India’s decision to stay out of the China-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, Asia’s mega free-trade agreement (FTA), has been met both with a sense of approval and disappointment and divided economists on the issue.
Context
Last week, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed by 15 countries led by China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the 10-country ASEAN group.
It is billed as one of the world’s largest Free Trade Agreement (FTA), accounting for nearly 30% of the global GDP covering 30% of the world’s population.
After long negotiations, India exited the grouping last November, saying it wanted to protect its economy from rising trade deficits with a number of RCEP members.
India’s decision is still the subject of much debate, and the RCEP has left a special window open for India to rejoin at a future date.
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a free trade agreement (FTA) between –
The 10 members of ASEAN = Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam
Additional members of ASEAN +3 = China, Japan, South Korea
Members with which ASEAN countries have FTA = Australia, New Zealand
What is the objective of RCEP?
RCEP aims to create an integrated market with 15 countries, making it easier for products and services of each of these countries to be available across this region.
The negotiations are focused on the following:
Trade in goods and services, investment, intellectual property, dispute settlement, e-commerce, small and medium enterprises, and economic cooperation.
China in RCEP
RCEP was pushed by Beijing in 2012 in order to counter another FTA that was in the works at the time: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The US-led TPP excluded China. However, in 2016 US President Donald Trump withdrew his country from the TPP.
Since then, the RCEP has become a major tool for China to counter the US efforts to prevent trade with Beijing.
Significance for China
The beginning of RCEP is a major development that will help China and trade in the Asia-Pacific region in the post-Covid-19 scenario.
It will give China access to Japanese and South Korean markets in a big way, as the three countries have not yet agreed on their FTA.
While China already has a number of bilateral trade agreements, this is the first time it has signed up to a regional multilateral trade pact.
RCEP and India
India ended negotiation on RCEP over terms that were perceived to be against its interests.
The ties with China in recent months have been disturbed by the military tension in eastern Ladakh along the LAC.
In the meantime, India has also held a maritime exercise with Japan, Australia, and the United States for the “Quad” that was interpreted as an anti-China move.
Why did India walk out?
India decided to exit RCEP negotiations over “significant outstanding issues”.
Its decision was to safeguard the interests of industries like agriculture and dairy and to give an advantage to the country’s services sector.
The current structure of RCEP still does not address these issues and concerns.
(1) Escalated tensions with China
Escalated tension with China is considered to be a major reason for India’s decision.
Major issues that were unresolved during RCEP negotiations were related to the exposure that India would have to China.
(2) Surge in imports
This included India’s fears that there was “inadequate” protection against surges in imports.
It felt there could also be a possible circumvention of rules of origin— the criteria used to determine the national source of a product.
In the absence of this, other partner countries could dump their products by routing them through other countries that enjoyed lower tariffs.
(3) Rules of origin criteria
Its concerns on a “possible circumvention” of rules of origin — the criteria used to determine the national source of a product — were also not addressed.
Current provisions in the deal reportedly do not prevent countries from routing, through other countries, products on which India would maintain higher tariffs.
This is anticipated to allow countries like China to pump in more products.
(4) Inability for countermeasures
India was unable to ensure countermeasures like an auto-trigger mechanism to raise tariffs on products when their imports crossed a certain threshold.
It also wanted RCEP to exclude most-favoured-nation (MFN) obligations from the investment, especially to countries with which it has border disputes.
(5) No assurance of market access to India
RCEP also lacked clear assurance over market access issues in countries such as China and non-tariff barriers on Indian companies.
The agreement would have forced India to extend benefits given to other countries for sensitive sectors like defence to all RCEP members.
(6) Trade balances paradox
India’s stance on the deal also comes as a result of learnings from unfavourable trade balances that it has with several RCEP members, with some of which it even has Free Trade Agreements.
Taking the current scenario, India only exports 20% to the RCEP countries, while the import is accounted for 35%.
Furthermore, RCEP members like China are well known for using non-tariff barriers against Indian products in the past, preventing India from growing its export to these countries.
(7) Protecting domestic industries
Several sections of the Indian industry have raised concerns over RCEP.
They have argued that some domestic sectors may take a hit due to cheaper alternatives from other participant countries.
For instance, the dairy industry was expected to face stiff competition from Australia and New Zealand. Similarly, steel and textiles sectors have also demanded protection.
The global hoax of FTAs
Our External Affairs Minister has inferred that the mantra of an open and globalised economy was used to justify unfair trade and production practices against India.
In the name of openness, we have allowed subsidised products and unfair production advantages from abroad to prevail.
