✅ خرید وی پی ان ❇ ip ثایت vPn آی پی اختصاصی ◐
✅ خرید VPN آی پی ثابت ترید بایننس وی پی ان ◐ ip اختصاصی اکانت آی پی ثابت
.
One goal was all it took for the Super Falcons through a Rasheedat Ajibade goal to book their place at the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup scheduled for Australia and New Zealand.
In their 10th meeting at the CAF Women’s Nations Cup, the Falcons won for the ninth time against the Indomitable Lionesses, who are denied the third qualification even though they could still get through the playoffs.
Nigeria started the better after Coach Randy Waldrum restored Ashleigh Plumptre to the starting lineup at left back while Francisca Order came in to join Ajibade and Ifeoma Onumonu in the front three.
All four semi-finalists in the ongoing African competition automatically qualify for the World Cup.
The four losing quarter-finalists will have a mini-tournament to pick two countries that will go into the playoffs.
More to come…
Support PREMIUM TIMES’ journalism of integrity and credibility
Good journalism costs a lot of money. Yet only good journalism can ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.
For continued free access to the best investigative journalism in the country we ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.
By contributing to PREMIUM TIMES, you are helping to sustain a journalism of relevance and ensuring it remains free and available to all.
Donate
TEXT AD: Call Willie – +2348098788999
(function() {
var _fbq = window._fbq || (window._fbq = []);
if (!_fbq.loaded) {
var fbds = document.createElement(‘script’);
fbds.async = true;
fbds.src = ‘//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbds.js’;
var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(fbds, s);
_fbq.loaded = true;
}
_fbq.push([‘addPixelId’, ‘756614861070731’]);
})();
window._fbq = window._fbq || [];
window._fbq.push([‘track’, ‘PixelInitialized’, {}]);
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;
n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,
document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&appId=249643311490&version=v2.3’; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
The Union Agriculture Ministry announced on Tuesday that Andhra Pradesh has decided to rejoin the crop insurance scheme Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) from the ongoing kharif season. Andhra Pradesh was one of six states that have stopped implementation of the scheme over the last four years. The other five, which remain out, are Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Telangana.
Why did these states opt out?
ANDHRA PRADESH: The state left the PMFBY from rabi season 2019-20. Sources said the state had mentioned several reasons: that the scheme should be voluntary; that states should be given options to choose the risks covered; the scheme should be universal; the cut-off date for enrolment should be flexible; and fourth, the state should be given option to use their own database of E-crop, an application used by the state government to collect information about crops.
“All these issues have been resolved now,” the sources said.
On Tuesday, the Agriculture Ministry announced that Andhra Pradesh has decided to rejoin the PMFBY following talks between Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar and the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy.
The move comes days after Union Agriculture Secretary Manoj Ahuja met the CM. On July 7, a team headed by Ahuja gave a presentation to Reddy.
BIHAR: The first state to opt out, from 2018-19, after implementing the scheme in 2016-17 (27.1 lakh farmers insured) and 2017-18 (23 lakh). Sources say there were main three reasons for the state’s decision.
First, the state wanted universal coverage.
Second, the state government wanted zero premium for farmers (meaning the entire premium should be paid by the government.) Under the PMFBY, a farmer is required to pay as premium 2% of the sum insured or actuarial rate, whichever is less, for all kharif foodgrain and oilseed crops; 1.5% of sum insured or actuarial rate, whichever is less, for all rabi foodgrain and oilseed crops; and 5% for horticultural crops. Sources said the Centre can not make farmers’ premium zero. However, states such as Haryana, Goa and Puducherry are paying farmers’ share from their own budget for selected crops.
The third reason was that the rate of premium was very high for Bihar because of the history of claims under earlier schemes.
The Agriculture Ministry is trying to persuade Bihar to rejoin the scheme. On July 1, Ritesh Chauhan, CEO, PMFBY and Joint Secretary in the Ministry, wrote to the Bihar government about addressing its concerns, the sources said.
JHARKHAND: Jharkhand stopped implementing the scheme soon after the Centre revamped it in February 2020, effective from kharif 2020. Under the revised guidelines, “The non-payment of the State Share of premium subsidy within the prescribed timelines as defined in the seasonality discipline will lead to the disqualification of the State Government to implement the scheme in the next season.”
Sources said Jharkhand’s share of premium subsidy was overdue for 2018-19 and 2019-20. This was the main reason that Jharkhand opted out from 2020-21. Besides, there were other “operational challenges” and “political reasons”, the sources said.
Ministry data shows that in Jharkhand 8.8 lakh farmers in 2016-17, 12.0 lakh in 2017-18, 12.9 lakh in 2018-19, and 10.9 lakh in 2019-20 had availed the scheme.
WEST BENGAL: Sources said the reason for West Bengal not implementing the PMFBY is purely “political”. The state wants to implement the scheme without mentioning Pradhan Mantri in the scheme’s name, which is not possible, sources said.
