechanism is to include it in the global stocktake (GST), the 5-yearly review initiated to monitor progress on the Paris Agreement’s long-term goals. The GST, however, does not address loss and damage as a separate pillar, as it does adaptation and mitigation. This, experts say, may result in L&D being subsumed into the adaptation assessment.

Articulating what constitutes loss and damage can advance research on the subject.

Critics have also drawn attention to the need for a clear definition of loss and damage and of what constitutes non-economic losses and damages, which the UNFCCC is yet to frame. The lack of distinct parameters increases ambiguity around which kind of impacts and which countries should be prioritised for the money. Interpretations of the term range from the effects of anthropogenic climate change to only those that occur after the adaptation ceiling has been breached. Articulating what constitutes loss and damage can advance research on the subject and help formulate concrete actions to address it. But actions are reliant on data and there is scant data on these twin themes (loss in particular), not least because of the lack of clearly defined processes and tools to record, measure, and report them. 

It’s therefore vital to establish standardised assessment methodologies at the national, subnational, and local levels of what constitutes loss and damage.

Sources of finance:

The fund is expected to be built with contributions from a spectrum of sources, including public and private finance, and innovative funding instruments such as taxes, levies, and debt swaps—primarily from developed countries. However, the process for capitalisation (beyond initial commitments), has not been spelled out.   

In addition to public finance such as government-issued sovereign green bonds, alternative inflows to the fund could come from multilateral development banks, climate funds, philanthropies, carbon markets, and from carbon taxes and levies imposed on historic, large-scale polluters like the fossil fuel industry and the aviation and maritime sectors. Some states in the US are in the process of legislating for a ‘climate superfund’, which would make fossil fuel producers and refiners liable to pay for local adaptation measures and loss and damage expenses.

Private finance, in the meanwhile, can be raised through bonds and loans, although these run the risk of being conditional and extractive, privileging institutional profit over public interest. The Loss and Damage Finance Landscape report warns that “funding mobilised through financial instruments which seek to profit from the climate crisis, create greater debt burdens or shift responsibility for finance onto vulnerable countries, should not be considered as contributing toward the floor of US$400 billion per year.”  

A paper by CEEW recommends that the L&D Fund sit alongside, but distinct from funding mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility, and that it be deployed exclusively for loss and damage. Grants and unconditional transfers are preferable financing instruments. The money, it emphasises, should be new, additional, predictable, adequate, fair, debt-free, and accessible to all developing countries.

The role of the World Bank: 

Another point of contention is the appointment of the World Bank as interim trustee and host of the fund’s secretariat for the first four years. Developed countries, such as the US and EU member states, rooted for the World Bank on the grounds that it would speed up operationalisation of the fund. However, 68 organisations have expressed disapproval over the bank’s trusteeship, sceptical of its ability to administer the fund fairly, concerned about the influence that the US, which appoints the bank’s president, may have on its decisions, and wary of the unjustly high interest rates it has charged developing countries in the past. In addition, the bank charges exorbitant administrative fees, which can vault up to 20 percent of a fund’s flows. 

Concerns have been allayed by reassurances that the bank will, over this interim period, be closely scrutinised for accountability, transparency, and fair play. In the meanwhile, the World Bank is yet to accept all the conditions to trusteeship laid down in the decision text. Disputation over any condition can stall the implementation of the fund even further. 

Is India eligible for this money?

Advanced economies like the US, as well as Small Island Nations, have insisted that India and China also contribute towards reparative climate finance. India is the world’s fifth largest economy, with a GDP of USD 4.11 trillion (one spot ahead of the UK), but it still counts itself as a developing country. India is the third largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter after China and the US, with 3,380 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MtCO₂e) released in 2019. However, in per capita terms, the country ranks 10th in global emissions with 2.5 tCO2e per person. The global average is 6.5 tons; the US leads with 17.6 tons per person.

As an emerging economy with the world’s largest population, and having started down the road to industrialisation two centuries after Europe and the US, India has argued that it cannot be held to the same funding benchmarks as historical emitters. Moreover, like other developing countries, it too has suffered catastrophic climate impacts: in 2019, it lost nearly USD 69 billion to climate-related events. The Reserve Bank of India, citing secondary research, projects that climate change could cost the country 2.8 percent of its GDP and depress the living standards of nearly half its population by 2050. A recent district-level assessment of climate impacts claims that 80 percent of India’s population lives in districts that are highly prone to extreme weather events. 

Yet it’s unlikely, observes a TERI report, that India stands to benefit from the Loss and Damage Fund anytime soon, given the size and scope of the money pledged. But it can leverage its position as a political and economic heavyweight to shape the narrative around how and where the money will flow.  

Joeanna Rebello Fernandes and Shreya Adhikari contributed to this article with inputs and insights from Pranav Garimella, Programme Manager – Climate Program, WRI India.

—

Know more

• Learn about rural mitigation measures for water scarcity in this photo essay.
• Watch this video to learn more about loss and damage.

In all these years of working closely with young people in the region, I have learned that they are articulate and aspirational, but also lonely as they lack support from the family and community in pursuing unconventional professions such as working in the social sector or becoming an entrepreneur. They have dreams of changing the society for good, but are often held back by a dearth of know-how, funds, and proper mentoring. The communities also suffer from the social sector’s poor understanding of their cultures, geographies, and sociopolitical conditions.

Here are some learnings that I would like to share with the ecosystem of funders, nonprofits, and aspiring nonprofit leaders on working in the Northeast. I believe these lessons can be a starting point for anyone wanting to meaningfully engage with these states.

1. The Northeast is not homogenous

The social sector has grown rapidly in the Northeast in the past few decades, but this growth has not always been beneficial for community members. While big funders and nonprofits started working in the area, they did so without really understanding the complexity of the geography, politics, and culture of the eight states that form the region. This led to them replicating their pan-India programmes in the Northeast without customising it to the context of the place.

For example, many assume that Nagaland has a singular Naga identity, not realising that there are multiple communities and clans within it. They have their own distinct languages/dialects and cultures and, thus, their challenges differ even from one another. A homogenous solution won’t serve them all. Communities in the Northeast are divided by geographies—people live in the plains, hills, and riverine areas, and have their unique resources and problems. Can a nonprofit that doesn’t understand this diversity ever actually help the communities?

There’s a tendency in the social sector to chase numbers because the funders demand it. Nonprofits start working in a village with a select group of people (such as in the self-help group model), run their programme, measure impact, and move on to the next village. However, evidence shows that these groups often exclude people from marginalised sections. The secret to a more inclusive social development model might lie in thinking at a smaller scale. Instead of covering 30 villages in a state within a short time span, nonprofits could work with one village or a cluster of villages with all the community members in that area, until the community is empowered to self-sustain the change.

In fact, in Sonapur area in Assam’s Kamrup Metropolitan district, Bosco Institute has partnered with Spread NE, a nonprofit that works on farming and farm-based entrepreneurship. Every household—young people, women, and children—is part of this project on natural farming. Depending on which aspect of agricultural enterprise they are interested in, the community members are involved in production, marketing, and networking. People work at their own pace without the stress of meeting targets within a limited time frame. Since they have adopted the project as their own, they have come up with additional business ideas such as creating a tourism trail so that tourists can stay at the farms, earning them an extra income.

2. Funders should invest in ideas and allow failures

These states have gone through years of political unrest, which has had an impact on the people’s mental health and social well-being. There is a scarcity of resources that prevents them from taking up professions such as entrepreneurship and social work, which are considered risky. They are encouraged to pursue government jobs or become doctors or engineers, because these are thought of as stable career options.

When young people choose to work in the social sector, they do so by going against the tide. Many of them start an initiative, but are forced to give it up due to family and social pressure and financial stress. Further, the region is disaster-prone with annual floods being a common feature that adds additional challenges to nonprofit work. Funders investing in new nonprofits in the northeastern states must consider the possibility of failures unique to the region, and not pressure the organisations to meet deadlines that aren’t suitable to their current conditions. They should also make long-term commitments instead of time-bound, project-based funding.

If young nonprofit leaders fail, they shouldn’t have to carry the stigma of an assumed incompetence. If businessmen can start over, second chances should be provided to social sector leaders too and philanthropists and funders in the Northeast should come together to build a system that encourages this.