The effect of past trade agreements has been to de-industrialize some sectors, said EAM without mentioning RCEP directly.
The consequences of future ones would lock us into global commitments, many of them not to our advantage.
Gains from opting out
India comprises half of the world population and accounts for nearly 40% of global commerce and 35% of the GDP. Without India, the RCEP does not look as attractive as it had seemed during negotiations.
(1) A Diplomatic win
ASEAN has been keen on a diversified portfolio so that member states can deal with major powers and maintain their strategic autonomy. Without India, the ASEAN has no major partner except China.
India signalled that, despite the costs, China’s rise has to be tackled both politically and economically.
(2) Not becoming China’s dumping ground
China provides enormous subsidies to its domestic products and goods. Consequently, this makes it vulnerable to the Indian market which becomes a dumping station.
China also needs greater access to the Indian market as Chinese companies have been suffering because of the US-China trade war that affected Chinese manufacturing companies in the past 2 years.
So, it could have proven to be a detriment to the Make in India initiative.
(3) Relief for Indian Farmers
Farmers opine that RCEP deal could have aggravated the agrarian crisis.
The input prices are heavily taxed in India and thus the Indian farmers are not being provided with the profitable prices which result in significant losses and also throwing farmers into a debt trap.
India after green revolution emerged as a self-sufficient country in agricultural product. It could have brought India’s ‘food sovereignty’ at stake as opening markets.
Limited benefits that RCEP would have offered
(1) Boosting the existing ties
Clubbing with the ASEAN has always been a principal policy priority for India’s Act East Policy.
The RCEP agreement would have complimented India’s existing FTAs with the ASEAN and some of its member countries.
It would have also helped achieve its goal of greater economic integration with countries East and South East of India through better access to a vast regional market ranging from Japan to Australia.
(2) Expansion of services sector
The RCEP would have created opportunities for Indian companies to access new markets.
India is well placed to contribute to other countries in RCEP through its expertise in services.
(3) Counterbalancing China
Both geopolitically and geo-economically, China now looks set to dominate the Indo-Pacific.
India’s allies in Southeast Asia, as well as Australia, wanted India to join it to balance China.
Some of these are founded on opacity that surrounds the Chinese government’s decision making.
Wait! Did we miss the bus?
(1) Capturing Foreign Markets
Trade with RCEP nations was a chance for Indian service, IT, health and education sectors to prove its leverage. That is to say, India’s service sector had huge export potential in RCEP.
‘Rules of origin’ could have also provided a possible chance for India to become a major hub in coordinating with the regional partners and establishing a trustable value chain.
(2) Could have helped boost exports
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has called for signing RCEP agreement, as India could have also served as a major market for final good.
RCEP could have helped India in further export to the 3rd world nations, and primarily to West Asia, Africa and few European countries.
(3) Isolation from global value chain
India’s absence in integrating with global value chains will impact India’s internal and external ambitions.
India’s own evidence shows that jobs linked to global value chains earn one-third more than those jobs focused on the domestic market.
The inability to accede to the RCEP and ensure India’s integration into these emerging global value chains means India will lose out on a key opportunity to create such high-quality, high-paying jobs.
Moreover, India’s absence in both of Asia’s two key economic architectures will take away from India’s goals as a regional and Indo-Pacific power, as well as a prospective global power.
(4) Missed opportunity with ASEAN
The large size of the Indian economy and its negotiating heft would pose a valuable counterpoint to China within the grouping.
Several RCEP countries still hope India will reconsider its decision of staying out.
For ASEAN countries that led the RCEP negotiations, India’s presence would provide weight to the centrality of the ASEAN grouping in the region.
It is for this reason that Japan led the drafting of the special statement on India, which would waive the 18-month mandatory waiting period if India applied formally to rejoin the group.
Why should India review its decision?
The COVID-19 pandemic has left the global economy in a state of disarray. For the first time in 60 years, nearly every country in the RCEP grouping is facing a recession.
(1) For a speedy economic recovery
With global trade and the economy facing a steep decline due to Covid-19 pandemic, RCEP could serve as a bulwark in containing the free fall of the global economy and re-energizing economic activity.
Further, the RCEP presents a unique opportunity to support India’s economic recovery, inclusive development and immediate job creation even as it helps strengthen regional supply chains.
(2) Rhetoric vs reality
While deficits have increased for India in all foreign trade, India’s FTAs or PTAs (Preferential Trade Agreements) do not account for a bigger chunk of the trade deficit than they did before.