West Bengal implemented the scheme for three years from 2016-17 to 2018-19, covering 41.3 lakh farmers in 2016-17, 40.4 lakh in 2017-18, and 51.3 lakh in 2018-19.
GUJARAT: Gujarat implemented the PMFBY from 2016-17 to 2019-20, covering 19.8 lakh farmers in 2016-17, 17.6 lakh in 2017-18, 21.7 lakh in 2018-19, and 24.8 lakh in 2019-20. Sources say, after the scheme was revamped, Gujarat invited tenders for three years in 2020 but insurance companies quoted a very high premium, and hence the state opted out.
TELANGANA: Telangana too implemented the PMFBY for the initial four years, covering 9.7 lakh, 11 lakh, 8 lakh in 2018-19 and 10.3 lakh farmers in successive yaers before stopping in 2020-21. Sources said Telangana’s share of premium was overdue for 2018-19 and 2019-20, the main reason why it did not notify the scheme for 2020-21.
The Agriculture Ministry is in talks with the state government to bring back on board. A central team made a presentation before of a Group of Ministers of Telangana on June 23, said sources, who expect the state to rejoin from the coming rabi season or next year.
How was the scheme structured, and what has changed since?
The government had launched PMFBY from kharif 2016. Under the scheme, all farmers including sharecroppers and tenant farmers growing “notified crops” in the “notified areas” are eligible for coverage.
Initially, the scheme was compulsory for loanee farmers; in February 2020, the Centre revised it to make it optional for all farmers.
In the initial scheme, the difference between actuarial premium rate and the rate of insurance premium payable by farmers, which is called the rate of normal premium subsidy, was to be shared equally between the Centre and states. However, states and Union Territories are free to extend additional subsidy over and above the normal subsidy from their budgets.
In February 2020, the Centre decided to restrict its premium subsidy to 30% for unirrigated areas and 25% for irrigated areas (from the existing unlimited). Earlier, there was no upper limit for the central subsidy.
Food crops (cereals, millets and pulses); oilseeds; and annual commercial / annual horticultural crops are covered under the scheme. In addition, pilots for coverage can be taken for those perennial horticultural/commercial crops for which standard methodology for yield estimation is available, state the scheme guidelines.
What is the coverage?
As per information shared by the Agriculture Ministry to Lok Sabha in April this year, the number of farmer applications insured increased to 7.65 crore in 2021-22 from 5.83 crore in 2016-17 when the scheme was launched. However, the number of states implementing the scheme had gradually come down from 27 in 2016-17 to 20 in 2021-22.
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘444470064056909’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
.
Image source: Getty Images The AVZ Minerals Ltd (ASX: AVZ) share price was scheduled to return to trade on Friday after being suspended for over two months. However, once again, the lithium developer has requested that its shares remain offline. What’s going on with the AVZ share price? The AVZ share price has been out of action since 9 May while it sorts out an ownership dispute relating to the Manono Lithium Project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is battling a proceeding relating to what it describes as the “meritless claim that La Congolaise D’Exploitation Miniere SA (Cominière) has transferred a 15% interest in Dathcom Mining SA (Dathcom) to Jin Cheng.” Dathcom is the owner of the mining licence for the Manono Lithium Project. There are concerns that AVZ could be left owning 60% of Dathcom if things don’t go to plan. But that’s before the proposed sale of a 24% stake to Suzhou CATH Energy Technologies. If that also goes ahead, the company could end up with just a 36% interest in Dathcom and the Manono Lithium Project. What are they fighting over? The Manono Lithium Project is located 500km north of Lubumbashi in the south of the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is home to the Roche Dure Mineral Resource, which is believed to be one of the largest undeveloped hard rock lithium deposits in the world. Despite being a long way from any decent infrastructure, the company believes it is strategically positioned as a clean, sustainable source of lithium. Management also believes it could significantly contribute to the green energy transition and feed the global lithium-ion battery value chain. Once operational, initial production is expected to be 700,000 tonnes per annum of lithium spodumene concentrate with 6% lithium oxide content (SC6) and 46,000 tonnes per annum of primary lithium sulphate. As a comparison, Pilbara Minerals Ltd (ASX: PLS) is targeting production of 373,000 to 377,000 dmt of spodumene concentrate in FY 2022. What’s the latest? This morning the company requested that its suspension continue until 29 July. It commented: The Company regrets that the voluntary suspension period has lasted longer than was intended. During this period, the Company has been actively engaged with the highest levels of the Government with respect to the grant of the Mining Licence and an update regarding its exploration rights for the Manono Project. Whilst the Company remains confident of a positive outcome, it will be necessary to continue the period of voluntary suspension as the subject of the initial trading halt request remains incomplete. Drilling resumes In other news, AVZ revealed that diamond drilling is recommencing at the Manono Project with the objective of significantly increasing lithium resources and reserves at Roche Dure. AVZ’s Managing Director, Nigel Ferguson, said: Given the imperatives around sourcing battery minerals for the global green-energy transition and in line with our February 2022 announcement of funding of a drilling program as part of our Early Works Program, I am pleased to confirm that drilling has recommenced at Roche Dure. Drilling at the north-east end of the known orebody, in areas previously inaccessible due to surface water, is aimed at significantly increasing the known lithium-rich ore resources in this area. This will underpin our future plans to extend the stated mine life at Manono, should this drilling campaign prove to be successful.
