Search

Postharvest crop residue burning (CRB) is a major policy issue in several developing countries because of harmful environmental and public health consequences. While the literature has extensively examined the reasons for rice CRB, much less is known about wheat residue management. This paper explores the drivers of CRB of wheat in India and relates it to farmers' prior decisions related to CRB of rice in the preceding season. Using primary data on residue management practices of 301 Indian farmers, whom we tracked over two consecutive harvests of rice (2018) and wheat (2019), we find that farmers are significantly more likely to burn wheat residue if they had previously burned rice residue. The possibility of this linkage or spillover increases the likelihood of wheat residue burning by 15.6 to 21 percent. Furthermore, farmers are undertaking wheat CRB despite the positive net benefit of choosing non-burning alternatives to manage crop residue. Our results suggest that ensuring well-functioning markets for crop residue, awareness campaigns, and recognition of spillover effects of residue management across crops over time can enable policies to promote pro-environmental postharvest choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Development assistance for health (DAH) is an important source of financing for health for many low-income and some middle-income countries. Most DAH has predominantly been contributed by high-income countries. However, in the context of economic progress and changing global priorities, DAH contributions from countries of the Global South such as India have gained importance. In this paper, we estimate DAH contributed by India between 2009 and 2020. Methods: We leveraged data from budgetary documents, databases, and financial reports of the Ministry of External Affairs and multilateral organizations to estimate DAH contributions. The proportions of development assistance that go towards health in major recipient countries were estimated and reported by recipient country and year. Results: Between 2009 and 2020, DAH contributed by India to bilateral and multilateral partners totaled $206.0 million. South Asian countries including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar received the most DAH from India. DAH contributed relative to DAH received ranged from 1.42% in 2009 to 5.26% in 2018, the latest year with country-level data. Health focus areas prioritized by India included technical training and innovation, health care infrastructure support, and supply of medications and medical equipment. Conclusion: India is an important development partner to many countries–particularly to those in the South Asian region. India's DAH allocation strategy prioritizes contributions toward neighboring countries in the South Asia region in several health focus areas. Detailed project-level data are needed to estimate DAH contributions from India with greater precision and accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biomedical research collaborations are to be contextualized in the larger global health agenda which also opens up new information pathways, expands research networks, and brings additional resources. A qualitative inquiry was employed to understand the perceived benefits and challenges of research collaborations by biomedical scientists from India (Global South [GS] country) and the Global North (GN). In-depth interviews were conducted with 47 biomedical scientists from India and 06 from the GN. The data was analyzed using the grounded theory approach. Complementarity of skills and resources, access to funds, improved quality of work, an opportunity to conduct multi-centric studies, development of collaborative networks, better and larger number of publications, mutual learning, opportunity to work with credible researchers, address common interests, leverage interpersonal and trusted relationships and larger societal good were some of the critical factors for eagerness of participants in joint scientific endeavors. However, the challenging aspects of dissent and disagreements were the power imbalance between the collaborators, the development of a trust deficit, and local administrative issues. The challenges reported in the current publication, also echoed in several previous publications can be surmounted and negotiated amicably when the rules of the game, law of the land, sharing of the credits, and interest of the collaborating parties are addressed and agreed up in a fair and just manner before the start of the collaboration. Overall biomedical partnerships are complex collaborations with its challenges, the processes are dynamic and outcomes are emergent. This requires constant and proactive evolution of the preparation, implementation and sustainability of the collaborative efforts be it national or international. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]