The growing trade deficits come from the downturn in India’s GDP since 2016, and the decline in manufacturing.
It is said that imports from China would have flooded had India entered RCEP, but haven’t they already flooded the country?
(3) Learning from allies
In this regard, India can draw inspiration from Japan & Australia, India’s Quad partners.
They chose to bury their geopolitical differences with China to prioritize what they collectively see as a mutually beneficial trading compact.
(4) Balancing the block
It is not just because gains from trade are significant, but the RCEP’s membership is a prerequisite to having a say in shaping RCEP’s rules.
This is necessary to safeguard India’s interests and the interests of several countries that are too small to stand up to the largest member, China.
(5) China is too big to defeat
Even before the RCEP, China was an important player in regional trade and regional supply chains, and RCEP made its position stronger.
Interestingly, even with the Covid-19 pandemic, other countries went ahead and signed the RCEP agreement without India.
China now has an advantage vis-a-vis India in the 14 markets of RCEP. It also has more bilateral agreements in the region than India.
(6) Doing away with Protectionism
It has been argued that Indian industry has hidden behind a wall of protectionism for far too long, and must open itself to global competition.
There is a tendency in Indian industry to seek protection, whenever any steps towards globalization are taken.
However, it is an acknowledged fact that globalization did benefit the Indian economy; it brought in newer technology and made Indian industry far more competitive.
Way forward
India, as an original negotiating participant of RCEP, has the option of joining the agreement without having to wait 18 months as stipulated for new members in the terms of the pact.
A possible alternative for India is to review its existing bilateral FTAs with some of these RCEP members as well as newer agreements with potential for Indian exports.
There is also a growing view that it would serve India’s interest to invest strongly in negotiating bilateral agreements with the US and the EU, both currently a work in progress.
Nor is the problem only China, because India has a trade deficit with virtually every country in the Asia-Pacific.
The problem is a broader one, of India’s competitiveness, which has to be improved so that opening up leads to more benefits than costs, to industrialisation and not it’s opposite.
Conclusion
Economic isolation can never be a not an option for India. It does not seem a good idea for India to be out of the agreement from its inception, only to join it later.
Given India’s own ambitions to generate growth and jobs within India, and becoming a key player and rule-maker on the world stage, India’s decision to withdraw from the RCEP is debatable.
India must now translate this withdrawal into a commitment for domestic reforms to prepare itself for the next opportunity to integrate itself into the global value chains and unleash Indian manufacturing.
However, having no deal is far more prudent than signing up for a bad one.
It is easy to succumb to the rapturous sound of global applause, but far tougher to make a tactical retreat in the larger national interest.
As India and China continue to grow demographically as well as economically amid increased consumption among its citizenry, both nations face water constraints.
China, which is home to close to 20 per cent of the world’s population, has only 7 per cent of its water resources.
Severe pollution of its surface and groundwater caused by rapid industrialisation is a source of concern for Chinese planners.
China’s southern regions are water-rich in comparison to the water-stressed northern part.
The southern region is a major food producer and has significant industrial capacity as a consequence of more people living there.
India is severely water-stressed as well.
Similar to China, India has 17 per cent of the world’s population and 4 per cent of water.
As in China, an equally ambitious north-south river-linking project has been proposed in India.
Impact on downstream states
The construction of several dams along the Yarlung (Brahmaputra) river on the Chinese side has been a repeated cause for concern for Indian officials and the local people.
China has an ambitious plan to link its south and north through canals, aqueducts and linking of major rivers to ensure water security.
In pursuit of these goals, China, being an upper riparian state in Asia, has been blocking rivers like the Mekong and its tributaries, affecting Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
It has caused immense damage to the environment and altered river flows in the region.
China sees these projects as a continuation of their historic tributary system as the smaller states have no means of effectively resisting or even significant leverage in negotiations.
Challenges for India
There are now multiple operational dams in the Yarlung Tsangpo basin with more dams commissioned and under construction. These constructions present a unique challenge for Indian planners.
1) Dams will eventually lead to degradation of the entire basin:
Silt carried by the river would get blocked by dams leading to a fall in the quality of soil and eventual reduction in agricultural productivity.
2) The Brahmaputra basin is one of the world’s most ecologically sensitive zones.
It is identified as one of the world’s 34 biological hotspots.
This region sees several species of flora and fauna that are endemic to only this part of the world.
The river itself is home to the Gangetic river dolphin, which is listed as critically endangered.
3) The location of the dams in the Himalayas pose a risk.