3. Funders should re-evaluate their expectations

At our incubation programme, we focus on social entrepreneurship because we believe it is extremely important for new nonprofits to be able to sustain themselves for a few years before applying for external funding. Getting funding at an early stage is challenging for small nonprofits in the region, and we don’t want young people to stop pursuing their endeavours due to a lack of money.

Even if a new nonprofit manages to attract funding, the funders often start dictating the work that the organisation should be doing. Young leaders lack negotiating power. Due to pressure from funders, many of them digress from the primary idea for which their initiative was launched.

Funders don’t invest in prior research about the region, and often make demands that are out of context with the place. Recently, I was speaking with a young nonprofit leader who is working with one such funder. They are planning to run online campaigns with women and adolescent kids in rural areas, but many villages in the Northeast don’t have a stable internet connection.

4. The sector must learn to listen to the communities

The shortcoming of the social sector in the Northeast is its inability to listen to the communities and the tendency to impose ideas on them. Funders and nonprofits from other states that start working in the region often complain about the lack of entrepreneurial spirit and productivity among the locals. But the people here had a self-sufficient lifestyle before the modern idea of development was thrust on them. They grew their own food, weaved their own clothes, and lived a slow life. You can still see reflections of this in the small towns and villages of these states. I always say that when I came from Kerala to Shillong in Meghalaya in 1975, we used to walk because it was pleasant and there were no vehicles; now the people in Shillong have to walk because the streets are clogged with too many vehicles and there are traffic jams everywhere. What kind of development is this? If people don’t want to work according to industrial time, if they prioritise their festivals and communal engagements over manufacturing for production units, it is an indicator of their refusal to be co-opted by market forces. Shouldn’t the social sector, which prides itself on serving the people, adapt to the ways of the community rather than force them to do something that goes against their concept of happiness?

Many communities in the Northeast are now struggling to preserve their culture, language, songs, and customs. Young community members have taken up the task of cultural conservation, but are struggling for funds. There are individuals and groups that promote slow food, slow fashion, compassionate farming, and indigenous music, art, and folklores. The sector can play a critical role in supporting these enterprises that matter to the people. This will take them one step closer to engaging with the communities on their terms. 

—

Know more

• Read this article to understand why the social sector needs to invest in the Northeast.
• Read this report to learn about the development challenges that the northeastern states face.
• Read this article to understand how infrastructural development is affecting the youth in the Northeast.

Adopting a systems thinking approach, which entails considering these diverse interconnections within the broader context of climate change, has emerged as a potential strategy. And while the approach is gaining momentum in theory, questions about how it will play out in practice remain. How will it translate into the work that nonprofits are already doing? Given constraints such as limited resources, time, and team capacity, how can nonprofits adopt a systems thinking lens to address the complexity of the climate crisis?

Liby Johnson, the executive director of the grassroots development organisation Gram Vikas, points out that nonprofits are already adept at understanding the various facets of an issue, such as its causes and potential effects. This is especially true for nonprofits operating at the grassroots. Reflecting on his experience, he adds, “I started working in this sector in the mid 90s. Back then, linear thinking was completely frowned upon. When we proposed solutions, we would immediately be asked about the dependencies. That’s how the sector operated. Our contributions—demonstrating workable models, scaling them up, and showcasing that change is possible—resulted from our commitment to systems thinking.”

According to Liby, nonprofits such as PRADAN, Collectives for Integrated Livelihood Initiatives (CInI), and The Timbaktu Collective have been working with vulnerable rural communities across the country for several decades. “These organisations have engaged with families to enhance their livelihoods, and not just by improving agricultural practices and increasing farming yields. Their efforts also extend to education and overall well-being, allowing these households to become resilient, over time, to disasters and climate impacts,” he shares.

The responsibility of adopting a systems thinking lens, however, cannot rest solely on grassroots nonprofits. Funders, intermediaries, and others must also think differently. Liby adds that in the absence of support from the larger ecosystem, it becomes nearly impossible for nonprofits to  incorporate a systems thinking framework in their work.

“Organisations, especially younger nonprofits that are still finding their footing, don’t have the agency to dictate a set of operating methods that deviate from how the larger system is already functioning. I don’t think there’s a solution unless the system itself starts thinking this way.”

What will it take to create this enabling ecosystem?

Funders, intermediary organisations, and larger nonprofits can play a significant role in shaping the trajectory of a nonprofit’s work; they dictate where and how resources are allocated and what priorities are set. Therefore, it’s crucial for these different stakeholders to embrace systems thinking in their own practices to enable nonprofits to do the same. Here are some strategies to achieve this:

1. Listen to different narratives

Narratives have the power to shape perceptions. The prevailing discourse on climate change is largely confined to Western-centric, scientific frameworks, which neglect local contexts. To truly address the complexities of climate change, there is an urgent need to broaden the discourse and incorporate diverse perspectives and marginalised voices that are often sidelined.

Larger nonprofits can contribute to this narrative-building exercise in a significant manner. It is critical for metro-headquartered nonprofits not to  impose their worldview and ideas of climate thinking on the local, community-based organisations they partner with.

However, Neha Saigal, director – gender and climate change at Asar Social Impact Advisors, points out that it has been very challenging for organisations with different approaches and perspectives to talk to each other. “We tend to listen to people who are like us and who think like us.”

Asar is a research and consultancy organisation that facilitates collaboration between various stakeholders in climate change–related fields. When it began working with partners—including organisations that weren’t necessarily climate-focused—on different aspects of the crisis at the state level, much of the initial attention was on trying to understand climate through the perspective of the community. This is because everybody has a different understanding of climate.

To bring in these diverse viewpoints, Asar conducted what it calls ‘listening and sensing sessions’. “These are open-ended dialogues. They aren’t focus group discussions or a research exercise, and are, in fact, fairly informal.” Neha elaborates. These sessions eventually shape the work Asar does in the region, she adds. “The inputs from the community enable us to take decisions and prioritise issues, geographies, strategies, and tactics.”

Aman Singh, the founder of KRAPAVIS, a nonprofit that works to ensure sustainable livelihoods for rural pastoral communities in Rajasthan, also notes how conducting regular workshops with community members has benefitted his team. “Through our workshops with local groups, we’ve created an environment for participation and dialogue. As a result, our team members have also become more receptive to community feedback, which we regularly incorporate in our planning.”

For funders who don’t often engage regularly with the communities for whom they are trying to create solutions, having access to these different narratives is essential. This is because  this information can help them better tailor their support to address root causes and build resilience.

Intermediary organisations—those that act as a bridge between funders and nonprofits, disseminating vital information and knowledge—also play a critical role here. Given their tremendous influence in the sector, intermediaries can facilitate a shift in funder attitudes by helping them think through which factors to consider when looking at impact, what measurement metrics to use, and subsequently, how to plan interventions. For instance, they can develop use cases for funders to include a narrative-building aspect within their programme.

2. Address knowledge gaps

Systems thinking isn’t a framework everyone is familiar with. Aman Singh highlights that the systems thinking framework has yet to reach the grassroots level. “While many may grasp it intuitively, most nonprofits working on the ground still lack familiarity with this framework.”

In 2019, DESTA, a research and consulting organisation that focuses on mainstreaming systems thinking for sustainable development, conducted a week-long training session for KRAPAVIS on systems thinking. Over the course of these sessions with DESTA, the KRAPAVIS team expanded their scope of thinking on the work they were doing on restoring orans (sacred groves) in Rajasthan.

Those who are well-versed in systems thinking need to make deliberate efforts towards capacity building and facilitating knowledge exchange.

Aman Singh shares an example. “Orans used to have traditional water harvesting systems such as talaabs, nadis, tankas, baodis, and open wells. But when we started employing a systems thinking lens to look at all the other factors impacting the orans, we found that farmers and industrialists had set up illegal borewells to extract water. This is when we realised the implication that depleting groundwater tables can have on the orans. As a result, as part of our larger aim to restore and conserve these community forests, we’ve started working on the issue of recharging groundwater as well.”

Therefore, while nonprofits possess innate insights into systems thinking from their on-ground experience, providing them with the right tools and training can enable them to expand their understanding and identify interconnected issues that may not have been initially apparent. For this to take place, those who are well-versed in systems thinking need to make deliberate efforts towards capacity building and facilitating knowledge exchange.