IMPOSING A penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the main petitioner, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a petition seeking a CBI probe into alleged torture and extrajudicial killings by the Chhattisgarh Police and Central forces during anti-Maoist operations in Dantewada in 2009. The court said the investigation indicated that Maoists, and not the security forces, were responsible for the “alleged massacre”.
A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and J B Pardiwala said “the filing of charge sheets at the conclusion of the investigation into the various FIRs” lodged in connection with the alleged incidents “would indicate that the alleged massacre was at the end of the Naxalites (Maoists)”.
It said: “The materials collected in the form of the charge sheets substantiate the case put up by the respondents that the villagers were attacked and killed by the Naxalites. There is not an iota of material figuring in the investigation on the basis of which even a finger can be pointed towards the members of the police force.”
The court said: “…we have reached to the conclusion that no case, worth the name, has been made out by the writ petitioners for any further investigation, much less through an independent agency to be appointed by this Court”.
The bench imposed an “exemplary” cost of Rs 5 lakh on the main petitioner Himanshu Kumar to be submitted within four weeks failing which authorities can take appropriate steps for recovery. Kumar had told the court that he ran an NGO, Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, in Dantewada.
Pointing out that “prima facie… false information was given by the first informants to the police as regards the alleged massacre”, the court left it “to the State of Chhattisgarh/ CBI…to take appropriate steps in accordance with law…”
It said: “We clarify that it shall not be limited only to the offence under Section 211 of the IPC (false charge of offence made with intent to injure). A case of criminal conspiracy or any other offence under the IPC may also surface. We may not be understood of having expressed any final opinion on such action/ proceedings. We leave it to the better discretion of the State of Chhattisgarh/ CBI to act accordingly keeping in mind the seriousness of the entire issue.”
Referring to the petition, the bench expressed “surprise that the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners is absolutely oblivious of the fact that all the FIRs were investigated by the concerned investigating agencies and, at the end of the investigation, charge sheets came to be filed in different courts of the State of Chhattisgarh for the offences under the IPC like murder, dacoity, etc”.
The petition was filed on the alleged killing of 17 people in separate incidents in Dantewada on September 17 and October 1, 2009. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves had appeared for the petitioners — Kumar and family members of some of the local residents who were killed at the time.
The petitioners had alleged that Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), activists of Salwa Judum (a vigilante group backed by the Chhattisgarh government) and paramilitary forces comprising CRPF and CoBRA Battalions were responsible for the alleged “brutal massacre”.
Acting on the Supreme Court’s direction, a District and Sessions Judge in Delhi had in 2010 recorded statements of the petitioners, other than Kumar, in the presence of an interpreter and Kumar.
Referring to them, the Supreme Court said “the statements of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 13 recorded before the Judicial Officer demolishes the entire case put up by the petitioner no.1 (Kumar)…”.
The judgement cited the statement of one of the petitioners, Soyam Rama, who said he “had run away from the spot” when the firing happened and “could not see as to who had opened fire” and that he “would not be in a position to identify” the assailants.
Pointing out that “all other statements of the rest of the writ petitioners are on the same line and footing”, the bench said “when we called upon Mr. Gonsalves to make us understand as to why his clients had to make such statements before the Judicial Officer, a very curious reply came from Mr. Gonsalves. According to Mr. Gonsalves, the entire mode and manner in which the statements were recorded by the Judicial Officer of the rank of District and Sessions Judge was absolutely incorrect.”
Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox
The bench said: “According to the learned senior counsel, specific questions ought to have been put by the Judicial Officer to each of the writ petitioners while recording their statements in accordance with the directions issued by this Court…”.
Referring to this, the Supreme Court bench said: “We are afraid, we are not in a position to accept such submission after a period of almost 12 years. The statements we are referring to recorded by the Judicial Officer are of the year 2010. Not once in the last 12 years any grievance has been made either orally or in writing before this Court as regards the mode and manner of recording of the statements. It is for the first time in 12 years that such a grievance has been made.”
In April, denying the allegations levelled by the petitioners, the Centre had urged the Supreme Court to direct a probe by a Central agency “to identify the individuals/ organisations who have been conspiring, abetting and facilitating filing of petitions premised on false and fabricated evidence…with a motive to either deter the security agencies to act against the Left Wing (Naxal) militia by imputing false charges on them or to screen off the Left Wing (Naxal) militia from being brought to justice by creating a false narrative of victimisation…”.
.