Seismologists consider the Himalayas as most vulnerable to earthquakes and seismic activity.
The sheer size of the infrastructure projects undertaken by China, and increasingly by India, poses a significant threat to the populations living downstream.
Close to a million people live in the Brahmaputra basin in India and tens of millions further downstream in Bangladesh.
4) Damming Brahmaputra would result in water security in an era of unprecedented shifting climate patterns.
This security extends beyond water, as there is the potential to significantly change the flow rate during times of standoffs and high tensions.
Way forward
Both sides must cease new constructions on the river and commit to potentially less destructive solutions.
Building a decentralised network of check dams, rain-capturing lakes and using traditional means of water capture have shown effective results in restoring the ecological balance while supporting the populations of the regions in a sustainable manner.
Conclusion
There are alternate solutions to solving the water crisis. It is in the interest of all stakeholders to neutralise this ticking water bomb.
Agriculture’s contribution to air pollution runs deeper than what happens between crop seasons.
The Indo-Gangetic plain is also one of the world’s largest and rapidly-growing ammonia hotspots.
Atmospheric ammonia, which comes from fertiliser use, animal husbandry, and other agricultural practices, combines with emissions from power plants, transportation and other fossil-fuel burning to form fine particles.
Impact of pollution on agriculture
It is important to note that agriculture is a victim of pollution as well as its perpetrator.
Particulate matter and ground-level ozone formed from industrial, power plant, and transportation emissions among other ingredients cause double-digit losses in crop yields.
Ozone damages plant cells, handicapping photosynthesis, while particulate matter dims the sunlight that reaches crops.
Agriculture scientist Tony Fischer’s 2019 estimates of the two pollutants’ combined effect suggest that as much as 30 per cent of India’s wheat yield is missing (Sage Journals, Outlook on Agriculture).
Earlier, B Sinha et al (2015), in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, found that high ozone levels in parts of Haryana and Punjab could diminish rice yields by a quarter and cotton by half.
Role played by subsidies
The current system of subsidies is a big reason that there is stubble on these fields in the first place.
Free power — and consequently, “free” water, pumped from the ground — is a big part of what makes growing rice in these areas attractive.
Open-ended procurement of paddy, despite the bulging stocks of grains with the Food Corporation of India, adds to the incentives.
Subsidies account for almost 15 per cent of the value of rice being produced in Punjab-Haryana belt.
Fertiliser, particularly urea in granular form, is highly subsidised.
It is one of the cheapest forms of nitrogen-based fertiliser, easy to store and easy to transport, but it is also one of the first to “volatilise,” or release ammonia into the air.
This loss of nitrogen then leads to a cycle of more and more fertiliser being applied to get the intended benefits for crops.
Way forward
We need to shift the nature of support to farmers from input subsidies to investment subsidies.
This could involve the conversion of paddy areas in this belt to orchards with drip irrigation, vegetables, corn, cotton, pulses and oilseeds.
All of the above consume much less water, much less power and fertilisers and don’t create stubble to burn.
A diversification package of, say, Rs 10,000 crore spread over the next five years, equally contributed by the Centre and states, may be the best way to move forward in reducing agriculture-related pollution.
The approach to diversification has to be demand-led, with a holistic framework of the value chain, from farm to fork and not just focused on production.
On the fertiliser front, it would be better to give farmers input subsidy in cash on per hectare basis, and free up the prices of fertilisers completely.
Conclusion
Taken together, these measures could double farmers’ incomes, promote efficiency in resource use, and reduce pollution — a win-win solution for all.
Reviews will be provided in a week. (In the order of submission- First come first serve basis). In case the answer is submitted late the review period may get extended to two weeks.
*In case your answer is not reviewed in a week, reply to your answer saying *NOT CHECKED*. If Parth Sir’s tag is available then tag him.
For the philosophy of AWE and payment, check here: Click2Join
India will soon launch an ambitious ‘Deep Ocean Mission’ that envisages exploration of minerals, energy and marine diversity of the underwater world, a vast part of which still remains unexplored.
Deep Ocean Mission (DOM)
Nodal Agency: Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES)
The mission proposes to explore the deep ocean similar to the space exploration started by ISRO.
Underwater robotics and ‘manned’ submersibles are key components of the Mission which will help India harness various living and non-living (water, mineral and energy) resources from the seabed and deep water.
The tasks that will be undertaken over this period include deep-sea mining, survey, energy exploration and the offshore-based desalination.
These technological developments are funded under an umbrella scheme of the government – called Ocean Services, Technology, Observations, Resources Modelling and Science (O-SMART).