However, Aman Singh points out that field teams might be hesitant to learn about systems thinking. “When we introduced our team to systems thinking, they felt it was too theoretical and that it wouldn’t be applicable on the ground. However, after bringing the framework into practice, they started finding the concept easier to grasp. If we want to change something, we have to remain open to understanding and engaging with complexity.” He goes on to add that the language used to disseminate systems thinking knowledge is complex and full of jargon and needs to be made more accessible.  

3. Broaden the scope of funding outcomes

There has been an increasing pressure on nonprofits to think in a linear fashion. “It’s all ‘Go, go, go,’ and there really is no space for nonprofits to sit down, and map the system and the various relationships within it,” shares Neha.

A part of the reason for this focus on linearity is the constant emphasis on measuring inputs and the number of people reached, as opposed to figuring out how these outcomes are achieved. This linear thinking shapes the very way in which interventions are planned. Liby expands on this with an example.

“Consider a nonprofit that works towards enhancing the climate resilience of farm livelihoods in a cluster of gram panchayats. Funders might only focus on specific outcomes: Which crop will increase productivity? What will the increase in price per unit e be that would lead to an increase in income? This narrow approach to planning and reporting overlooks a broader understanding of impact that is needed. For instance, an increase in production for farm-dependent households hinges not only on agricultural yields but also on factors such as the time that is available to women to work in the fields, considering their responsibilities at home,” he says.

However, many donors fail to consider such nuances during the planning phase. “The problem with this kind of linear thinking is that it doesn’t allow us to even factor in any kind of risk. The moment funders begin thinking about the systems that influence farm production, they will have to allow for some margin of failure, allot funds to accommodate for it, and then broaden the scope of the outcomes as well,” Liby adds. He emphasises that to be able to expand the scope of an intervention and understand all the various interconnections, systems thinking must begin when a programme is being planned. 

One solution to these problems is patient grantmaking. It provides sustained support to organisations over an extended period, often with flexibility in funding timelines and reporting requirements. This would allow nonprofits to have the time and resources to understand the multi-dimensional nature of the issues they’re addressing.

It’s essential to think inclusively and consider the needs and practices of grassroots organisations.

Neha adds that this kind of funding can also help ensure that meaningful solutions aren’t prevented from being implemented, just because nonprofits do not understand the broader context.

Another step that funders can take is making it easier for grantees to report. Aman Singh shares that many donors bring their own format to the table and tend to view things from only their perspective. “If we talk about issues beyond what their formats dictate, they say it doesn’t match their vision or mission. While it’s crucial for funders to align with their vision and mission, they must also remain flexible to accommodating the perspectives and approaches of those working on the ground. It’s essential to think inclusively and consider the needs and practices of grassroots organisations.”

Complex problems like the climate crisis cannot be solved overnight. All stakeholders, especially implementing nonprofits, need the space and time for reflection to find sustainable solutions. Liby remarks that while these organisations thrive because of their grassroots understanding, they must also enhance their ability to contribute to a bird’s-eye view. This can only happen when the entire ecosystem shifts its approach as well, changes the way it measures outcomes, makes space for diverse narratives, and demystifies the systems thinking framework to make it more accessible for grassroots nonprofits.

Smarinita Shetty contributed to this article.

—

Know more

• Read this article to learn how funders can further enable a systems thinking approach for the sector.
• Read this blog to gain insights into systems thinking in action.

In February 2024, we revisited the regulations identified in the 2022 report to see if the legal position regarding women’s work has changed in any way. We found that legal barriers largely continue to exist, with only a few states easing restrictions on women’s employment at night.

Listed below are our findings:

1. There are limitations on working at night in several states

There are 24 states with laws that limit women’s participation in various kinds of factory operations. Among these, there are 11 states that bar women’s employment at night. Two laws govern these strictures: the Factories Act, 1948, at the union level and the shops and commercial establishments laws at the state level. Governments have argued that these stipulations are necessary to prevent sexual violence and safeguard women from the physical dangers of longer working hours.

Even when women are allowed to work at night, the laws place several prohibitive conditions on their employment. For example, in most states employers must ensure that female workers make up a minimum proportion—either 10 or two-thirds—of the workers and the supervisory staff for the night shift. Such constraints make it difficult for employers to run night shifts with women workers, thereby reducing job opportunities for women. To illustrate: an employer would have to cancel a night shift if some women are on leave and there aren’t enough female workers to fulfil the two-thirds requirement.

Some states permit women to work at night in commercial establishments ranging from offices and theatres to warehouses and hospitals. States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, and Gujarat require inspectors to be “satisfied”, ensure that establishments provide “adequate protection of (women’s) dignity, honour and safety”, and mandate facilities such as shelters, restrooms, toilets, and night crèches.

Though Indian states have historically prohibited women from working at night, there have been gradual relaxations on this front. However, the pace of reform is slow. Since 2022, states such as Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have done away with laws that prevent women from working at night. Women in Andhra Pradesh are now allowed to pursue factory work at night, and those in Madhya Pradesh can engage in night-time work at commercial establishments. However, most other states, including Bihar and Rajasthan, continue to prohibit women from working at night in factories, while West Bengal continues to prohibit women from working at night in commercial establishments.

2. Women tend to be excluded from higher-paying jobs

Under the Factories Act and other labour laws, women are prohibited from working in various industrial processes even during the day. These laws are based on the assumption that some industrial processes may be too dangerous for women. The alleged heightened risk factor and increased susceptibility to accidents when women work with certain machinery led to bans on employing them in processes deemed dangerous or hazardous by state governments. Since 2022, no state has eased restrictions on women’s employment in ‘dangerous’ jobs. Women’s participation in new and growing industries and better-compensated work is also curtailed.

Even in traditional industries, the law may exclude women from jobs that pay more. Processes that women are prohibited from participating in—such as glass manufacturing and the processing of oils and fats—are generally better compensated.

The table below shows a comparison of minimum monthly wages in some industries from which women are prohibited and where women are allowed to work. The industries in which women are prohibited usually have higher minimum wages.

India’s 10 most populous states collectively impose 139 prohibitions on women from working in specific industrial processes ranging from electroplating and generation of petroleum to the manufacturing of products such as pesticides, rechargeable batteries, and so on. In many cases, there is no literature that identifies the special danger to the women, as opposed to the men, working in these jobs. Besides, these roles are open to women in some states and prohibited for those in others, which makes it evident that there is no scientific basis for exclusion. For example, women can be engaged in abrasive blasting (used for cleaning surfaces across industries) in Karnataka, but not in the neighbouring state of Maharashtra.

3. Moral policing furthers discrimination

Archaic laws continue to keep women out of various types of jobs that are considered incompatible with the gendered expectations that society has of them, such as working in liquor establishments. The prohibitions are based on the belief that it is morally inappropriate for women to serve liquor in public. For example, according to the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, this restriction is necessary as it prevents “the woman folk from becoming addicted to the intoxicants and avert and avoid any conflict between sexes and chances of foreseen sexual offences”.

Among India’s 10 most populous states, West Bengal does not allow women to participate in the alcohol serving/selling industry at all. Even in the states where women are allowed to participate in the alcohol service industry, their involvement depends on the type of alcohol being served, a rather arbitrary criterion. India divides the alcohol industry into two classes—country and foreign liquor. Some states allow women to participate in one while barring them from the other. Women in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra can serve/sell foreign liquor, but not country liquor; on the other hand, women in Andhra Pradesh can serve/sell country liquor, but not foreign liquor. In other states such as Telangana, women can secure a licence to sell foreign liquor, but cannot work in establishments serving foreign liquor.

There have been a number of court judgements that have upheld women’s right to work at liquor shops. However, these interventions haven’t led to a change in state laws and women’s employment in such establishments continues to be penalised. 

How can women’s workforce participation be improved?

The situation on the ground won’t become better without a change in the perceptions and laws preventing women’s employment. The government and policymakers can enable this by: 

1. Addressing gender stereotypes in legislation

Gender differences should not be used as a basis for greater disparity through legislation. Many Indian laws continue to be influenced by stereotypes and promote discrimination rather than eliminating it. It is high time that such antiquated laws are amended to align with international frameworks put forth by Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Several states and courts are beginning to question and overturn discriminatory laws based on outdated stereotypes and their harmful impact on women’s economic roles. Regions such as Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, and Punjab are issuing exemptions to factories through government orders informed by landmark decisions, such as Vasantha R vs Union of India. In the Vasantha R decision, Madras High Court struck down the law forbidding women’s employment at night as unconstitutional and laid down model conditions subject to which they could be engaged in night-time work. State governments have used these models as templates to set conditions within their respective jurisdictions.

2. Providing clarity on the implementation of laws

Currently, laws can be changed by the state government through three different legal instruments: amendments in acts, amendments in rules, and by issuing government orders. Additionally, laws can be pronounced—wholly or partly—unenforceable by court judgments.

When acts are amended but rules are not revised in keeping with the law, it can create confusion. Take, for instance, the Uttar Pradesh Factories Act and Rules, 1950. While a 2017 amendment in the act removed the restrictions on the employment of women in night shifts, the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950, which continues to be valid, states, “No woman shall in any circumstances be employed in any factory more than 9 hours in any day or between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am.”

A more streamlined approach to the implementation of laws and amendments would ensure that the progressive measures taken by states actually benefit the working women.

3. Ensuring safety at the workplace

Prohibitions on women’s work were first adopted based on a paternalistic approach toward women’s safety. However, these laws continue to exist in our statute books because government functionaries are risk-averse. They worry about opening up industries to women because they may be blamed for mishaps that some women may experience. The solution to the problem may involve greater public awareness and acceptance of risks and planning for their mitigation. Instead of making it overly expensive or operationally difficult to employ women, state governments can make sure that companies deploy safety measures such as CCTV and GPS-enabled transportation to ensure women’s safety.

It is important to consider that restricting women’s work creates greater poverty for women, which has its own health and safety implications. 

Suyog Dandekar and Eknoor Kaur contributed to this article.

—

Know more

• Listen to this podcast to understand how gender norms shape women’s access to the workforce.
• Read this article to learn more about women’s employment in India’s factories.

It also helps that this next generation will be the recipient of one of the most significant wealth transitions in history. As millennials and Gen Z inherit the fortunes of their baby boomer and Gen X parents, they will go from holding just 3 percent of the global wealth to approximately 60 percent.

These trends and their implications are drawn from a report titled Philanthropy Trends: A Look into the Future by Instituto Beja and Oxygen that attempts to offer a guide to the future of philanthropy and a map of trends and innovations. For this, the team at Oxygen interviewed 22 people from across the world including philanthropists, nonprofit leaders, journalists, and academics. They also delved into studies, articles, surveys, and analyses to provide a perspective on what the current zeitgeist reveals about the philanthropic sector, and the world we live in.

While the report covers a wide range of themes including trends in technology, measurement and evaluation, and communication, this article will focus on what young people think of philanthropy and how they give.

The young engage differently with nonprofits

Baby boomers usually engage with nonprofits because they care about the organisation and its mission. Millennials and Gen Z, on the other hand, are driven by their social conscience and desire for change—90 percent millennials donate because of their alignment with a cause or a mission, rather than due to the organisation itself.

Social media and peers play a significant role in who and what young people support.

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that young people do not care about the nonprofit’s mission. In fact, they expect a stronger connection with the nonprofit and its cause despite having a smaller donation corpus than the older generation. They are also more vocal advocates of the causes they champion, and are three times more likely to defend a nonprofit they support compared to Gen X and baby boomers.

Social media and peers play a significant role in who and what young people support. They are four times more likely to learn about causes from influencers and celebrities, and 1.5 times more likely to learn from colleagues as compared to traditional donors. An astounding 69 percent prefer to engage with nonprofits over social media.

They want to do it their way

According to the Bank of America Private Bank Study of Wealthy Americans report from 2022, 76 percent of philanthropists from the younger generations want to carve their own path when it comes to giving. Women in particular were more inclined to this idea, with 88 percent wanting to do things differently from their predecessors as compared to 69 percent men.

For this younger set, priorities are defined by a range of factors such as personal identity, political opinion, and faith, much of which might not align with their families’ giving traditions. They also care a lot more about systemic issues such as race, gender, and the environment. For instance, they have been most active during movements for racial justice, political and economic unrest, and times of crisis.

Young givers also understand how their everyday actions and financial resources can aid in addressing some of these entrenched problems, and hence are keen on finding the best ways to use resources and make a bigger impact, whether it is through charities, investing in social businesses, or making traditional investments that consider environmental, social, and governance factors.

The young recognise power dynamics

Traditional donors often offer restrictive funding for specific projects to nonprofits, which leads to extensive reporting and bureaucracy and might not reflect the organisation’s real needs. Young people are more cognizant of supporting the recipient and their mission, thereby creating a more balanced relationship between the donor and the recipient.

They also recognise the power dynamics that exist between the donor and the nonprofit, and aim to dismantle it by allowing the recipient to have more control over their resources. Additionally, young donors are more transparent about their intentions and the expected results of their donation.

They want to focus on social justice

The younger generations acknowledge their privilege, and so they are more aware of their role in addressing social injustice.

A research study conducted by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy (IUPUI) with donors between the ages of 18 and 35 with a net worth of USD 1 million or more revealed that many of them are looking to social justice philanthropy as a way of tackling this challenge.

Social justice donors try to redistribute power to more people, especially those who are marginalised.

The main idea behind social justice philanthropy is knowing that donation, especially by people with class privilege, is connected with unequal institutional systems and structures of capitalism, racism, sexism, and more. Recognising this, social justice donors try to redistribute power to more people, especially those who are marginalised.

The younger generations practise social justice philanthropy by focusing on four key objectives:

• Reducing harm by withdrawing investments from financial assets and stopping the process of accumulating more wealth.
• Providing resources to the marginalised by offering assistance or mutual aid and by supporting QTBIPOC initiatives or organisations.
• Shifting the power dynamics by ceding decision-making, reallocating wealth for more even distribution, taking actions to make amends for past wrongs, giving stolen or appropriated land back to indigenous communities, and practising advocacy.
• Dismantling oppressive systems by funding grassroots initiatives and organisations that work on community building, and using storytelling to raise awareness.

They look at giving beyond just money

According to a worldwide study by Edelman, 70 percent of Gen Z are engaged with social or political issues. Only one out of every five of them would work for a company that doesn’t share their values. For these younger generations, standing up for what they believe in means more than just giving money.

They might not call themselves activists, but they support the causes they care about with their earnings and expenses. They are most likely to boycott a product, company, or government if they disagree with its political, social, or environmental stances.  

Young people want to contribute not only through financial resources, but also through their time, energy, and influence. They vote for political representatives with similar views; sign petitions online; change how they make or purchase a product; and participate in rallies, marches, and protests. They also self-reflect and are willing to learn and question their own prejudices and privileges.

—

Know more

• Read the full report here.
• Learn why key trends in philanthropy are at odds.
• Read more about how millennials and Gen Z are stepping into generosity.

Most commentary on that awkward reality has come, perhaps inevitably, from the generators and purveyors of evidence. More attention needs to be given now to what others say about this conundrum, especially the intended main recipients of the evidence—the decision-makers and managers in the world of action, including government officials and managers.  What is their take on the problem of weak policy uptake of evidence? If both sides of the market for evidence—the suppliers and the users—understood each other’s perspectives better, both could benefit, getting more of what they want with less waste of effort.

Getting that to happen will not be easy. The suppliers are mostly researchers. They have views on what users think and want but rarely know firsthand what it is really like to be in the hotseat of policymaking and program delivery day after day. The users, similarly, often have only hazy notions of the finer points of the evidence available—how it was derived, how reliable it is, and what its limitations are. The two camps speak different languages, reside in different universes.

One impediment to bridging that gap is that there is no simple way to pin down users’ perspectives.  Doing surveys or using other scientific tools to try to lock down a precise parsing of what policymakers and program implementers think about evidence and why, when, and how they use it or not will never be sufficient. The only dependable way to assess evidence users’ thinking and behavior in relation to evidence uptake is to spend considerable time being a policymaker or program implementer or working closely with them, experiencing the rough and tumble of advising, or supporting or negotiating with them. Not everyone has the time, opportunity, or inclination to do that. But a lot can be learned from talking with—and listening carefully to—people who have.

As someone who has worked as a policymaker and worked at 3ie—a supplier of evidence and an advocate for its use in decision-making—I care deeply about and understand all the complex aspects of these challenges. In my current role, as a 3ie senior fellow, I am focusing on how to improve the evidence-supplier to evidence-user interface at all levels, and working closely with the organization’s Evidence for Policy and Learning Team.

Presuming that practical policymaking and implementational realities are “someone else’s business” that evidence producers can stay apart from is a sure ticket to irrelevance.