Mining PMN
One of the main aims of the mission is to explore and extract polymetallic nodules (PMN).
These are small potato-like rounded accretions composed of minerals such as manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper and iron hydroxide.
They lie scattered on the Indian Ocean floor at depths of about 6,000 m and the size can vary from a few millimetres to centimetres.
These metals can be extracted and used in electronic devices, smartphones, batteries and even for solar panels.
Where will the team mine?
The International Seabed Authority (ISA), an autonomous international organisation established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, allots the ‘area’ for deep-sea mining.
India was the first country to receive the status of a ‘Pioneer Investor ‘ in 1987 and was given an area of about 1.5 lakh sq km in the Central Indian Ocean Basin (CIOB) for nodule exploration.
In 2002, India signed a contract with the ISA and after complete resource analysis of the seabed 50% was surrendered and the country retained an area of 75,000 sq km.
Which are the other countries that are in the race to mine the deep sea?
Apart from the CIOB, polymetallic nodules have been identified from the central Pacific Ocean. It is known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
According to the ISA’s website, it has entered into 15-year contracts for exploration for polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the deep seabed with 29 contractors.
Later it was extended for five more years till 2022.
China, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Russia and also some small islands such as the Cook Islands, Kiribati have joined the race for deep-sea mining.
Most of the countries have tested their technologies in shallow waters and are yet to start deep-sea extraction.
India’s preparedness
India’s mining site is at about a depth of 5,500 metres, where there is a high pressure and extremely low temperature.
We have also deployed Remotely Operated Vehicle and In-situ Soil Tester in the depth of 6,000 metres and have a thorough understanding of the mining area at the Central Indian Ocean Basin.
The mining machine newly developed for 6000 metres depth was able to move about 900 metres and will be deployed soon at 5,500 metres.
Weather conditions and the availability of ships also play a role.
More tests are being conducted to understand how to bring the nodules up to the surface. A riser system comprising an umbilical cable or electromechanical cable and a hose is being developed.
What will be the environmental impact?
According to the IUCN, these deep remote locations can be home to unique species that have adapted themselves to conditions such as poor oxygen and sunlight, high pressure and extremely low temperatures.
Such mining expeditions can make them go extinct even before they are known to science.
The deep sea’s biodiversity and ecology remain poorly understood, making it difficult to assess the environmental impact and frame adequate guidelines.
Though strict guidelines have been framed, they are only exploration guidelines. A new set of exploitation guidelines are being worked out and discussions are on with the ISA.
Environmentalists are also worried about the sediment plumes that will be generated as the suspended particles can rise to the surface harming the filter feeders in the upper ocean layers.
Additional concerns have been raised about the noise and light pollution from the mining vehicles and oil spills from the operating vessels.
Is deep-sea mining economically viable?
The latest estimate from the ISA says it will be commercially viable only if about three million tonnes are mined per year.
More studies are being carried out to understand how the technology can be scaled up and used efficiently.
People erupted in violent protests against the planned resettlement of thousands of Bru migrants permanently at Kanchanpur sub-division of North Tripura.
Try this PYQ:
Q. With reference to ‘Changpa’ community of India, consider the following statement:
They live mainly in the State of Uttarakhand.
They rear the Pashmina goats that yield fine wool.
They are kept in the category of Scheduled Tribes.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (CSP 2014)
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Who are the Brus?
Reangs or Brus are the second largest ethnic group in Mizoram.
Their exodus in 1997 was spurred by violent clashes in Mamith subdivision, a Reang-dominated area when they demanded the creation of an autonomous council that was vehemently opposed by Mizo groups.
Around 34,000 people were forced to live in sub-human conditions in tents in Tripura. No solution could be reached all these years.
These people were housed in temporary camps at Kanchanpur, in North Tripura.
Why have there been violent protests?
Twenty-three years after ethnic clashes in Mizoram forced 37,000 people of the Bru (or Reang) community to flee their homes to neighbouring Tripura.
The news was not welcomed by the Bengali and Mizo communities in Tripura.
They fear a demographic imbalance, which would exert pressure on local resources and potentially lead to law and order problems.
Earlier this month, Haryana Dy. CM said it would be better if both Haryana and Punjab agreed on Chandigarh as a Union Territory and make their independent capitals and Benches of High Courts.
Try answering this
Q.The linguistic re-organization of Indian states in the post-Independence period has prevented its balkanization, unlike our neighbourhood. Comment.
Why was Chandigarh created?
Chandigarh was planned to replace Lahore, the capital of erstwhile Punjab, which became part of Pakistan during the Partition.
In March 1948, the Government of (India’s) Punjab, in consultation with the Centre, approved the area of the foothills of the Shivaliks as the site for the new capital.
From 1952 to 1966 (till Haryana was carved out of Punjab), Chandigarh remained the capital of Punjab.
How did it become a shared capital?
At the time of reorganization of Punjab in 1966, the city assumed the unique distinction of being the capital of both Punjab and Haryana.
Even as it was declared a union territory and was placed under the direct control of the Centre.
The properties in Chandigarh were to be divided into 60:40 ratio in favour of Punjab.
Punjab’s claim
The-then PM Indira Gandhi had announced that Haryana, in due course, would have its own capital and Chandigarh would go to Punjab.
As per documents submitted in the Lok Sabha, the Centre had even issued a formal communication is this regard on January 29, 1970, almost three years after Haryana came into being.
Again, in 1985, under the Rajiv-Longowal accord, Chandigarh was to be handed over to Punjab on January 26, 1986, but the Rajiv Gandhi government withdrew at the last minute.
Haryana’s counter-claim
As per the 1970 documents, the Centre had considered various alternatives for settling the matter, including dividing the city.
But that wasn’t feasible since Chandigarh was built as a planned city to serve as the capital of one state.
Haryana was told to use the office and residential accommodation in Chandigarh only for five years till it shifts to its own new capital.
The Centre had offered Rs 10 crore grant to Haryana and an equal amount of loan for setting up the new capital.
In 2018, Haryana CM suggested setting up a special body for the development of Chandigarh, but the Punjab CM rejected it, saying the city “indisputably belonged to Punjab”.
A mushroom documentation project in the forests of Northeast India has discovered a bioluminescent — or light-emitting — variety of mushroom.
Try this PYQ:
Q.Lichens, which are capable of initiating ecological succession even on a bare rock, are actually a symbiotic association of:
(a) Algae and bacteria
(b) Algae and fungi
(c) Bacteria and fungi
(d) Fungi and mosses
Roridomyces phyllostachydis
The new species was first sighted near a stream in Meghalaya’s Mawlynnong in East Khasi Hills district and later at Krang Shuri in West Jaintia Hills district.
It is now one among the 97 known species of bioluminescent fungi in the world.
Bioluminescence in fungi
Bioluminescence is the property of a living organism to produce and emit light.
Bioluminescent organisms are usually found in ocean environments, but they are also found in terrestrial environments.
The colour of the light emitted by the organism depends on its chemical properties.
In the case of fungi, the luminescence comes from the enzyme, luciferase.
The green light emits when luciferans is catalysed by the enzyme luciferase, in the presence of oxygen.
The Copernicus Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich satellite, designed to monitor oceans, was launched from the in California.
Try this MCQ:
The Jason Continuity of Service (Jason-CS) Mission recently seen in news is aimed at observing:
(a)Microgravity changes
(b)Sea level rise
(c)Cosmic radiation
(d)Space debris
Sentinel-6 Satellite
This is a part of the next mission dedicated to measuring changes in the global sea level.
It has been named after Dr Michael Freilich, who was the Director of NASA’s Earth Science Division from 2006-2019 and passed away in August this year.
What is the mission?
The mission, called the Jason Continuity of Service (Jason-CS) mission, is designed to measure the height of the ocean, which is a key component in understanding how the Earth’s climate is changing.
The spacecraft consists of two satellites, the other, called Sentinel-6B, to be launched in 2025.
It has been developed jointly by the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA, and France’s National Centre for Space Studies (CNES).
What will the satellite do?
The satellite will ensure the continuity of sea-level observations into the fourth decade and will provide measurements of global sea-level rise.
Since 1992, high-precision satellite altimeters have helped scientists understand how the ocean stores and distributes heat, water and carbon in the climate system.
Essentially, the satellite will send pulses to the Earth’s surface and measure how long they take to return to it, which will help scientists measure the sea surface height.
It will also measure water vapour along this path and find its position using GPS and ground-based lasers.
Significance of the mission
As per NASA, it is possible to observe the height of the oceans on a global scale and monitor critical changes in ocean currents and heat storage only from space.
Data from satellites such as Sentinel-6 help scientists foresee the effects of the changing oceans on the climate.
Further, in order to measure and track changes in the oceanic heat budget, scientists need to know the ocean currents and heat storage of the oceans, which can be determined from the height of the sea surface.