Drawing from my own experience and networks, I had the privilege to complete an in-depth examination of five examples of particularly interesting policymakers (see Reformers in International Development:  Five Remarkable Lives, published by Routledge).

Conversations with these individuals have helped highlight some fundamental principles important for facilitating and enhancing evidence uptake in policymaking.  Seemingly obvious at first look, these principles reveal, on closer inspection, challenging complexities, along with practical steps that can help.

First, if the creators, providers, and advocates of evidence truly want to promote more and better uptake of it that results in improved policy and programs, they need to approach that task by putting themselves more in the shoes of the people who decide policy and oversee programs. Data people need to learn to think the way doer people do. This means learning their language and meeting them on their turf—not just figuratively but also literally—by spending time with doer people whenever, and as much as, possible. Evidence producers need to own the fact that the constraints that policymakers face, the barriers they must overcome, and the gauntlet they have to traverse in order to get anything adopted are fully a part of what a good researcher must take into account. Presuming that those practical policymaking and implementational realities are ‘someone else’s business’ that evidence producers can stay apart from is a sure ticket to irrelevance. As examples of doers, the five decisionmakers in my Reformers book were hungry for evidence that settled key pragmatic questions, not distant general propositions. Ela Bhatt, when helping millions of impoverished working women in India to build better lives for themselves, needed to know what would work for them and what not. When the women needed to create their own bank, she needed to know how it should be designed to be sustainably viable. When another of the five— Dzingai Mutumbuka (now a 3ie Board Member)—was a cabinet minister charged with creating a new education system in a newly independent African country where 97 percent of its population had never had the chance to go to school before, he needed to know what his initial top priority should be. When donors pursued him with what they thought he should do—but failed to provide convincing evidentiary support for them—he had to work hard to find better answers on his own, tailored better to the context he had to deal with.

Second, researchers need to recognize that an essential aspect of putting oneself in the shoes of policymakers is helping them explain evidence compellingly to their many and diverse stakeholders. If decisionmakers are going to stick their neck out to act upon some crucial piece of evidence, they will need to present and defend it well—across the whole trajectory of the decisionmaking journey, from floating a new policy initially among close colleagues, to sharing it widely with parliamentarians and voters, to coping with attacks from critics, to commenting on how it has turned out when implemented.  To be good at all that, decisionmakers need to understand the evidence thoroughly themselves and be comfortable walking others through it. Researchers need to help with that.

If politics is the art of compromise, policymaking is the science of choosing better when best is out of reach.

Everything about a piece of evidence—where it came from, how it was developed, what it means, and how reliable it is—must be totally transparent in the sense of being understandable by those who might want to know. When Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala—another of the five main characters in Reformers—was the Nigerian cabinet minister responsible for bringing government spending back from the chaos left by the military regime that preceded the democratically elected government she came in with, she needed evidence that was incontrovertible. Shrewdly disarming critics, she had all the details of her proposed new budget published publicly—in a book that immediately became a bestseller across the country. When Adolfo Figueroa, still another of the five, was working out his proposals for tackling the extreme poverty among the large indigenous populations in the Andean high areas of his native Peru, he insisted on finding arguments that could be understood even by any ordinary “shoeshine boy.”

Third, putting oneself in the shoes of policymakers may require researchers to add tasks in their research that go beyond what would be necessary from a research perspective alone. For example, in the real world, first-best solutions are often not feasible, whether because of political impasses, administrative limitations, or other reasons. So, policymakers need evidence showing not only the best course of action but also second- and third-best alternatives that may be more attainable in their specific context. If politics is the art of compromise, policymaking is the science of choosing better when best is out of reach. Evidence generators and disseminators can do themselves—and policymakers—a favor by providing guidance on what to do, in various circumstances, when optimal solutions cannot be achieved.  In addition, evidence producers should have a sensitive ear for the exact nature—including degree of precision—of the information that decision-makers require. Sometimes policymakers need most to know if a certain value is at least above a certain threshold—for instance, that the rate of return for some program will be at least greater than, say, 10 percent. In that case, trying to determine a good point estimate—say that the rate of return is 16 percent with a confidence interval of +/- 4 percentage points is of secondary interest for the policymaker. Simply knowing that the answer is almost assuredly more than a critical threshold (10% in this example) is enough. When Domingo Cavallo, the fifth of the five in Reformers, was deciding how best to ratchet down the hyperinflation that was ravaging his country, Argentina, in the early 1990s, he could not wait for finely calibrated point estimates of the reforms he was considering; he just needed to know whether their impact would, grosso modo (roughly speaking), be large or small.

Drawing lessons from the evidence on how to make evidence most useful will continue to be a key factor in driving the change.

This article was originally published on 3ie.

Watch this video about a day in the life of Rama, a fieldworker from Delhi, as she helps waste pickers in Bhalswa transition from chulhas to LPG cylinders. Rama, who has been working on the ground for the last 15 years, starts her morning juggling work calls and household chores, and ends her day with Chinese food and Kishore Kumar songs. In the video, Rama shares the challenges she faced both professionally and personally due to the nature of her work. She expresses her dream to build a shelter for women experiencing domestic abuse, and eventually pursuing a career in politics by running for MLA.

My name is Rama and I live in Jahangirpuri with my husband and two sons. For approximately 15 years I have worked on the ground with communities, first as an anganwadi helper and then as an ASHA worker. Currently, I work as a change agent with Asar as part of the Cleaner Air and Better Health (CABH) project supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and help people in Bhalswa switch to clean cooking fuel. Bhalswa is a neighbourhood located in Northwest Delhi; it is surrounded by a landfill and is predominantly inhabited by waste pickers. Most households in Bhalswa use chulhas (mud stoves) for cooking, which can cause dangerous levels of household air pollution and lead to dire ramifications on the health of the women who do the cooking. LPG gas cylinders, on the other hand, provide a cleaner alternative. They not only help combat air pollution, but are also easier to use and save the time that would otherwise be spent on collecting firewood for chulhas.

I’ve been working with women and men in Bhalswa to raise awareness about the harms of an open fire and cooking with fuels such as wood or coal. However, people are still reluctant to make this switch for several reasons, the primary one being the high costs. Launched in 2016, the Pradhan Mantrir Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) heavily subsidises the cost of the cylinder to incentivise the transition to cleaner cooking methods. However, many in Bhalswa still lack the correct documentation—including Aadhaar card and labour card—required to avail of the scheme.

As a result, my work has evolved to not only advocate for the benefits of clean cooking but also to create awareness about the PMUY scheme and assisting community members with the documentation necessary for accessing its benefits.  

6.00 AM: I usually wake up to the sound of my phone ringing incessantly. It’s almost always someone from Bhalswa calling to ask when I’m coming to their neighbourhood or to enquire about the status of their PMUY form. Today is no different. Amid the chaos of the phone calls. My husband and I prepare breakfast for the family. We also fix our children’s school lunches. My older son is in grade 12 and my younger one is in grade 8. I have a dog, Timsi, who was a birthday gift from a relative. She also needs to be fed and taken for a walk in the morning. My husband, who is an auto driver, tends to her before heading out to work.

The entire family contributes to these chores. I believe that without all their help, it would’ve been very challenging for me to continue working in the field every day. I still remember, when I first started working in the field as an anganwadi helper back in 2011, my younger son was just one year old. My relatives would repeatedly ask me to leave the anganwadi work and take care of my son. My brother even went to the extent of promising me INR 3,000 every month in lieu of a salary. However, I continued working and would take my child to the field with me every day. I’ve always wanted to help people and I felt that was the only way I could contribute.

I usually make myself aloo parathas in the morning as they keep me full until I come back from work in the evening, especially since I can’t eat on the field. Once I’ve had my breakfast, I go over my schedule, which I always prepare the night before. On most days, my work is a combination of spreading door-to-door awareness, conducting public awareness sessions, and helping people fill out forms for PMUY.

Since I work with waste pickers, who start working early in the morning and return to their homes at around noon, I have to structure my schedule around their availability. Today, I have a public awareness session scheduled, after which I will help some of the women in the community fill out forms for PMUY. After making adjustments to my to-do list, I get ready to leave the house to make my way to Bhalswa.

10.00 AM: The bus stop is a 10-minute walk from my house. I wait here for 15 minutes or so for a bus that can drop me at the end of the road. There are days when I can walk the distance, but it’s very hot today and I don’t want to tire myself out so early. I finally board a bus after waiting for 15 minutes at the stop. Once I get off at my stop, I have to wait for a couple of minutes to take a shared e-rickshaw to my final destination. I have to wait a couple of minutes here while the rickshaw driver gathers other passengers travelling in the same direction. Eventually, I arrive at Bhalswa close to 11 am.

Bhalswa is a vast neighbourhood, with localities divided on the basis of religious and regional identities. For instance, some areas have only people from West Bengal, while others have only Muslim families. The various groups living in Bhalswa speak different languages and have distinct cultures, which can be complicated to navigate as an outsider. Although my earlier work as an anganwadi helper and an ASHA worker had its unique obstacles, I was able to establish a strong rapport with the communities I served fairly easily and quickly. At Bhalswa, however, my journey has been very challenging, particularly because communities here have previously had unpleasant experiences with nonprofits and people from the outside. For instance, a few years ago, a group posing as a nonprofit asked locals to deposit INR 500 and promised sewing machines in return. However, they never got the machines or their money back. So, I had to start the process of building this trust from scratch. The diversity in the community made it tricky as well.

In order to build trust in Bhalswa, I started cultivating relationships with people who had influence in the locality, which included ASHA workers. At the same time, I had to work towards dispelling the community’s scepticism about nonprofits. One way of doing this was tapping into my network of nonprofits in the area to help people access resources. For instance, I supported a 12-year-old girl who was disabled in getting a wheelchair by reaching out to a nonprofit I had worked with previously. Over time, both these approaches helped me connect to the community, and soon enough, my phone was flooded with calls from the women in the neighbourhood.

11.15 AM: Upon reaching Bhalswa, I make my way to the local dispensary where I meet some of the ASHA workers. I am good friends with most of them and having this supportive community of women keeps me motivated. We chat about our day and also discuss if any particular grievances from the community have come up in their conversations. They inform me that a family that has just shifted to Bhalswa had reached out to them regarding a gas cylinder and that they’ve forwarded my contact details to the family.

I catch up with some of the other women at the dispensary whom I had helped obtain cylinders before moving to the next item on my agenda—the community awareness session.

12.00 PM: Community awareness sessions are held in a temple right next to the dispensary. Today, approximately 10–15 women have gathered there. Most have come with their toddlers whom they can’t leave at home. Once everyone is settled in, I bring out the toolkit developed by Asar. It’s 17 pages long and uses illustrations to explain the concept of air pollution and its causes, and sheds light on the long-term repercussions of continuous firewood burning.

During the session, I also emphasise the detrimental effects that the prolonged use of the chulha has on the health of the women responsible for cooking, as well as other household members. These include conditions such as stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and acute respiratory illnesses in young children.

The women actively participate in these sessions too by asking questions and sharing their own experiences. Through these sessions, my objective is not only to disseminate information among those who are present but also for them to take this information back to their peers who may still be on the fence transitioning to LPG. There are those who are accustomed to cooking on a chulha and harbour apprehensions about switching to an LPG cylinder. One of the complaints I often hear from women, especially older ones, is that the food cooked on a chulha tastes better. To dispel this misconception, I usually encourage them to speak to other women in the community who have been using LPG. These women talk about how their eyes no longer burn while cooking, and how they’ve noticed a reduction in respiratory issues.

The transition to LPG cylinders poses a significant financial challenge for the residents of Bhalswa.

The transition to LPG cylinders also poses a significant financial challenge for the residents of Bhalswa, a majority of whom are waste pickers and cannot afford the high costs. This is often a point of debate and discussion during these sessions. To counter this, I often advise women to focus on the long-term benefits of switching to LPG. By redirecting a portion of their daily expenses from wood and other fuels for traditional chulhas, they can gradually save enough to afford LPG refills. For instance, setting aside just INR 30 to 40 per day can accumulate to cover the cost of a refill by the end of each month.

Additionally, I bring their attention to the benefits they are entitled to under the PMUY, which was relaunched by the government in 2021 to make LPG gas cylinders accessible to economically disadvantaged households. Under the PMUY, the first cylinder and its installation are free for those from marginalised backgrounds, post which they can access LPG gas connections at subsidised rates. Beneficiaries receive INR 1,600 for the first refill, which covers a 14 kg cylinder and associated installation costs. An extra INR 300 is provided for each of the subsequent 12 refills. In the past, there were frequent delays in these payments, but since the relaunch, this has been resolved to a large extent.

While the documentation process for PMUY has been simplified significantly, people still struggle to get the correct paperwork in place.

However, this throws up another challenge, which is filling out the paperwork required to access the PMUY. While the documentation process has been simplified significantly, people still struggle to get the correct paperwork in place. Some of the documents required include the ration card, proof of address, Aadhaar card, or a caste certificate. In case someone has migrated to Delhi from another state—quite common in Bhalswa—they would also need a residence proof, such as an electricity bill and a rent agreement. There are instances where people do not possess any documentation at all, and in such cases a migrant card or a labour card also suffices.

Just yesterday, a woman who didn’t have any of the required documents enquired about the scheme. I told her that she could still avail of it via a labour card. However, she didn’t have a labour card either, so currently I’m helping her get one. After that, I’ll help her apply for the PMUY.

2.00 PM: Once the awareness session is over, most people disperse for lunch. Because I usually don’t bring food to the field, I utilise this time to help people with their forms. I fill up to 15–20 forms every day. Once I have enough forms, I take them to the nearby gas agency for submission. This is a 30- to 40-minute trip that I take every other week. Once the gas agency reviews a form, they call the household to pick up the necessary equipment and then the cylinder is delivered.

I also keep a record of all the applicants in my register, making a special note of cases where sufficient documentation isn’t available. I regularly have to follow up with some of them to ensure they’re still working on getting their documentation in place.

My friends—the other ASHA workers—also join me during this time. We usually sit and chat for some time after I’m done with my work.

4.30 PM: After concluding my tasks for the day, I leave for home. It’s usually 4.30 or 5 pm by then. I take the same journey back: e-rickshaw, bus, and then the short walk to my house. In the evenings, it can take me anywhere between 45 minutes and an hour to get back. Since I don’t feel comfortable using the washroom at the dispensary, the first thing I do when I reach home is to go to the toilet. I intentionally avoid drinking water so that I won’t have to use the bathroom. This is particularly challenging during the summer and I feel dehydrated and nauseated. But over time I have become accustomed to this practice.

While I freshen up, my older son makes tea for me. As my husband is also back home on a short break, we all sit together and catch up on our day.

7.00 PM: After taking a break for a couple of hours, I sit down to write my report for the day. When I started working with Asar, I did not know how to use a smartphone and could only make and receive calls. Eventually, I joined a computer training class, and now I use Excel on my phone to prepare my reports; I submit these over WhatsApp to the team at Asar every evening. Since I don’t understand English too well, I use translation tools to convert text to Hindi. Being able to acquire this skill gave me a big confidence boost.

After the day’s work is done, I unwind by listening to Kishore Kumar’s music and some bhajans. In the evening, I also spend some time playing and snuggling with my dog Timsi.

Even though my workdays can be exhausting, it brings me joy to know that I am making a small difference in Bhalswa. Since women no longer have to spend hours foraging for wood to fuel the chulha, they have enough free time to engage in other work, such as shelling peas, for extra income. This also helps them pay for the next LPG refill.

I’ve always wanted to give back to society and help women, who are always asked to suppress their wants and needs, live the fulfilling lives that they deserve. One day, I want to be elected as a member of parliament and contribute to even bigger changes in these communities. I also want to have enough resources to open a shelter for women experiencing domestic violence.   

As told to IDR.

—

Know more

• Read this article to learn more about how air pollution impacts outdoor workers in Delhi.
• Read this article to learn about the challenges of availing of LPG connections under PMUY.
• Read this article to learn about how solid cooking fuels lead to climate change. 

India ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. To bring the disability law in line with this treaty, the 1995 act was replaced with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

This law seeks to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities by expanding the legal definition of disability. According to the 1995 act, disability refers to “blindness, low vision, leprosy-cured, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, mental retardation, and mental illness”. The 2016 act recognises 21 disabilities, including those listed in the older law.  In addition to this, it recognises acid attack victims as persons with locomotor disabilities. It also displays a more nuanced understanding of intellectual disabilities, a category that now includes learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, the law specifies disability due to chronic conditions—neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s and blood disorders such as hemophilia, thalassemia, and sickle cell disease. Finally, the act also acknowledges individuals with multiple disabilities, such as Deafblind people.

Certain entitlements under the RPwD Act apply only to persons with benchmark disabilities, which refers to those “with not less than 40 per cent of a specified disability”. Persons with disabilities can qualify as persons with benchmark disabilities by a certifying authority, which is usually a hospital or a state- or district-level medical board.    

What is guaranteed by the RPwD Act?

Here are some provisions made by the act with respect to education, skill development and employment, healthcare and allowances, and recreation and cultural life.

Education

According to chapter 3, educational institutions funded by the government are supposed to make their campus accessible and provide the facilities that persons with disabilities require. This is in keeping with the aim of offering support “to maximise academic and social development consistent with the goal of full inclusion”. The act also mandates detecting learning disabilities in children at the earliest and taking appropriate steps to include children with learning and developmental disabilities into the classroom.

According to the act,  the local government—the panchayat or the municipality—should conduct a survey every five years to identify children with disabilities. Having this data set would help set up an adequate number of teacher training institutes. To make the classroom a more inclusive space, the act also instructs hiring teachers who are trained to work with children with intellectual disabilities; teachers with disabilities; and teachers qualified in Braille and sign language. In addition, it encourages the use of alternative forms of communication, such as sign language and Braille, so that those with speech, communication, or language-related disabilities are able to participate.

Chapter 6 lays down certain provisions for children with benchmark disabilities: free education in any government school or special school till the age of 18, free-of-cost learning materials, and scholarships. In government-run institutions for higher education, at least 5 percent of the seats are to be reserved for students with benchmark disabilities, along with a five-year relaxation on upper age limit. The act also recommends giving scholarships to students with disabilities.

Skill development and employment

Chapter 4 of the act mandates the maintenance of data on how persons with disabilities are faring in terms of skill development and employment. It states that exclusive skill training programmes with active links to the market should be developed for those with multiple disabilities or intellectual and developmental disabilities. Moreover, it notes that loans should be made available so that those with disabilities can take up vocational courses or self-employment. For example, a state sector scheme in Goa provides monthly financial assistance to those engaged in traditional occupations and businesses.

Just as in education, much of what the act directs as far as employment is concerned applies to government employment. Section 20 asks for non-discrimination in employment, and government offices are supposed to provide reasonable accommodations and a barrier-free environment so that persons with disabilities may carry out their responsibilities effectively. If a government employee becomes disabled before their tenure has expired, they need not be demoted or removed but can be shifted to another role on the same pay scale.

Section 21 states that every government establishment shall have an equal opportunity policy. To ensure greater accountability, section 22 mandates recordkeeping in all employment-related matters, including documenting information regarding those with disabilities seeking employment. These records may be inspected at any time.

As per section 33 in chapter 6, up to 4 percent of positions for any government posts are to be reserved for applicants with benchmark disabilities. While the act mentions that there should be incentives for private companies, it doesn’t explicitly lay out what these should be.

Additionally, plans for government buildings are supposed to be approved only if they are disability-friendly. The act also specifies a time period of five years within which all existing government buildings are to be retrofitted with disability-friendly infrastructure.

Healthcare and allowances

Some of the healthcare-related specifications listed in chapter 5 include the provision of free healthcare in the vicinity of persons with disabilities, barrier-free access in all parts of government and private hospitals/health centres, and priority attendance and treatment. It mentions that there should be schemes to promote healthcare and prevent the occurrence of disabilities. A relevant example is the nationwide Disease Eradication Programme that the Government of India launched in 2021 to eliminate malaria, elephantiasis (lymphatic filariasis), and kala-azar.

Other measures for prevention of disabilities are also recommended—conducting surveys, investigations, and research regarding the occurrence of disabilities and organising annual screenings for children to identify at-risk cases. The act instructs healthcare centres, primary schools, anganwadis, etc. to undertake concerted public awareness campaigns as well.

The act specifies that aids and appliances and corrective surgery may be offered for free to persons within a given income bracket. Certain states, such as Delhi and Punjab, have launched schemes that enable persons with benchmark disabilities to receive assistive devices. Disability pensions and caregiver allowance for those with high support needs are also mentioned. Recognising the extra costs that living with disabilities might entail, persons with disabilities are entitled to a 25 percent higher allowance than others under social security schemes.

Recreation and cultural life

Recognising that persons with disabilities have the right to an adequate standard of living and a cultural life, section 29 of chapter 5 states that recreational activities should be made available to them. It lays out a few provisions, such as having a disability history museum, grants and sponsorships for artists with disabilities, making art accessible to people with disabilities, the use of assistive tech, and redesigning the arts curriculum so that persons with disabilities can also participate.

What are the duties of the government?

1. Collecting information on persons with disabilities

The act has a data-oriented approach to disability, as is evidenced by the stipulations on data collection by many different agencies. For example, other than the data collection by local governments, government offices, and healthcare authorities, the act directs the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to maintain a record of persons with disabilities so that their access to safety measures during emergencies can be guaranteed. The NDMA is also expected to circulate information in forms that are accessible to persons with disabilities, and their needs are to be taken care of when planning for reconstruction activities as well.

2. Enabling accessibility and inclusion

The act prescribes that all public spaces—including schools, government offices, primary healthcare centres, and public transport—be made accessible to all. It also mandates ensuring the accessibility of polling stations and any government papers or publications as well as improved access to justice, which includes facilitating the recording of testimonies of persons with disabilities.

3. Appointing officials, advisory bodies, and special courts

The act asks for the establishment of a number of government positions to ensure adherence to it. Every public institution is required to have a grievance redressal officer, for instance, and any person who feels discriminated against when applying for a position may seek redressal through this office. If this also proves unsatisfactory, they may complain to the district-level committee on disability.

A Central Advisory Board on Disability and State Advisory Boards on Disability have also been set up under the act. The members of these boards are from the ministries and departments concerned with disabilities at the central and state levels, joint secretaries from a number of departments including health and education, and disability experts—a proportion of whom must be disabled, women, and belonging to SC or ST communities. These bodies meet every six months to take stock of how far the spirit of the disability law is being preserved in different policies.

The act prescribes the appointment of a chief commissioner and state commissioners (whom the grievance redressal officers report to) for persons with disabilities. These commissioners are accorded powers similar to that of a civil court. They must promote research and see to it that the existing laws and provisions are useful for persons with disabilities, and make recommendations if they’re not. Any suggestions made by the chief or state commissioner should be acted upon within three months.

The act also instructs that a special court be established to try offences against persons with disabilities and calls for the appointment of special public prosecutors for the same.

How is the 2016 act different?

Both the 1995 and 2016 acts have provisions for data collection and recordkeeping, accessible education, healthcare, and employment, reservation, and special government offices to see to the implementation of disability law. Both acts also require regular screenings to be conducted and certain measures to be taken to prevent disabilities.

However, the 2016 act is different in a few respects.

1. Rights-based focus

The act not only guarantees inclusion and accessibility rights to persons with disabilities, but also looks at the right to enjoy art and culture and recreational activities, to live independently or with a community, and to choose one’s caregivers. These provisions are in place to give more agency to persons with disabilities.

There is also an acknowledgement of the diversity within the disability community, on grounds of gender, age, and socio-economic background. Moreover, while there is a lot of emphasis on research and data collection to promote understanding and make appropriate policies on disability, the act explicitly states that no person with disability shall be subjected to research without informed consent.

2. Tangible provisions and grievance redressal mechanisms

While the 1995 act had clauses on accessibility and inclusion, including making government buildings barrier-free and conducting regular screenings, the 2016 act makes more concrete provisions by specifying a time period within which such activities are to be undertaken.

While the 1995 act did not have explicit penalties for any offences under it and left these to the discretion of the judicial authority overseeing a particular case, the 2016 act clearly specifies what manner of fines and imprisonment should follow offences. For instance, an offender will be fined INR 10,000 for their first offence under the act, and subsequent offences will merit a fine of INR 50,000–5 lakh. Fraudulently availing benefits under the act could result in fines as well as imprisonment.

The current status

While the act requires buildings to be updated, the most recent Central Advisory Board meeting concluded that progress was slow on some fronts, such as the retrofitting of existing buildings. Budgetary allocations remain low as well. Similarly, being recognised as disabled does not always equal access to government schemes. For instance, although acid attack victims are recognised as persons with disabilities by the act, there are gaps in access to disability certificates, employment, disability support, and subsidies. Government officials are also not always sensitised to the needs of persons with disabilities, and disability pensions fall short of truly addressing the needs of those targeted by such schemes.

However, covering a greater number of disabilities is a necessary first step towards inclusion. And while mass education and sensitisation will take sustained efforts, recent judgements and guidelines by the chief commissioner, the Election Commission, and the Bombay High Court show that the concerns of persons with disabilities are being regarded with greater seriousness.

—

Know more

• Read India’s national policy on persons with disabilities here.
• Read this article to learn how benevolent ableism harms persons with disabilities.
• Read this article to learn how building accessibility norms laid down by the 2016 disability law are faring.
• Read this article to learn how attitudinal barriers faced by persons with disability.

India has a diverse coastline stretching over approximately 7,500 km, encompassing 75 fishing zones. The marine fisheries sector, sustaining the livelihoods of around four million people, plays a pivotal role in this coastal landscape.

What are coastal commons?

Coasts are the interfaces between the land and the sea. They involve close and complex interactions and outcomes between social and ecological subsystems, involving plant-animal-environmental relationships.

Coastal commons comprise diverse, interacting resource systems – mangroves, water, pastures, beaches, estuaries, reefs and fish. They may include sandy shores, placid backwaters, laterite cliffs, granite rocks, mangroves, mudflats, sand dunes and pebble bays.

These spaces serve important economic, ecological, social, cultural and
recreational functions in coastal and fishing communities. They are used for fishing activities such as fish landing, fish drying, docking, parking boats but also for recreation, relaxation, religious celebrations and cultural expressions.

Social scientists often include people living on the coasts within the scope of commons, along with their relationship with local natural resources and the rules they come up with. In that sense, commons include the local community, the values and norms of those who practise commons, the “commoners.”

How do local communities use coastal commons?

In traditional fishing villages of south India, people often live right on the coast, park their boats and keep their gear right on the shores. “Others such as the Waghers in Gujarat and West Bengal’s Sagar Islanders maintain permanent residences inland and alternate occupations as cultivators and daily-wage labourers. During the fishing season, these communities relocate their entire households, livestock and all, to temporary shore-side settlements and devote their labours primarily to fishing,” notes a booklet published by Dakshin Foundation, a Bengaluru-based conservation group.

The men of the community often launch and land rafts, canoes and small boats from these shores. They operate shore seine units that engage 20-50 fishers, including elderly fishermen and those who are unable to join a boat’s crew. The shores are used as boat yards and people make and mend nets and lines there. Women dry, smoke and salt fish here.

Fishers often use cliffs and rocks as high points to get a clear view of the sea and the sky around to assess the weather conditions. They also serve as way markers clearly visible offshore. Granite rocks such as the ones on the shores of Kovalam and the laterite ones near Varkala in Thiruvananthapuram act as rich habitats of mussels, bivalves and crustaceans such as lobsters supporting livelihoods of free divers and shoreline fishers.

In the unique, brackish waters of estuaries, fishes breed, plants and animals thrive, mudflats housing oysters and clams. These places are natural harbours where fishers can safely dock or park on the banks of the rivers and lagoons.

What are some of the ecological benefits of coastal commons?

Coasts support bursts of biodiversity or a variety of life forms. “Diverse fauna such as lizards, snakes, beetles, mice, hares, foxes and antelope such as the blackbuck thrive in coastal sand dunes, while bivalve, octopi and crustaceans are plentiful in rocky shores,” Dakshin Foundation marine biologists note.

Mangroves, coral reefs, seaweed forests, mudflats, salt marshes and seagrass meadows and green belts of forests or plantations protect the coasts from waves, surges, high tides, tsunamis, sea level rise, and subsequent flooding and erosion. During the 2004 Asian tsunami, mangroves famously saved many lives across South and Southeast Asia.

Coastal wetlands are carbon sinks that absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They accumulate 15 to 50 times more carbon per unit area than forests on land. Therefore, they are considered immensely valuable nature-based solutions to global warming.

How are coastal commons governed?

Community ownership and control of local resources for the “common good” is the norm promoted by the Indian Constitution. The Forest Rights Act 2006 also protects community rights over commons. The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 provides opportunities for community participation in decision-making for development projects. The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 defines coastal conservation and governance frameworks.

Communities often use these laws and international norms to protect the commons. There are also traditional ways that coastal commons are managed and conserved.

In South India and elsewhere, fishers deploy creative and equitable resource-sharing practices to use coastal commons. The ooru panchayats (village councils) in Tamil Nadu and Dheevara karayogam, Jamaats and Christian parish committees of Kerala are some of the socio-religious bodies that regulate the use of commons amongst fishers. In Kerala, a system called padu defines rights over fish stock and boundaries of fishing grounds.

The dynamic nature of coastal commons makes governance challenging.

However, the area of the commons keeps shifting. Unlike the built, solid, stable urban spaces, marine and coastal areas are fluid, moving masses that change size, shape and texture continually. For instance, a sandy shore may lose parts during the monsoon season when the waves carve out its parts. After the rains when the wind, currents and wave movements shift, they may transport back the sediment taken away and build back the beach. A paper published in the International Journal of the Commons in January 2024 underlines the dynamic character of the coastal areas by saying, “Water use and control in one place may have significant repercussions elsewhere. For example, currents and tides transport nutrients, pollution, salt, sediments and other substances, having ecological consequences over a wide area and affecting and often dispossessing other potential and existing uses.”

“The dynamic nature of coastal commons makes governance challenging,” says Nandakumar D., Professor of Geography (adjunct) at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, Kerala. “Mapping, territoriality, fluidity of the sea-land relations — all these can be complex. This complexity can make claims for space difficult,” Nandakumar says, based on his experience in community mapping of Coastal Regulation Zone violations.

What are the pressures on coastal commons?

Rights over coastal commons are often contested. Complex and simultaneous challenges due to the over-capacity of the fishing fleet, over-fishing, climate change, marine pollution and coastline erosion due to infrastructure development projects make them increasingly vulnerable. This trend is pronounced on the southwestern Indian coast, one of the densest habitats of artisanal fishers. Fishers are often driven out of these places for roads, ports, disaster risk reduction measures and tourism, as news reports show.

Coastal ecosystems are fragile, complex, and often poorly understood.

“In particular, the discourses of ‘blue economy’ and ‘blue growth’ have become powerful buzzwords,” writes Synn Movik of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences in a recent research article on contested coastal commons. A blue economy involves sustainable development defined differently and involves diverse activities such as fishing and aquaculture, shipping, mining, renewable energy, and marine biotechnology. Currently estimated at $1.5 trillion per year globally, the blue economy is set to double by 2030.

“There is a lack of consensus on what the ‘blue economy’ encompasses as there are multiple perspectives, including viewing oceans as ‘natural capital,’ as ‘good business,’ but also as important for ‘small-scale fisher livelihoods,’” Movik points out.

“Moreover, coastal ecosystems are fragile, complex, and often poorly understood. The pressures on them are increasing, not only from climate change but also from economic development interests, causing,” Movik and colleagues noted in a study published last year, on Mumbai’s Koli fishers. They critique the city planners’ age-old practice of reclaiming the sea and turning it into profitable real estate. Such acts threaten to undermine the city’s ecological integrity and its coastal communities, the authors caution.

A recent study that reviewed a major port project in Vizhinjam village of Thiruvananthapuram documented details of the local coastal commons – rocky reefs and rich and diverse fish stock threatened by the venture. For centuries, the local fishers exercised shared rights and responsibilities here. The report noted that there are clear norms about when, where, and under what conditions different user groups can fish in the local waters. The study team called the coastal commons “lifelines of our coexistence with nature” and urged to “cherish and protect” these treasures.

Dakshin Foundation scientists caution, “Restricted and altered access to coastal commons creates widespread livelihood loss and displacement among fisher communities that also adds to the burden of poverty in urban areas where these groups migrate in search of alternative opportunities.”

Movik calls attention to spatial dimensions of social struggles for rights and access in marine and coastal areas, or the ‘blue commons’. Such systems question the notion that resource users selfishly overuse commons. While some policies and practices lead to resource destruction, some resource users invest time and energy to sustain environmental resources, as political thinker Elinor Ostrom argued.

This article was originally published on Mongabay.